Two questions for atheists:
Why does something exist rather than nothing?
Why is the world the way it is?
If you can provide adequate answers to these questions, I will happily renounce Christianity right here tonight and buy a copy of The God Delusion first thing tomorrow morning.
I'm waiting.
>>448800
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
Don't know
>Why is the world the way it is?
Probably the multiverse, all possible worlds exist.
>I will happily renounce Christianity right here tonight and buy a copy of The God Delusion first thing tomorrow morning.
I'd recommend The Miracle of Theism instead, it is a much better book for a beginner.
Why is their something rather than nothing?
Don't know
Why is the world's the way it is?
It is
I don't claim to know any answers.
But if there's something beyond us in the universe, I don't think that humans, as primitive as our brains are, could truly understand it. I'm sure the nature of humans is incompehensible to insects.
>>448810
How does it follow from our inability to perfectly grasp the divine that we should therefore deny its existence?
>>448800
Nobody knows why something exists rather than nothing. If you claim that God created everything, then who or what created God? These questions make just as little sense with Christian answers than they do with Atheist ones.
>>448800
>being this teleological
The things are the way they are for no reason. They just are
>>448816
lel
>>448800
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
I have no idea.
>Why is the world the way it is?
Because it is that way.
>If you can provide adequate answers to these questions
I doubt anyone can provide adequate answers to these question, tbqhwu.
Because there is everything.
Every possible universe exists. Each quantum event creates nearly an infinity of universes. Existence is just a realm of possibilities.
>>448814
Well it seems rather silly to me that we could've gotten it right, or that a being like that would give a shit about a planet as small and insignificant as ours. It comes across as egotistical to me.
>>448800
Why is there God instead of not God?
Why did he create the world the way it is?
Your superstition doesn't answer anything it just adds a layer of magic.
>>448800
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
The question doesn't make sense. If you mean how, no one truly knows.
>Why is the world the way it is?
The question doesn't make sense. If you mean how, take a science class.
>>448815
We ask why the universe exists because it is a temporally finite thing. The existence of a spaceless, timeless, immaterial God does not actually raise such questions about prior cause. Metaphysics 101.
>>448800
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
Why are you assuming that nothingness is even al alternative? How is the term "non-being" even conceivable? What are you thinking about when you (try to) think about absolute nothingness?
>questions for atheists
Why do you think the above question (assuming it's even intelligible) isn't equally pressing for theists? Why is there a God rather than nothing? Because God is the fundamental being, self-sufficient and thus not dependent on anything external, with all else depending on God?
We could just as easily - if not MORE easily - replace the concept of an intelligent, purposeful, personal God (though conceptions of God's essence vary, of course) with the concept of an unthinking, impersonal force, and posit that THIS is the fundamental basis of the physical universe that doesn't require further explanation.
Pretty sure your post is bait anyway, but the issue is fascinating.
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
Don't know. But I never understood why people ask this question to begin with. It seems to imply that there should be nothing instead of something for some reason. I don't see what so surprising about that fact that things exist.
>Why is the world the way it is
The universe could just simple be that way naturally. Doesn't sound very satisfying but that just is how it is. There could be a multiverse or there could not >>448837
The multiverse wasn't invented by a bunch of bored physicists. It comes as a consequence of theories like inflation or string theory. These are far from proven, but aren't just shit people made up with no scientific backing, and yes while string theory is controversial it is still debated in the physics community. It may or may not be wrong. But if either of these theories are confirmed it would heavily imply a multiverse. I'm no physicist though so don't take my word on it.
I must ask, why do you think Christianity answers these questions? All I find is that they just bring the question on step behind and bring a greater mystery in.
>>448837
You're wrong https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation
Anthropic Principle answers both
>>448965
I admit I don't know physics enough to understand it completely, but if we can only access the universe we are in (by definition?), how can it be possible to prove or disprove existence of another universes? "We build a theory to describe the things we see and from that theory it follows there are things we don't see and can't possible see"? How it is it different from "God create the universe but you can't see god"?
>>449018
>you can't see it therefore it doesn't exist
Goodbye evolution and big bang theory
>>449027
You can actually reconstruct evolution via DNA and fossils, and bbt via ancient radiation and acceleration of the matter, this is how it was confirmed. There can't be empirical evidence for another universe by definition.
>>449035
Chaotic Inflation theory is a reasonable inference from contemporary scientific observations and understanding, and predicts everything we observe. It holds that those properties of the universe that can be different than they are, like the mass of quarks, “froze” into place when the universe cooled, and due to chaotic or quantum indeterminism, different parts of the universe randomly ended up with different features—some with no quarks, some with quarks of a different mass, and so on. Yet the universe inflated so quickly, that once these properties froze in place in each tiny spot, that area grew to a size thousands of times larger than we could ever see. Thus, the universe we observe appears everywhere the same—but if we could see far enough, we would see different parts of the universe with completely different properties. It follows from the same theory that many regions of this multi-faceted universe will collapse and start the whole process over again, causing more multi-faceted universes to emerge from the original one. And so on. There is nothing we know that could stop this process, so it must go on forever—and may already have.
>>448800
First and foremost. Atheism dose not equals science, thus the answers given will show the personal preferences and stances of the individuals giving their answers in question.
Second of all buying a book denouncing religion is something most atheists would't give a damn about. You see books are not holy, denouncing one and accepting another based on answers given by strangers seems childish.
You are either immature to do so, or pre-determined that no answers could actually change your views, thus making this thread in vain.
now for the baseless speculation part...
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
The world if filled with 99.99 % nothing.
The somethings you are speaking of (atoms and other particles) are insignificant part of it all. Yet we base our point of view on the perceived somethings, showing our rather limited span and understanding.
We are limited creatures. With insignificant understanding of the world. Some theories even imply that the world we live in is mealy a hologram, thus the claim that those somethings actually exist might be in question itself.
>Why is the world the way it is?
A set of factors contributed to it's origins. To our best understanding this far the space expanded at some point in the past and the fundamental forces got split from one another, thus creating the conditions for the world to be the way it is.
All in all, we know very little. What we do have however is the method to acquire knowledge and test hypothesizes. With that method, provided we survive long enough, your questions could be answered in full. For now you'd have to satisfy yourself with the best we know, assuming the answers are not full.
