Ok atheists tell me if the universe is cyclical, what created the circle?
That's one of the reasons I consider myself a deist, I cant rationalize how something was created out of nothing without a divine figure that willed itself into existence.
I don't believe that divine figure stuck around to govern every action in this universe so its entirely possible it doesn't even know humans exist.
tell me how
>uno posto de este ID
if god is all powerful, could he create a stone that he couldn't lift?
this whole "something from nothing" argument has been debunked ample of times.
>>77569123
Maybe so but it's not been done in this thread.
I don't know.
Do you?
If you do provide evidence.
What makes you think atheists think that time and space are cyclical?
>>77569042
Who crated the divine figure ?
>>77569263
willed itself into existence
>>77569291
then why not just skip a step and call the universe a god
>>77569263
Thomas aquinas' first mover
>>77569042
WE
WUZ
TIME
&
SPACe
If God created the universe what created God?
Circle is not only inaccurate, it is misleading. Circles exist within Euclidean Space in other words they only make sense within a certain context. But what if you look at that context? Does it have to exist within a context? Does Euclidean Space have to exist within some kind of "super-space" and on and on? Mathematically the answer is no, it is a topological space, a self-sufficient and complete algebra. And that is what the current model of the universe is: a topological space. Self-sufficiently standing on its own legs, leaving no loose ends or unresolved threads.
>>77569291
That does not make any sense.
That's like me saying the universe slowly came into being out of nothing.
It's literally a gibberish of ideas.
A audacious misuse of words that appears to make sense until you examine the meaning of the words.
>>77569042
>universe is cyclical
no, universe is open. l2physics
>>77569511
your good at picking nay saying everything how do you explain the universe than?
It's okay to say "I don't know", anon. None of us do.
>>77569680
I don't exacting to see the universe to be explained in it's entirety in your lifetime is absurd.
People a few generations ago didn't have a grasp on many of the secrets we've no revealed.
Going for the easy answer ('god did it') because there is no other right now has been proven to be a false approach through experience.
We thought lightnings were gods work, we thought sickness was his wrath. We were wrong.
>>77569110
this meme was old before it began
>>77569042
There is no difference between atheism and deism. If you find the source of everything it must have always existed(it's the only way to solve the problem of causality). The only way for something to always have existed is for it's inexistence to be impossible. Whatever that thing is that can't not exist, it would be indistinguishable from god.
>>77569042
How about, I don't know, not assuming you know jack shit about how it all came to be?
No one fucking knows.
>Ok atheists tell me if the universe is cyclical, what created the circle?
If it's cyclical it created itself
You dumbfuck
No one cares. These meaningless slide threads. This is the politically incorrect board, not a YouTube comment section.
>>77571397
Is everything not a Trump thread just a slide thread now?
>>77569042
>Says universe is a circle
>Posts picture of a torus
>>77569042
>I don't know how this happened so god did it
>>77569042
Athiesm (the lack of belief in the existence of gods) does not require you to have an answer for how the universe came to be.
If you want to know how physically something can come from nothing then read Lawrence Krausses book A Universe from nothing, or watch one of his many talks online. There are plausible physical theories that allow for this and experimental evidence shows us that it's possible we do live in such a universe.
Deism is just a form of god of the gaps, what you're describing is called an argument from ignorance, which follows the form "i can't explain X therefore it must be god"
Instead isn't the rational thing to do is just admit you don't know and remain open to further evidence? Running to god is an intellectually lazy and ultimately dishonest position.
>>77569042
>large monkey rules tribe
>huge monkey rules universe
>>77571889
>plausible physical theories
>untestable
>equally as valid as a homeless mans explanation.
>shouldnt you admit you dont know
it sounds like you cant discuss the concept of faith. the evidence for the existence of god is all around you and easily observed by your conscious living body - on this scortched rock orbiting a star in a sea of blackness.
it's not that i'm unable to ask further questions or wonder why... i do, and i know through faith that god is the reason for all of this. agnosticism is so boring, pick a side.
>>77573755
>Things exist, therefor God!