>>448800
We don't know
The entire principle of atheism is to admit our ignorance rather than trying to use "God" as the answer to everything we dont understand
>>449047
So
1) Is where a way to prove existence of another universes?
2) Is where a way to disprove existence of another universes?
Because otherwise this is an interesting metaphysical speculation inspired by physics, but not a science.
>>449129
The above theory is not mere speculation. Every element builds entirely on known science. Inflation itself, chaotic or random behavior at small scales, “freezing” at larger scales, collapsing regions jump-starting inflation again, inflated regions being much larger than any distance we could see, etc. All these things actually follow from known scientific facts and established theories, based on empirical observations. Most scientists are in agreement about this. And that makes for a pretty strong argument, although we have yet to find direct evidence for this kind of mechanism at the origin of our universe, and that is what scientists are now looking for.
>>449215
You aren't answering my questions. Regardless of theoretical work and empirical confirmations inside this universe, is it ever possible to prove/disprove existence of another universes via some kind of experiment/test/anything empirical? I mean, if by definition universe is causally closed.
>>448800
Naaah. I don't really care what you believe.
But I have another question for all of us:
>cradle atheist or convert?
>if cradle atheist, what were you taught about Santa?
>>449275
Such an ensemble of universes is formally called a “multiverse.” That can be misleading, since in neither of the most plausible theories is there really any more than one ‘universe’ per se. In Chaotic Inflation, different ‘universes’ are really just different regions of the same universe, even when in some cases these other regions are hidden within black holes. Nevertheless, it has become the convention to employ “universe” to refer to a single distinct region of what is in turn called the “multiverse.”
>>449346
Convert, taught Santa was real, verified he wasn't with a simple experiment
>>449362
So are these regions causally connected? Can you empirically access them in theory?
>>449380
Yes, you would just need a very fast ship and cryogenic sleep or something
>>449346
cradle atheist, taught he was real, started to figure out he wasn't when I was around 10
>>449364
This is what happens when you lack faith. I did an experiment. I left out cookies and milk Christmas eve, got a present under the tree when I woke up, cookie half eaten and glass of milk half full. Since Christmas is coming up again, I can do it again this year and post pictures of the results.
>>448800
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
No one has an answer for this, not even Christians. There is no way to say why God exists rather than just nothing existing
>>448800
>>448924
Still waiting for OP to describe what s/he's thinking about when s/he thinks of "nothing."
>>449396
So these aren't really universes, just regions inside the universe with different values of universal constants. Now all they have to do is to show that values of universal constants can vary withing the universe, and to show somehow there is something "outside" of our region.
>>448800
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
Nobody actually knows, anyone who says they know is a pretentious cunt.
>Why is the world the way it is?
Teleology is an ancient pile of shit that you should reconsider.
http://www.compellingtruth.org/truth_God.html
There are only two options
1. God exists, because we exist.
2. Nothing exists, literally nothing. No universe, no life, no time, space or matter. Nothing.
Since we do exist, there is a God (supported by all the further arguments).
"why" is pointless to an Atheist. Its more fruitful to ask them "how".
Like how did we get something from nothing?
I mean, actual nothing. A 'quantum vacuum' is not, in any way, shape or form, nothing.
>>448800
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
You are looking for reason in nothing anon. There is no reason to exist, existence simply is because of random chance. But if the multiverse hypothesis is real, our existence was an inevitable result of rolling the dice enough times.
>Why is the world the way it is?
Again anon, chance. There are trillions of planets. Think of it like rolling a dice a trillion times. Eventually you're going to get a twenty.
>>450408
Who rolled the dice?
Why is there a dice in the first place?
You are simply prolonging the question.
How does NOTHING create conscious beings full of emotions, personality and purpose?
>>450390
>God exists, because we exist.
And if everything else (Flora, Fauna, Terra etc.) exists, but no complex mind with which to comprehend, ponder or entertain the idea of a god; does that god exist?
>>450407
>Its more fruitful to ask them "how".
>Like how did we get something from nothing?
This is something I hear a lot. "How do Atheists you get something from nothing?". Answer me this: How do Theists get something from nothing? If something requires a creator, then who created the creator? If the creator always has been and always will be, then so to can the universe, exploding and then retracting in an endless cycle.
>>450422
>You are simply prolonging the question.
Yeah because theres no answer. We could argue endlessy with sound logic and reasoning on both sides and never ever come to a definite conclusion. If there is an answer, our minds are seemingly not complex enough to come to a 'correct' answer
>>448800
That pic is wrong.
It is atheists that are delusional.
While atheists claim that belief in the existence of God is a psychological crutch, it is in fact atheism that abandons reality in order to fulfill a psychological need. If there is no God, there is no morality, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. If God does not exist, we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, to whomever we want, with no eternal consequences. That is the true motivation behind atheism.
>>450435
There is a logical answer.
An uncaused cause, something (or someone) eternal.
This is what we call God.
>>450408
what are you even blithering about you mongoloid faggot
>whoa like life whoa man everything just exists because of like chance whoa man there is no reason whoa
multiverse hypothesis doesn't solve shit, you still have to explain the existence of the multiverse in the first place. its like i asked you what the fuck this red mustang is doing on my driveway and you're like "lmao there's a million more around the corner bro you just happened to get the red one"
>>450441
>If God does not exist, we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, to whomever we want, with no eternal consequences.
But you can and a lot of people will. If what you say is true, that people will be punished eternally in the afterlife then why should we have any police, law or justice at all?
And to add to that since all sins can be rid through confession, then what good does it do?
>>450447
>There is a logical answer.
There is more than one reasonable, logical answer, you have just decided on one that you fits your world perspective and the wants of your mind. There is nothing wrong with that, Atheists have chosen another.
>>450473
There are more arguments for God than any other alternative.
So it is the most logical answer.
>>448800
>If you can provide adequate answers to these questions, I will happily renounce Christianity right here tonight and buy a copy of The God Delusion
I think you'll find that atheism doesn't work like that. You don't have to buy a book and follow it. you don't have to buy the book at all.
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
That is a meaningless question. It is also a loaded question, you assume there is a "why". There is no reason. there is no purpose. There is no "plan". You're fixated on the idea that there must be a cause and a reason, because you've been indoctrinated, probably from birth, with the idea that some sort of entity has done everything "for a reason".
That's simply not the case. You are, quite simply, anthropomorphising the universe around you, trying to shoehorn the idea that the deity you've grown up with is responsible for everything. It isn't. there is no "why". it simply exists. the questions that an atheist looks to is not "why does X exist", but "what causes X to exist the way it does." - be that the environmental conditions, planetary orbit, or a million other possible reasons depending on what the question is.
>Why is the world the way it is?
Again, incredibly vague, loaded question.
But the cynic in me says the answer is "Because humans are selfish, short-sighted little shits who've fucked it up for the rest of the species."
>>450422
Because your questions are meaningless anon. Nobody is rolling the dice. We may very well be part of an infinitely repeating process of universal death and rebirth, with no beginning or end (because there doesn't have to be one, causality after all may only be a quirk of our reality).
>>450522
How is RANDOM infinity possible?
You are just seeking for a wild hypothesis that does not involve God.
>>450477
Okay then let me ask you your own question.
Why does god exist? What purpose does he serve?
Since that is what you ask, you should have no trouble answering
>>448800
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
There is no "why" to the universe; it is not a living thing.
>Why is the world the way it is?
The laws of physics
>>450545
>Because the modern world has invented this distinction between ‘religious’ and ‘secular,’ it tends to have a reductionist view of religious traditions, as if they were only concerned with silly pre-scientific theories about how the world was made. In truth, the great religions all contain profound teachings on the nature of reality; teachings which are multi-dimensional and multi-disciplinary, and hence, not reducible to any one modern field of study, such as science, history, mythology, or psychology. All of these modern areas of study have their origin in ancient religion, and have been informed by the knowledge and wisdom which religion has passed down.
>For the ancients, there was no such thing as ‘religion’ separate from the rest of life. What we call ‘religion’ was for the ancients a holistic way of life and worldview which permeated every aspect of life of death.
>hurr who created god
you're out of your depth here champ
>>450545
The problem with this argument is that it is built on a faulty assumption. It is not true that everything has a cause. From nothing, nothing comes. If there was ever a time when nothing existed, nothing would have ever come into existence. There had to be an uncaused cause that caused everything else to come into existence. You can't go from absolutely nothing to something, so there must have always been a something. That something, or more accurately, someone, is God.
God is the uncaused cause that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it (Genesis 1:1). The question "Who created God?" is invalid at its core because it rests on the faulty assumption that God is subject to the laws of the universe that He created. Yes, now, everything has a cause. Yes, now, something cannot come from nothing. But, without the first uncaused cause, nothing else would exist. God is the One who set everything into motion, including the logical and scientific fact that every effect has a cause.
The "Who created God?" question is deceiving because it is based on the false assumption that God came from somewhere. If God was created, then He is not the sovereign, eternal, infinite, and all-powerful God who is described in the Bible. That is the true reality behind the question. It is an attack on the Christian faith's understanding of God. But, the question/attack is invalid at its very core. God as the Creator is not bound by the laws of what He has created. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists, and always has, and always will.
God is love.
Heaven is like an eternal orgasm.
>>450555
But there's no need for a god. It could just as well be existence itself endlessly repeating and expanding as universes are born, die, and "reproduce". There is no need for a god, not unless that god is Yog-Sothoth.
>>450565
>yog-sothoth
back to reddit friendo
Mu. Why does God exist rather than nothing? A conscious creator cannot be a sufficient answer to the question of existence, for his presence leaves a greater vaccuum than it fills, and he deprives one of more meaning than he provides.
Why has a chaotic world found order within disorder, subverting an inevitable decline into maximum entropy? Because nature is far more beautiful and mysterious than any creator could have made it.
>>450571
Your "god" is simply a terribly misleading definition for existence friendo.
>>448800
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
Nothing is a linguistic construct. I'm serious physics recognize that 'nothing' is not a valid concept. There's always something there, but the naked eye may not see it.
>Why is the world the way it is
Because of the way it was in the past. As I have said 'stuff' has always been here because the concept of nothing is impossible. So the 'stuff' today is a result of how it was moment ago.
Any other questions.
>>450551
>For the ancients, there was no such thing as ‘religion’ separate from the rest of life. What we call ‘religion’ was for the ancients a holistic way of life and worldview which permeated every aspect of life of death.
And it wasn't the same god you worship, I really don't understand your point. If your argument that since people have always believed in god, there must be a god; what do you say to the thousands of gods that have existed between different cultures? They all have different purposes, moral standards, rituals, ideas, creation stories etc.
It doesn't answer the question; WHY does god exist?
>>450428
>If something requires a creator, then who created the creator?
Only what we've observed from our laws of nature state that whatever is created needs a Creator.
The Creator created these laws, so it is logical to assert He is above them. He existed before the laws which state "all created matter needs a creator". Ignoring of course the necessary trait that He is by His own nature, uncreated
>>450565
>But there's no need for a god.
Thats like saying there is no need for parents.
Without parents, you would not exist.
>>450583
>>448800
There are no reasons for anything. The world just is the way it is. God is a faith based concept people use to give meaning to a place that doesnt have any. You dont have to be here for a reason. Nothing needs to be created by a conscious entity. It just is.
>>450574
If God does not exist, then nothing should exist.
You should not be here reading this right now. There should be nothing.
No universe.
No space, time or matter.
No life.
Nothing.
But since we DO exist, there has to be a Creator.
>>450555
>That something, or more accurately, someone, is God.
And you were claiming someone else had "Faulty assumption"
Wow.
Talk about leaping to a conclusion.
tell me... which god?
Ra? Zeus? Odin? Ganesh? Ishtar? Even if it were one of the 1000's of different gods people have worshipped. How exactly did someone magically discern which of these is "right"?
>>450609
Prove it.
>>450600
You assume causality matters anon. Again, as far as we know it may only be limited to our universe and it's current conditions. Physical laws may change with universes or their rebirth as they implode and "explode". There does not have to be reason, this is simply your mind trying to impose its understanding across all reality.
>>450609
>But since we DO exist, there has to be a Creator.
>special pleading
But since God exists, he must have a creator.
>>450620
>ignoring all the arguments posted in the thread so far
Now you are just baiting.
This is how it always goes.
>Atheists get rekt
>resort to shitposting
>>450613
That is an entirely different topic.
We are talking about whether God exists or not.
The next step is which God.
>>450634
This shitty argument again? It already got answered in the thread.