>>77573874
logically there will have been a creator to everything... and an uncreated creator at the start/end and every aspect in between.
atheists like yourself simply say we evolved from rocks that appeared out of nothing on its own magically along with space/time... dont expect much reasoned logic from someone with an anime reaction folder though.
>>77574116
Logically it's better not to assume
Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean you need to fill it in with GOD
>>77569042
how hard it is to say 'i dont know'? is your ego really that fucking inflated that yo uthink you have to have the answer to everything?
>>77574303
>logical not to assume
you literally can not understand the natural human faith in god. i feel real bad for you, you have a learned atheist response that goes against every fiber of your being, i promise you can snap out of it. there is absolutely no reason to be atheist when all the evidence 99% of humans need fills their eyes and nostrils daily.
>>77574803
So you admit you don't know what you're talking about and just blindly believe because it feels good, got it
>>77574751
is a quest for understanding worthless?
>>77574116
There are no creations, only manipulations. Why assume that creation is necessary for existence when you have witnessed existence but never witnessed creation?
>>77574988
it becomes worthles when you substitute actual evidence and proof for 'well what else could it be' and limit yourself to your own imagination
>we know the shape of the universe
dobkok
>things exist
prove it
>>77569042
Ok, you can't understand something from nothing. So where did this higher power come from? At this point we argue something we can never, ever know. Chances are, the universe always has been and always will be, for no real reason at all.
>>77574982
are you forcing me to admit that i'm not an all knowing person? seriously you choose this as your argument?
blind faith, no, i have strong belief. you should try it, it is a natural human characteristic. by willing it out of your mind in a half-assed manner, you have damaged your mind and personality.
>>77569346
Slava Sverodu
>>77575280
Strong belief is blind belief unless there's hard evidence for it, which there isn't and no, existence isn't evidence
>>77575094
no actual evidence of where everything came from
>>77575083
everything has a creator, except the uncreated creator. there is no need to assume something that is straight forward and logical. it does seem that you take for granted the phenomenon of your own conscious human mind, why do that?
>>77575489
yeah, thats why i say i dont know instead of pretending i do
Universe is infinite and loops through death/rebirth. Has been doing so forever.
Infinity does not need ( And logically speaking, cannot have -otherwise it isn't really infinity ) a cause.
>>77575560 I dont have knowledge, i have belief
You guys latch onto Christianity because you want it to validate your contrived sense of masculinity and you associate believing in God with it.
>>77575647
ok then, believe whatever you want and keep it to yourself, dont pretend that its true and recognise that theres no reason to believe your myth over any other
>>77575454
i see you have not addressed my comment on your lack of faith. it is a very natural and universal human characteristic. dont you think you have damaged your mind by forcefully removing this from your life?
>existence isnt evidence
by this logic science has no evidence for anything. fail. try a different angle, this one makes you seem like a space cadet.
>>77569042
> cyclical
> circular
...Oi...
Secondly, you naturally think cyclical because all NATURAL phenomenon are. Time and matter are not.
Remember: Viri can live forever.... so "god" could have made you libe forever too.... oh, wait, that's 'afterwards'...pffft, right. The perfect god that made an imperfect design while showing he could do better with less.
#NotYourSoulToTake #DeismDescrimination
>>77575562
but how has it existed forever?
>>77569346
In occult and hermetic teachings this is exactly the point. God is all and the all is god. Things make much more sense for people of our kind if you step away from the image of god being a man to thinking of him as being a will.
>>77575662
who is latching on? this is something that normal people know and experience from birth. you have an unnatural mental state that has torn your soul to shreds. a human being needs faith in their lives. to deny the light in one of us is to deny it in all of us. science is great, i've probably had more of it than you, but it isnt a philosophy. the ven diagrams of science and religion dont intersect. one cannot disprove the other. science does not require atheism, dont believe everything black science guy tells you.
I mean i knew /pol had a lot of fedoras but come on. .
>>77571396
>calling someone dumbfuck
>implying that when you draw a circle on a piece of paper the circle has drawn itself
Holland shitposters at it again
>>77574988
It is if one substitutes the observable evidence for their hypothesis or thinks their hypothesis overrules observable evidence.
>>77575746
Because infinity.
One of the flaws of human intellect is most of us have a difficult time grasping what infinity really means.
If it is cyclical, it just it. It doesn't have a "how" it existed forever. There is no cause as there is no beginning. That's how infinite backwards time works.
>>77575725
I "lack faith" because there's no evidence of a God
>by this logic science has no evidence for anything
Science is all about doing millions of tests to see if something is true or not, not bullshit claims like "Existence=God"
>this one makes you seem like a space cadet
What does that even mean?
>>77573755
The universe could effecticely have been in some sort of 0-state after which + and - matter came into existence. An equal negative and positive can add up to being nothing.
>>77569042
How do you rationalize a god then?
Surely he must be even more complex?
>>77575900
There are a large group of people on here that believe in God for the reason I just said.
I didn't say anything about anything else beyond that.
>>77574803
Our mind also projects witches or aliens during sleep paralysis to explain something it doesnt understand.
In your logic this must mean they are just as real as God.
>>77576009
has infinity been observed?
infinity is just a theory
>>77575529
The problem is that it is not logical at all.
It isnt even logical to think about what happened "before" the big bang as time didnt fucking exist.
You need to understand that at this point us humans cant imagine how a universe with no time or space would "act".
Your "logical" "gut feeling" really doesnt apply to physics on a cosmic scale.
>>77576239
>IT'S JUST A THEORY GUYS
Holy shit just stop
>>77575900
This ladies and gentlemen is why the usa is fucked beyond imagination even if trump kicks out the niggers and mexicans.
Fanatic uneducated christians
>>77576239
Gravity is a theory too
A SCIENTIFIC theory
>>77576468
gravity is observable
>>77576239
I drive an infiniti g37 which i have observed.
There, enjoy some retarded shit from someone else.
>>77575562
The more important question is:
What is the nature of reality?
If the universe/multiverse was created by the divine being, then what is universe/multiverse exactly? What is it's nature? Is it a dream? A simulation? Or maybe something "real" in general terms? What might the divine being be like? Does it encompass EVERYTHING there is and ever will be, or does it exist in some kind of medium, be it NOTHINGNESS or SOMETHING. If it is SOMETHING, then we can continue with this logic ad infium.
If the universe/multiverse wasn't created in some divine act and they just pop in/out of existence due to random unlikely fluctuations of SOMETHING way way more elemental/basic over long period of time (or something resembling a series of consecutive events), then what the FUCK this substance is?
As for univserse out of nothing - it's easily explained. The total energy of the universe (counting gravity, dark energy, dark radiation, matter - literally everything) is nullified. It's basically zero and we exist only because imbalances in energy do. Think of matter/antimatter. They exist and posess differently charged potentials, but when they make contact - they cease to exist as a barionic matter and explode into an array of more elemental kinds of mstter.
>>77569042
I go to the degenerate 4chan is god real?. i just went shopping and they are they are talking about is god real
is this a sign from god?
>>77576506
Do you even know what scientific theory is?
>>77576566
????????
Taking hollandposting to a whole new level here ladies and gentlemen.
You couldve become a meme with that incoherent nonsense if this was /b/
>>77569042
You can't rationalise how something was created out of nothing, yet you can rationalise something deciding to create itself out of nothing? Do you have any idea how retarded that is?
>>77575529
Nothing has a creator and nothing has ever been created in the sense you wish to use it and the idea that creation is necessary is so unfounded that you can only concede that "it is too straight-forward and logical to assume." I have no idea where you get that I am taking consciousness for granted or how that is even possible on a lexical level. I take nothing for granted, everything IS. I know that most religious people are standing on their head, thinking a necessary a priori starting point is some divine that "has to exist because of convolutions that I can only describe as necessary on an aesthetic level" whereas in fact the a priori starting point is simply one's own consciousness as a matter of fact, but in your case I can't even see the equivalent algebra you're using here. What is this "creation" and why is it necessary? Can you not see how the Earth is not a creation but a culmination of great many elements and mechanics which conglomerate into an abstract whole. In that sense everything is like that, even things that are man-made (a realm in which the word "creation" has actual substantive meaning) are culminations, not creations. So then what is the process of creation by which anything you have ever witnessed has been created that must, too, apply to the sum of everything?