Here I´ll paste it for you again
Everything comes from something. Every effect has a cause. This is a law of logic and a fact of science. Christians believe that God created the universe and everything in it. God is the cause of everything that exists. But, doesn't God also need a cause? What caused God to come into existence? Who created God? These questions are often used by critics in an attempt to discredit the idea that God created the universe. If God is the cause of the universe, then what is the cause that resulted in God?
The problem with this argument is that it is built on a faulty assumption. It is not true that everything has a cause. From nothing, nothing comes. If there was ever a time when nothing existed, nothing would have ever come into existence. There had to be an uncaused cause that caused everything else to come into existence. You can't go from absolutely nothing to something, so there must have always been a something. That something, or more accurately, someone, is God.
God is the uncaused cause that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it (Genesis 1:1). The question "Who created God?" is invalid at its core because it rests on the faulty assumption that God is subject to the laws of the universe that He created. Yes, now, everything has a cause. Yes, now, something cannot come from nothing. But, without the first uncaused cause, nothing else would exist. God is the One who set everything into motion, including the logical and scientific fact that every effect has a cause.
>>450634
That is an oxymoron because God by definition has no creator, He is the eternal uncaused cause.
If God has a creator than he is not God.
>>450655
Why are you allowed an uncaused cause but we aren't? It just happens that ours does not have human-like traits or consciousness. The universe itself is the uncaused cause, infinitely expanding and collapsing upon itself.
>>450670
>believes something contradicted by the latest findings in cosmology
wew lad
>>450637
No, the cycle is that atheists ask for scientific proof because Christians are never able to provide any. The very idea of faith is flawed- you should never believed in ANYTHING. Belief is a weakness and a flawed state of mind. One should know, not believe.
Several thousand year old accounts that often come from secondary, instead of primary sources, also definitely do not count for shit.
>>450655
>not everything has a cause
Therefore, it does not necessarily follow that there is a god in the first place.
>>450684
>Belief is a weakness and a flawed state of mind. One should know, not believe.
lmfao is this real life
do you know you're going to be alive tommorow or do you believe it? how could you know? then why do you act as if you do? isn't that irrational of you?
tip on back to reddit with this shit you clown
>>450722
The proof of the first way hinges upon "everything has a cause"
It is used to justify the existence of a god. If you relax that part then we can just say everything was there or "lol it's the big bang"
Nothing you replied with was a refuation, but I'm not sure you'll understand.
>>450738
No, Im not sure if YOU understand.
The universe, this physical dimension, our reality, what we perceive with our 5 senses is FINITE.
This is proven by science. The universe had a beginning.
Something cannot come from nothing.
Either there is a Creator, or there should be NOTHING at all. Universe should not exist because nothing can not magically explode into something, that is literally a fairy tale.
The `who created God` argument has been answered several times. God by definition is not created, if he is then he is not God.
>>450750
Read the first way and take out that one statement you rejected.
Then realize that you put out a new premise that has not been logically justified to patch it up.
>>450762
Are you so fucking soft that you're denying the Big Bang happened now? Do you or do you not agree there was some prior condition or cause or whatever that triggered the creation of the universe or what? Like pulling teeth with the fucking fedoras on here
>>450770
The only thing we know is that the universe is expanding.
You entirely refuted the first way by pulling out one of the premises.
And wrapping an entity in "logic proof" armour is not a proof of a god. Saying he was totally there before and there definitely was nothing without proving it doesn't give logic immunity.
>>450655
From a natural perspective the first effect without a cause must have occurred prior to the 'big bang' science can only talk about and understand what happened immediately after that event (10^-36 s). Prior to that the laws of physics and science as we know it breaks down, we cannot say anything about the four fundamental forces, space, time, matter or anything else. Therefore it follows that what we observe in the natural universe: every effect requiring a cause, also cannot be assumed to hold true at this time. So the assertion by many theists that the universe requires a first cause is based on false assumptions. There is no reason why the universe itself could not be uncaused and eternal. In the minds of many atheists the proposal of a god as being the first cause is an extra, unnecessary step. Therefore the exist of god is ultimately superfluous.
>>450750
>Something cannot come from nothing.
How do you know that?
>>450889
>this is the level of discourse on /his/
because then it would be something you fucking dip
>>450422
>Who rolled the dice?
Presuming there is a who.
>Why is there a dice in the first place?
Teleology is dead.
There are no answers because the questions you're asking have no meaning.
Atheist here. Holy fuck, can we please just boil this down to
>Theist: A deity exists because I can logically argue for an spaceless, timeless, uncaused agent for the universe's formation
>Atheist: Okay, but why do you call the uncaused agent God, and what makes the uncaused agent a deity?
>Theist: (implicitly) That's my definition of God and my definition of a deity.
>Atheist: (implicitly) But it's not mine.
Everyone has different definitions of what "God" is. No one can define this damn thing, and people even say that it's incomprehensible to human minds, so it's pointless arguing. The end.
I don't know what I am
But I just wanted to say that God is a representation of our environment. Our only purpose in life is to enjoy existence. Don't be afraid of death, death is a blessing.
Imagine loving and seeing the person you love die
Imagine loving again and seeing the person you love die again. To be God is to be alone to die is to be free...
>>451136
Except a theist is likely to attach intelligence, will, or doctrine to the "uncaused causer" phenomenon without any justification. Otherwise it really isn't god, you're just renaming an even to god because you think it's very special.
You all fight because you do not understand that at the end it doesn't really matter. We chose to believe in a higher being because we comfort ourself with these constructs. At the end we are all children afraid of the dark, the things we do not know and the things we will never know.
Atheism is the consequence of using religion to lie to ourselves. Do not have faith in a fairy tale have faith in yourselves. If you chose to have no faith in yourself you are waste of consciousness and existence
God is to be alone
>a big space dad made everything from nothing for fun
>>451427
I get you. Yeah, I was being a bit generous with the theist representation. A few genuinely do argue for a supreme metaphysical "being" without all the extra bullshit like intelligence, etc., though. Maybe I should have said deist specifically.
>>448800
There is something rather than nothing because there can be. There us only one way for there to be nothing but near infinite ways for there to be something.
Your second question is meaningless there is no 'why' in that regard.
The implication of God raises more questions that the ones it answers.
I love how "nothing" is such a mind blowing term for religious people but the creation of God isn't questioned. "He just exists" - sound familiar?