>>77576587
just a hypothesis that;s been sucessfully tested like 1 fuckin time.
infinity is a theory, not fucking observable
>>77576017
>I "lack faith" because there's no evidence of a God
>existence isnt evidence
nothing is evidence for you, even for science. you unironically sweep aside your sentient natural consciousness as nothing of merit. this is not normal friend. you shouldnt belittle yourself like this.
>our existence is bullshit
please show me another instance of sentient life. i'm sure you'd use that as evidence for something if found... yet our existence is irrelevent to you. i think this goes deeper than the obvious mental problems associated with atheist self-loathing, you seem to have woven this narrative into your mind in such a way as to prevent any merit to your life, or any life of any kind. you are a pol-pot waiting to gain power. i really hope you can take the first step and realize you are a very special person and that god loves you uniquely.
>>77576587
>>77576506
Actually my friends gravity is the power of which we know the least and the biggest obstacle keeping us from creating a universal law.
Its not because you land back on earth after jumping that gravity as described in current theory is real. It just means there is some power which results in you landing back on the ground.
>>77573755
>hurr I don't understand something
>must be God hurr
>>77576681
yeah i know i fucked up did not want to bother to change it
>Implying /pol/ did not become /b/ 2.0 without porn
>>77576040
>universe already exists
>already has a zero state
there's your problem right there. please use that algerian brain of yours for something else besides tarnishing the flemish name.
why are atheists so fuckin edgy xd xD rawr
>>77576789
God is just a hypothesis that has been tested successfully 0 times
>>77576080
>very large group of people
i dont believe you
>>77569042
Nothing creates the circle, it is eternal? Just because we're linear, this doesn't apply to everything.
A circle, whose centre is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere.
>>77576950
yupp thats why its a belief
>>77576161
you are confusing the situation with history and story time. you clearly do not understand the natural state of prayer. instead of discussing/debating, you are conflating the argument and misdirecting. perhaps i was like this once upon a time, you wish to ridicule that which you have rejected (mom and dads christianity)
>>77574116
>Logic dictates that everything that exists must have been created
>logic dictates an uncreated creator must exist
It's mind bogglingly faulty logic like this that is why religion even exists
>>77569042
>Ok atheists tell me if the universe is cyclical
[[citation needed]]
entropy suggests against any type of universe which repeats itself in a cycle for an infinite amount of time
>>77569511
>that's like saying that the universe came slowly from nothing
But anon that's exactly /thread.
First: there was "nothing" but dark matter. It was in a basic state. It, after what we would only measure as "forever", finally combined to make anti-quarks and so on, first the anti- basic building blocks of matter was made, and then once actual matter was created....it exploded outwards, creating an uncontrollable chain of events that's lead to our present day universe.
Thanks to the wonders of science, we can prove with fact that this is how the universe was created. We will not become cyclonic unless we somehow are able to reverse the Big Push aka expansion, so it then creates the supposed Big Crunch instead of the inevitable Heat Death of the universe.
Anon, cap this. I am right.
Using the definition of words, I am correct.
>>77576547
>As for univserse out of nothing - it's easily explained. The total energy of the universe (counting gravity, dark energy, dark radiation, matter - literally everything) is nullified. It's basically zero and we exist only because imbalances in energy do.
Buddy, I agree with you, but gravity is the only snarl to that idea. We've never found any anti-mass, only anti-matter, which destroys matter because of the electrical charges. Gravity is still a weird mystery of nature, for now
>>77576907
I never said the universe already existed as it depends on how you define 'exist'. Existing requires a certain moment in time and an observation (unless you want to go full philosophic and talk about the winds in the trees when no one is there to hear it).
In short: we have no clue on how to imagine a universe with no time and space so we cant judge whether or not this zero state universe can be seen as an existing something.
I am not an atheist as im not excluding a god but the existence of a god does not solve the question of what was there "before" everything, including said god.
>>77577140
>We've never found any anti-mass
Dark energy which accelerates the expansion of the universe and counters gravity.
>>77576332
you are venturing into an area science has zero understanding of. find a homeless guy with piss all over himself and ask him what happend, it is probably more right than what you just said.
>your logical gut feeling doesnt appy to physics
who said it did? faith and science are unrelated subjects. you cant inject one into the other.
>us humans
>algerian invader
ok
>>77577094
Again I havent rejected the possibility of a "god" as in a creator of the universe as we know it but this doesnt provide us with any answers to how this god came into existence and pretty much leaves us with the same problem.
And no, gut feeling and natural state of insanity doesnt prove that theres a god any more than dreaming about aliens.
>>77576794
>show me another instance of sentient life
Show me an instance of God without saying "look around you"
>>77569644
What shape is a open universe?
>>77569237
Are you being retarded on purpose?
>>77576424
how is that atheism working out for you? how many more MONTHS does europe have left now as an entity? millenia after millenia... hey lets reject god and lead a life of degeneracy.
i'd guess around 36-48
>>77577125
Depends whether or not this entropy eventually culminates in a cataclysmic event which turns back everything into zero state.
Yep again this isn't proven but the theory of entropy isn't really proven either hence why it's called a theory.
>>77576547
atheists cannot fathom this line of thought, because they reject anything/everything that involves the sapient consciousness, and it's perceptions. it triggers them.
>>77577140
We're all grasping and guessing here but it can't be deemed impossible that we simply don't have the means to 'observe' this anti-mass yet.
>>77577415
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
>>77577205
Y'all need to prove that. Dark energy might turn out to be even stranger. Certainly, a neat 1:1 mathematical mechanism like + and - electromagnetics still needs to be discovered by Einstein 2.0. I bet we get some cool technology out of that shit
>>77576722
>not understanding the concept of creation as a verb
i cannot believe you tricked me into replying to you when you say childish things like this. stopped reading.
>>77577281
>who said it did? faith and science are unrelated subjects. you cant inject one into the other.
Strange to say that as Christianity and pretty much every other religion has always used Gods and other divine things to explain physical occurrences.
You're really just saying that because the question in this thread is one of the few things related to faith which hasn't been completely disproven yet by science.
Saying that faith and science are unrelated is simply wrong and stupid.
>>77576870
i'd wager a guess i've had more science education than most/all here. it really helped me solidify my belief, much like it did with newton.
>>77576950
>>77576373
But infinity doesn't exist in the true sense, it's only a concept designed to make few calculations easier. You can compare it's use to complex numbers. They both are arbitrary concepts. If you want to find the potential of a point charge, you set your refential potential to infinity, although this really doesn't make sense. It is a concept that has no use in the physical universe.
>>77577616
Dark energy is a scientific term for
"Something we know nothing about"
Fact is, universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. It was proven by observing the red shift effect of distant objects in the universe.
That's my only point.
>>77577331
A 12-dimensional sphere with le happy merchant at the very edge.
No really, even if the universe had a 'shape', it would be unobservable for creatures as limited as us so it's kind of pointless to try and guess.
>>77569042
>Ok atheists tell me if the universe is cyclical, what created the circle?
What does a cyclical universe have to do with atheism?
>That's one of the reasons I consider myself a deist,
Okay. Who created this deity?
>>77577506
Seeing that gorilla's have an higher IQ than the average in some CHRISTIAN african countries and are just as self-conscious, does this mean that the gorilla also prays secretly at night or has other ways to become one with his divine being?
Didn't think so. Stop thinking we're special snowflakes.
>Implying humanity has begun to understand nature's archetype
>Implying modern science isn't a psyop
>Implying the Universe can be understood through your pathetic rational
step it up, plebs
>>77577901
A divine being doesn't need cause and effect. it is the first mover.