>>448800
If the universe has a cause we would call it either God or natural phenomenon.
The feature of this cause which would make it God instead of natural phenomenon is consciousness.
Why do you think this cause is more likely to be have consciousness then not?
>>451492
Man has believed in God since forever in our history. It was as normal and natural as eating and having sex.
It is atheism that is the odd one out.
It is atheism that is a mental illness.
>>448800
In the realm of cosmology, the debate between theism and atheism is really only a quibble over details. Both sides agree there must be some ultimate entity, which is the eternal first cause and ground of all being, the end point of all explanations. They only disagree over what properties this “ultimate being” has. Theists think it has a whole plethora of amazing powers and attributes, including the most complex mind imaginable. But as atheists point out, there is no evidence for any of those tacked-on assumptions. There are only two properties we can be sure the ultimate being has: its nature is to exist, and it had a reasonable chance of producing our universe exactly as we see it. We can’t say anything more than that without sufficient evidence. And there is no actual evidence for any of the traditional divine attributes.
>>451700
>It is atheism that is a mental illness
Really? Can't find it in the DSM-5
>>448800
God of the gaps argument is stupid.
Why is there a god rather than no god?
Why is god the way he is?
>>448800
Dunno, but the answers provided to those questions by religion have been proven false...
>>451700
He's believed in quite a few gods, though. Which one is it?
>>448800
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
This is trivial. It's not even an answer to the God/No God question.
If nothing had occurred such that nothing existed, you wouldn't be asking this question. The only possible way (in a theist or atheist cosmology) for there to be anyone asking the question is if whatever infinitely unlikely thing was necessary, did occur. You asking the question instantly frames that component of causality.
You are walking in a forest and see a painting hanging on the tree.
There is no one around.
What do you conclude?
The painting was obviously made by someone, there was obviously an artist. You can never meet the artist but you KNOW it was made.
According to atheists/evolutionists, the painting would have been a random accident which formed by itself, which is ridiculous.
You find a pencil or toy on the ground.
What do you conclude? They were created.
Not believing in God is extremely illogical and unintuitive.
Life screams design.
>>451719
That is another subject.
Do you want to switch to that topic? It means you agree that there is a God.
>>451733
>theist
>i see a rock
>god must of made it
>>451733
awful analogy
>>448842
This anon knows
>>451733
Right, design by evolution.
>>451749
>atheist
>i see a skyscraper
>it made itself
>>451752
The theory of evolution has been debunked years ago.
So get a better one.
>>451753
who made god?
infinite regression.
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
Because life is a wonderful thing that wants to hang around as much as possible. It avoids being nothing at all costs. From humans to bacteria.
>Why is the world the way it is?
Because you are alive to experience it in this particular time and place. Just like it's improbable you become rich by winning the lottery, there are people who are millionaires by doing so.
>>451753
>>atheist
>i see a skyscraper
>observable characteristics make it seem similar to other man made objects
>it is probably made by man
>theist
>i see a rock
>unprovable god made everything
>god must of made it
>>451757
I know I'm just joking.
>>451758
http://www.compellingtruth.org/who-created-God.html
Why do you atheists keep spouting the same shit that has been answered a hundred times in the thread?
>>451763
>we don't need to answer it, god is god because we say so :^)
no it hasn't been "answered" you fucking retard
>>451761
>atheist
>i see a Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus
>that must mean they have a common ancestor
>theist
>i see a Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus
>that must mean they have a common designer
>>451763
why is there a god rather than no god?
why is god the way he is?
obviously a god created god.
>>451771
Yes it has you moron.
There is a valid argument and you just choose to ignore it due to cognitive dissonance.
God by definition is the eternal uncaused cause.
If he is created, then he is not God.
>>451763
>humans need a creator
>god doesnt
>because we said so
The universe was the uncaused cause. Humans are a product of that universe.
>>451775
Why does life or the universe exist if there is no God?
If there is nothing, nothing should exist.
You and I should not be here talking to eachother.
>>451777
How the fuck does nothing create the universe?
>>451779
>implying it was created
>>451778
>demands an answer for the origin of the universe
>doesnt need answer for the origin of god
>>451779
There's no such thing as 'nothing' in science. Vaccums do not exist.
There was always some sort of universe. Although it used to be far simplier
'nothing' to 'something' is a Christian fairytale. I agree it's retarded
>>451781
It had a beginning therefore it was created.
>>451782
>putting God in a box
He made time, space and matter.
He is not bound by the laws of physics or causality.
The universe is finite and temporary. It was created by something/someone eternal that always was.
>>451786
good pic, always shuts those fedoras up
>>>>451786
>god is not bound by the laws of physics or causality because he is god
sound argument
>>451791
Because He created them you retard.
Does Bill Gates live inside a Windows OS because he made them?
Do car manufacturers live inside cars because they make cars?
>>451786
>The universe is finite and temporary.
[citation needed]
>>451791
>he thinks God is some someone living inside the universe
typical atheist with a very dense understanding
>>451800
Big Bang?
Universe is expanding?
Law of entropy (from organized to chaotic)?
>>451799
you mentioned cognitive dissonance yet you can't accept how absurd your "argument" is.
answer this: why is it easier to accept god didn't need a creator but the universe did? the same flaws you will point out for the creation of an universe out of nothing will apply to the existence of an eternal creator.
>>451786
>this proves god has intelligence
>>451806
>basic logic and reason is absurd
God does not need a creator because the very DEFINITION of God is that HE is the ultimate creator.
Your argument would only work when talking about `lesser´ beings like angels, aliens, humans or animals.
We live inside the box we call the universe.
God is outside the box.
>>451811
>creator without intelligence
its like im talking to a literal idiot
atleast not all atheists are as stupid as you
>>451786
>It had a beginning
Nope
>>451824
This is bait.
Not even gonna bother.
Fedoras have been REKT so hard in this thread they resort to trolling.
Christians win yet again,
/thread
>>451786
>>451805
Maybe it wasn't the first big ang.
Maybe it is an infinite cycle.
It doesn't mean it's finite or temporary because we don't pretend to know everything, it's just the most sensible explanation for the oldest natural phenom we can identify.
Are you talking about the God of the Bible, by the way? I need to know if this is an interesting metaphysical discussion or retarded religious bullshit.
>>451825
As Stephen hawking would say
> Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.
>>451817
God exists because he's God.
yep
>>451865
Nothing made the universe cuz I say so
yep
>>451817
You are defining something that makes your argument right, but it still doesn't explain why it is a valid argument.
"God made the universe" raises more questions than the ones we are trying to answer slowly, with science and evidence.
an unstable vacuum being eternal is more plausible than an omnipotent supreme being being eternal
>>450407
>"why" is pointless to an Atheist. Its more fruitful to ask them "how".
Oh so atheism is incapable of dealing with questions of ultimate concern? Thanks for letting me know atheism is totally worthless.
>>451823
You're the idiot here.
>>451899
Atheism is the disbelief in deities you tard. It's simply a position.
>>451905
Atheism is a mental illness.
You completely abandon logic and reason, and started following plastic monkeys and soup myths.
>>451899
> Oh so atheism is incapable of dealing with questions of ultimate concern?
What the fuck did you expect?
>>451910
Theists on this board are like children. It's evident in the way you can't argue without resorting to shitflinging like a toddler
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
We don't know, that doesn't mean god dun did itit
>Why is the world the way it is?
Because we live in a universe where disorder emerges from order, and order emerges from disorder
>>451899
why does there have to be a reason? so you feel special?
>>451899
>ultimate concern
Tell me, what's the ultimate concern for your life? What is the most important event in your life you will sacrifice everything for?
Also, when and where will it take place?
>>451899
Searching for meaning is what humans do. But there is no meaning in a rock, it just is. Poetry creates beauty in describing a simple, biological reaction. That is your "why" - the human mind expanding it's concept to fit the narrative of "meaning".
it just is.
But I'll give you the existence of God, right now.
Explain the "why". To save us? To live eternally in heaven? I return, why?
>>448800
there is suffering, therefore no God
checkmate theist
>>451786
> He is not bound by the laws of physics or causality.
If God isn't bound by causality, then how can we reliably use causality to demonstrate that God exists? It's like using a rule of game X to make a judgment about what would be fair in game Y.
And if God created the causal law, then God caused causality, no? So causality also exists outside of the causal law, allowing the causal law to be caused - which seems absurd.
i was enjoying the discussion, any theists around care to explain their side?
>>448800
In the vastness of space there is mostly nothing.
Is it still so impressive to ask why there is mostly nothing and a little something?
>>452024
>people wear hats
>therefore they're wrong
This is about as intellectual as theists will ever get
>>448800
And surely the question must be, if there where a god as powerfull as you say, why is there such a miniscule amount of something?
Surely there should me vastly more something than nothing?
If god where so infinitely powerfull, why is there nothing at all?
I'm wating.
>>451757
>evolution was debunked
>>452040
Your line of thought isn't strong. Maybe all the conditions were necessary for this amount of something to exist. Maybe a fraction of life in the universe is more meaningful than light years of cosmic dust.
>>451733
This is an absolutely terrible analogy, you should be ashamed.
Can't take someone seriously if you spout shit like that and claim that "life screams design". Deplorable lies.
>>452040
You're implying there is only one universe. God created every one of the infinite possibilities of every universe. The proof that human life exists, despite it being so unlikely, is proof of God's infinite creation. God's creation encompasses every possibility, including out unlikely own one. The problem is atheists see the universe as the result of the roll of some dice, rolling snake-eyes, and they see this roll as imperfect. The thing is, God in his omnipotence and infinite capacity has created a universe for each and every possible roll of the dice, but humans, being the result of one universe where the dice landed a certain way, can not ascertain the existence of the infinite possibilities, only their own actualization.
>>452047
Years ago.
Do you live under a rock or something?
>>452075
>The proof that human life exists, despite it being so unlikely, is proof of God's infinite creation.
I'm not following.
In both cases, life is unlikeable.
In your example, you just add a perfect being to the mix, and need a lot of more explaining to do.
>>452079
I'll entertain you, how so? From what I know the theory was perfected from the original, but in no way "debunked".
>>452095
perfect is just a descriptor for infinate. the important characteristic here is His infinate nature. you falsely think this universe is rhe entirety of all creation, and you think observable imperfection proves the imperfect nature of god. what you don't see is that god is infinate and has created every possibility, with every kind and combination of imperfections not just the the one you observe.
>>449346
Cradle theist.
Parents taught me to believe in Santa as a child, eventually figured that Santa was not real and confronted parents about it.
Yet I have finally figured out Santa Claus is real. An early Christian named Saint Nicholas tried to live his life in a Christ-like way and teach others to do so. He was a charitable man because that was part of his ministry. What he did was misconstrued and paganized and later materialized into what we know as Santa Claus today. Santa Claus in itself was best explained to me by my grandmother, who favored this explanation even when I was a child. She said that Santa Claus is only the personification of charity and good will. He is someone to admire as a child and grow to emulate moving into adulthood.
Santa Claus is real.
>>450750
>creator
>cause
These don't mean the same thing. "Creator" implies intelligence and a will, but there's no reason to give these attributes to whatever the first cause is, assuming there is one and there's not an infinite cyclical progression, for example
>>448800
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
Why not?
>Why is the world the way it is?
Why not?
>If you can provide adequate answers to these questions, I will happily renounce Christianity right here tonight and buy a copy of The God Delusion first thing tomorrow morning.
Adequate answers don't exist. The only meaning life has is the meaning we give it.
>>452079
Nope, although I just graduated this June with a bio degree so to some extent living under a rock is true.
My issue is you stating that evolution was debunked years ago, care to provide peer reviewed journals stating that this is the definite outcome? What evidence do you have for this, and what alternatives do you claim that have as good a foundation of truth as evolution does? Pls link.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that you believe that evolution happened billions/millions of years ago and its no longer occurring. Obviously you're a complete fucking retard if you think evolution was "debunked". I've seem the evolution of organisms in labs I've worked in across several generations and read countless published papers by some of the most highly regarded researchers at my university. Stop lying to yourself man, it honestly depresses me that you think this.
>>450390
>There are only two options
Sorry, how do you know this?
>>452113
>god has created every possibility
What proof do you have of this? Your logic is flawed and depends highly on infinite regression so that goes right out the window.
Quite a convenient statement to make if all you have to answer is "well you see god is behind that as well so he's even more clever than we thought" Surely you see the problem with your loop?