>>77577181
if you wrote down everything that ever happened in existence from 'big bang' to now and to the future'... god would be the paper you wrote it on. if you are forcing me to admit i am not an all knowing god like creature, than i admit i am not. faith... is a natural state of mind in humans. to twist your brain and remove it is a mental illness. accept that everything you see and 'perceive' with your consciousness is evidence, for what ever you believe. i hope you find your faith soon before times up.
>one post by this id
fuck off shillfags
>>77577730
The amount of scientific education doesn't even matter as long as christians can always resort to the "BUT BEFORE THSI??????"-argument
It's still laughable that they don't seem to know that the insertion of a god into the equation results in the same question on a higher level.
>>77577992
But in what substance does he move and out of what substance is the 'first mover' created?
>>77569042
>Ok atheists tell me if the universe is cyclical, what created the circle?
Why is there an assumption that this "cycle" had to be created?
If your deity can be necessarily existing and not need a creator, then so can "existence" or the "universe" or however you want to label it, and Occam's razor slices your deity right off in the process.
>>77577205
>>77577616
basically, none of the scientists know, none of them have any working theories, none of them can explain it, none of them can think of a method to test their finding that they dont have....
in short, listening to their theories is one thing, believing them is another. they've got a calculation error if you ask me.
>>77578097
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ
>>77577778
>Fact is, universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. It was proven by observing the red shift effect of distant objects in the universe.
>That's my only point.
I was just saying there's no evidence dark energy is related to gravity. In terms of providing a zero-gross-energy-universe balance to mass, it's promising, but evidentially unfounded.
>>77577992
>A divine being doesn't need cause and effect. it is the first mover.
Then neither does the universe, otherwise you're just engaging in egregious special pleading fallacies.
And if the universe doesn't need a cause or effect because it is the primary mover, then again, Occam's razor slices your deity right off.
>>77569644
each one of those lines goes in a circle
op, the circle was created by a fixed object, oblately relative to the forces acting upon it over a period of time and then observed. it appeared to be a circle because most of the mass was a uniform density. most things aren't circles because they're made of parts you can't see, which make up the properties and energies that would make it a circle. i do understand your thinking, if it's a circle it would close on itself and not be able to cycle, but if you consider more than just visible geometry l2thermodynamics
>>77569042
>Ok atheists tell me if the universe is cyclical, what created the circle?
...why would I tell you that?
I lack a belief in the supernatural, that doesn't have anything to do with the universe being cyclical?
>>77577741
You're stupid. Nature is a recurring infinity because nature derives its proportions from an archetype that does not 'physically' exist. Same thing with your dreams and thoughts, they exist based upon your own self and experiences.
Also, tones and geometry are proof of this concept.
>>77569042
What is wrong with you people, why do you think a god is more likely than just coincidence.
Because if a god did exist HOW DID IT GET THERE?
Chance? it was always there?
Then why couldnt the universe have always been there, if just appeared, why couldnt the universe have just appeared.
Is it that hard to understand that a god does NOT make anything more likely?
>>77578020
It's actually a mental illness to believe that everything you don't understand must be created by some magical creature who has no beginning or end.
If god is the paper our timeline is written on then this paper must have been there before our timeline. What is the substance of this paper and in which 'time'-membrane does this paper float?
The difference between me and you is that I actually dare to admit that I don't know and that there is a chance that some 'being" exists beyond space and time that created all this but even then my mind also tells me that this does not solve the unsolvable question of "what happened before him". Then again that question is also irrelevant as time is something we as puny human observe but might not have an effect in the X-dimensional "everything" our universe exists in.
>>77576919
none of them are over 19... most are probably/sadly raised by a single mom... it's a reality we must all face having to deal with fagots like these in todays world. incomplete human beings.
>>77569123
In rational philosophy, that's called a category mistake.
We're talking about a figure who willed existence into being. All existence is zeroes and the entity is a 1.
Asking that question is like asking, "Is there a an apple so red that it's a Chevy?"
>>77577741
The universe is probably infinite since spacetime seems to be flat, of course it is impossible to actually observe something that is infinite
>>77578169
Read the comments. Educate yourself.