>>452127
*seen
>>452113
You might be right.
But you live in this observable imperfection too, why is your theory of an infinite God more reliable than mine?
There can be infinite universes, all explained without the existence of a perfect creator. And we return to the main question. You are just adding an explanation to something neither me or you don't know.
My theory relies on what we know and with all it's flaws, makes sense in every chapter built so far, from evolution, to DNA, to the Big Bang.
Your theory relies on there is a God because I said so. Without a single piece of logic behind it, other than our mere existence.
Why do I feel like there are a shitload of Muslims ITT
I mean, just replace "God" with "Allah" in some posts and we basically find ourselves in a Muslim discussion forum.
>>452153
Because christianity and islam is pretty much the same.
>>452153
But we are arguing about the definition of God, so it doesn't matter what it's called.
At least I hope so.
>>452147
no my theory is you are a skeptic because you heing skeptical is one of infinate possiblities and God has created every possibility including he ones where you are skeptical.
>>452164
Real life tells me it does matter
>>452175
And why should a universe without skepticism be preferred over a universe with skepticism?
>>452153
Feels more like one samefag Islam extremist trying to shovel his doctrines down our throats by slightly modifying some terms.
>>452175
And your theory is irrelevant until you post some good arguments for it.
>>452184
there is your either or dichotomy again. God is infinate and created evey infinate possibility, so God has created both.
Very simple question for you atheists. How come evolution never managed to become a law? Why not Law of Evolution but THEORY of Evolution?
>>452175
In your theory, yes. But you are fitting your narrative in the argument and I'm asking you to go back a few steps. Your theory explains everything without needing to provide any explanation for why, what or how. We are flawed beings with flawed brains that lie and say all kinds of crazy shit.
Is it more likeable that you are full of shit, or that what we know and observe isn't what reality actually is?
>>452200
God is infinate. you existing as you is one of infinate possibilities. God being infinate has created every possibility. therefor you exist because you are a possibility and every possibilty has been created by God including the one you individually experience right now
>>452216
Why don't you apply the same scrutiny to the theory of gravity? If its only a theory as you state why don't you jump off a skyscraper?
Theory means it has been repeatedly tested and has not yet been proven false. Science doesn't claim to prove anything, but there are some things that will never be proven false, such as gravity as we know it and evolution as well. Theory in regard to evolution really means law because it is a fact.
>>452224
Your shitty English is suspicious.
>>452218
its more likely that there exists things we dont know like every infinate possibilty of God, than pretending we know everything.
If Big Bang is true, and space is expanding, then why isn't my body getting ripped apart by the accelerating speed of space expansion? As always, you people are full of logic gaps.
>>452234
Also your wording of "never managed to become law" is ridiculous. There are terms that are used in the scientific community that differ from everyday language, theory being one of those instances. Like I stated in my previous response we don't claim to prove anything, in fact the scientific method allows for us to scrutinize and see if the hypothesis claimed is false.
>>>/sci/7739728
Help should be coming here soon!
>>452261
/sci/ here
>Reading pop-sci filth
Stay the fuck off our board.
>>452060
Neither does your line of thinking seem to be strong. If god was truly all powerful, knowing and omnipresent then why would he be required to be bound by certain 'conditions' for a universe. If god could not create a universe that is habitable for life uniformly and in all space in the universe then surely he isn't all powerful and therefore not god.
>>452252
Go back to school. This is really basic shit. Your body is made out of MATTER so is the earth and the atmosphere in which you exist. Between matter is space ie. between the earth and the sun is essentially space ( which by the way is not entirely empty but for you we could treat it as if it was). The space itself is what is expanding at the event horizon about 46 billion light years away it is expanding at faster then the speed of light. However afaik the idea that space expansion is accelerating is a myth it has in recent cosmic time appeared to remain constant.
As another simple analogy think of an un-inflated balloon. On it you draw stars. As you blow up the balloon the space between the stars expands (in this case the balloon material). The stars of course don't rip apart like you suggest, just like you don't rip apart due to space expanding
>>452060
Surely an infinitely powerfull god would not be constrained by mere conditions.
Then are you saying that life exists as a statement to the meaning of life, put forth by a creator who saw fit to make so little life as to have functionally made none?
>>449428
Still.
>>448800
>Why does something exist rather than nothing.
I know, right? We should go back to how things were before.
>Why is the world the way it is?
Because it can't be the way it isn't.
>>448814
Because people very seldom stop at acknowledging the divine, but rather must start attempting to interpret its will, establish rules, and disapprove or act against those that fail to conform to those rules?
>>448800
Gee I don't know, let's turn to the Bible for answers:
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
Because Goddidit
>Why is the world the way it is?
Because Goddidit
That answers everything I suppose.
>>448800
I have no way of answering these questions in a way that you would find satisfying but I do find people like you a bit strange. You are full of deep longing for answers and full of imponderable questions and then quite happily answer them them with the banal answer "god" without any evidence and without remotely being interested in the questions that raises. It strikes me you have no interest in deep answers to deep questions in the first place.
Why does god exist rather than nothing? And if you merely define god as something that has always existed this is committing the logical fallacy of begging the question and if god is can always have existed why can't "something" always have existed?
You can't even define nothing satisfactorily, no one can, so the question itself is a nonsense question.
As for "Why is the world the way it is?" I don't even know what that means. What definition are you using for the "way it is?"
As for Dawkins and the "The God Delusion" I have never read it, neither have the overwhelming majority of atheists, however if you think you will find it interesting then you should. I would have no problem reading a book on Christian theology.
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
don't know
>Why is the world the way it is?
don' know
but instead of trusting Jewish propaganda (Christianity), I want to investigate it using science and philsophy
>>454094
>neither have the overwhelming majority of atheists
Religious people (particularly protestants in the US) are so deep inside their religious boxes that they can never believe atheism really is not a religion and there really aren't any sacred texts or priests or tenets of the faith. They can't fathom that atheists really juts don't believe their fairy tales, and assume we are either pretending or that we have some other religion instead.
My mother literally told me "that's impossible, you have to believe in something" when I once implied I didn't believe in any sort of god.
Why are Americans still so religious?
>>448800
Why does God exist rather than not exist?
Why did God make the world the way it is?
If you can provide adequate answers to these questions I will happily renounce atheism right here tonight and buy a copy of the KJV first thing tomorrow morning.
I'm waiting.
>>451786
The huge flaw in this shitty argument is that it assumes there's no ontological inertia.
Ice doesn't need cold air RIGHT NOW to keep being ice, it will keep being ice until its current conditions leave it at a temperature where it could melt an instant before melting, making the next instant the one when it starts melting (and this must be applied to every layer of ice since it will not have a uniform temperature, but instead a gradient).
A cart doesn't stop the second you stop pushing. Its current conditions take it to whatever condition it will have in the future given those conditions. Its current mass, velocity, acceleration, position, etc. are what decides where it will end up.
Gravity could stop working right now, but that wouldn't mean people that are falling towards the Earth will suddenly stop falling. They'll stop accelerating, but keep the velocity and crash towards the ground. The Earth itself would be torn apart by tidal forces, but that wouldn't make the Earth stop existing.
Likewise, the whole universe is currently "moving" because of the conditions that led it to its place right now, and the conditions that it has right now will lead it to future states. As such, what decides the Universe's behavior right now is only the past conditions (positions and properties of its energy and matter), moving the causal chain towards the beginning of the Universe where our physical model stops working and we can't know what came before with our current understanding of the Universe.
You can say God started the Universe at that point and be done with it (which I find unfruitful and dishonest, but ultimately I don't care), but at the very least this argument (the First Way or the Unmoved Mover or whatever you wanna call it) is completely flawed and useless.
>>454619
>you have to believe in something
a kid in kindergarten told me that. he was mad as fuck. just learned to shut up about it since then.
these christfags, they're so touchy about anything that threatens their security blanket, i swear.
>>454799
us brights, amirite?
Christopher Dawkins are Lawrence Krauss are the biggest pseudo intellectuals who appeal to an audience of losers and dropouts. At least hitchens was articulate and intelligent.
>>454809
looks like you just proved my point.
gg
>>454809
Exactly.
Regardless of whether you're an atheist or a christian or whatever religion, being touchy about conflicts is a sign that you're stupid.
The bright scientists who happen to be religious don't resort to stupid, reactionary statements like many found in this thread (including your post). Likewise, intelligent atheist don't assume you're retarded just from knowing you're religious.
When you realize life is easier when you learn to accept that people may disagree with stuff you take for given, you'll be way smarter than the people who haven't yet realized it.
>implying religion isn't one of the most significant, and important and significant things when regarding culture and progress
>implying we should throw away thousands of years of culture, science, progress, math and literature because a fedora fag gets off on tipping his fedora
Religion built temples, cathedrals, universities, cured dieseases, explored space, built skyscrapers, all fedora fags have done is write some edgy books and pretend to be intelligent.
>>454844
I agree. We need to pretend religion is true to keep the masses under control. They will self-destruct without religion.
>>454844
Nobody is trying to destroy the Parthenon or burn the Greek classics just because we don't believe in Zeus anymore, anon.
Whenever somebody destroys cultural heritage, they always do it for political reasons (cultural revolution) and/or religious reasons (ISIS).
So no, nobody is saying to throw away anything, you're just beating a straw man.
>>452118
Saint nicholas was real, santa claus is still a fiction.
you think saint nick lived at the north pole and flew reindeer?
>>455093
>>452175
>"Y, therefore god"
"But Y is caused by X"
>"Then god did X"
This is your argument.
>>455102
Are you saying that even without his defining attributes, god can still exist?
If not than that pic has nothing to do with the truth of the existance of the character: Santa Claus.
>>448816
I believe this.
>>448800
The reason for existing is unknown currently, but not knowing is no reason to stop trying to figure it out with logic and reason raither than petty girlish emotion and childish faith. The world us the way it is because of man mostly our ingrained biases if we over come this weakness with learned empathy we can make the world better because we have been making the world better through that process, but we must quash our desire to harm others for self gain to accomplish what you might call a heaven on earth. Not knowing something is no excuse to make something up but an opportunity to better your self through learning and reflection. Do not meet the unknown with fear but with curoisity, do not let your anexities consume you over come them with knowledge, do not fall victim to the sin of ignorance, but strive to discover. Even if you believe in God strive to under stand him by exploring the world around you.
>>453742
Still.
>>451700
Man also believed everything revolved around the earth.
Welp that settles it. Copernicus was a filthy lying heretic.
>>451700
>Man has believed in God since forever in our history.
And all economists believed that 2008 was going to be a very good year
>>448810
Isn't that an argument for the existence of a God/Creator
>>458289
It seems more like an argument for intellectual humility and suspension of judgment.
>>448800
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
No clue.
Why should NOTHING exist, rather than something? Again, no clue.
>Why is the world the way it is?
Energy + gravity x time = the observable universe
>If you can provide adequate answers to these questions, I will happily renounce Christianity right here tonight and buy a copy of The God Delusion first thing tomorrow morning.
Hell, if you want a reason to renounce Christianity, save your money and just read the bible instead. If that doesn't convince you the Abrahamic religions are simply man-made fabrications, just like every other religion, then nothing will.
>>448800
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
Why does God exist ?
Why is the world the way it is?
Cause law of physics and chemistry
>>451773
Who created God then ? And who created the God who created our God ? And who created the God that created the God that created our God ?
>>458426
Have you read the thread? Atheist here, so I don't buy responses like >>450555
>>450609
>>450665
but please cut the redundancy by just responding to those responses.
>>448815
God was not made, he is infinite and eternal
>>458453
>Have you read the thread?
Not entirely but i was making fun
>Hurp durp dont challenge God
> Im a special snowflake
Every fucking thread
/thread
>>458466
That doesn't explain anything. You're basically replacing an unknown with a non-explanation
>>458466
>God was not made, he is infinite and eternal
Why though?
>>458574
Because, the reasoning goes, an ontologically self-sufficient being is a more coherent explanation for the physical universe than is an infinite regress of dependent beings.
I'm very sympathetic with this rationale - but again:
> We could just as easily - if not MORE easily - replace the concept of an intelligent, purposeful, personal God (though conceptions of God's essence vary, of course) with the concept of an unthinking, impersonal force, and posit that THIS is the fundamental basis of the physical universe that doesn't require further explanation.
>>448924
>>448800
>Why does something exist rather than nothing?
No idea.
>Why is the world the way it is?
Because of the physical laws in the Universe.