This video is nonsense.
>>77578304
>We're talking about a figure who willed existence into being.
You're talking about an imaginary figure you imagine willed the universe into being.
>>77577097
you a believer in science laddy? do tell your gospel.
Dear /pol/,
Please stop. You won`t get anywhere or prove anything with constant Christian threads. Both deists and atheists are biased when it comes to this topic, and neither will accept that the other is right. So how about we just stop polluting this site with these discussions altogether ?
Existence exists axiomatically.
Prove me wrong.
>>77578141
If a deity can be necessary existing and not need a creator then so can the universe.
Perhaps non-believers and believers are actually just discussing semantics as in whether or not the "rules" that decide which "thing" didn't need a creator can be defined as a "god" or just something "scientific that started it all"
Perhaps God is best described by the circumstances and galactic rules which caused everything to come into existence.
>>77569042
>I cant rationalize how something was created out of nothing without a divine figure that willed itself into existence.
Could have stopped at "I can't rationalize."
>>77574303
That's why it's called faith, derp.
There is no religion that claims they are certain of the existence of God, only that it is the most likely conclusion.
>>77578329
you should read the comments, it's a bunch of triggered atheists dealing with their cognitive dissonance
You convinced me.
There is a God.
A God who created pediatric cancer so little children could suffer and die.
But look! There's pretty daisies over there! So it all equals out.
Inb4 edgy since that's the only counter argument you religionists can come up with.
>>77569042
A) No one knows
B) Why would you add a needless unfalsifiable extra to a problem that just adds more questions?
C) There's no evidence that it didn't occur naturally so it's safe to assume it did until proved otherwise.
>>77578219
I think the lines all go into a circle because the OP is not that good at drawing/finding a good picture to show what actually happens.
The blue arrow should OR be a straight lane in a certain upwards angle or perhaps an accelerating curve towards a vertical asymptote.
ITT: people who don't know that math isn't real, it's just a human construct for describing the universe
Guys cmon take an undergrad math class ffs
>>77569123
yes, obviously. god creates a stone that no man can life, god in his man, water or wind form cannot lift it. he could change to earthquake or world explosion, thus defying concepts like "up" or "lift" but then he's already proved it once.
there's no such thing as coda
>>77578449
>Perhaps God is best described by the circumstances and galactic rules which caused everything to come into existence.
Uh, no, that would be the best description of hte circumstances and rules which caused everything to come into existence, if such an event ever happened, which I am unconvinced of. It is my personal opinion, based on the evidence that we have, that there was no such "beginning" that existence has always existed, will always exist, axiomatically, and therefore there was no point where "everything was caused to come into existence".
And set theory proves this to be the case, because you must have the set of existant things before you can begin to fill the set with existing things, which means that even if a God exists, it must be slave to the reality that existence exists axiomatically, which would mean its not really God like the theists of our species have been proposing for thousands of years aka the primary mover, the first cause, the guy who made all this shit go tick.
Relabeling that process "God" is as meaningless as renaming it "Magic Wizard".
You're just relabeling things "God" so you can feel good about believing in nonsense for no good reason.
>>77578467
>There is no religion that claims they are certain of the existence of God, only that it is the most likely conclusion.
It's as if you've never even visited Earth.
>>77578467
>There is no religion that claims they are certain of the existence of God
That is LITERALLY what religion is
>>77578697
>never even visited Earth
you're not missing much
>>77578299
You sound a bit like RADICAL ISLAM
>>77578619
>how can numbers be real if our brains aren't real?
>>77578534
The youtube really doesn't explain what I say in >>77578449
Every argument you "christians" (again, I'm not even an atheist myself) use to prove the existence of God can just as well be used to prove that the universe didn't need a starting point.
>>77577723
>Saying that faith and science are unrelated is simply wrong and stupid.
the ven diagrams of science and religion do not intersect. they are different subjects and cant be related to each other. sure science can attack specific dogma... but books written by men are bound to have flaws, proving the fallacies of men is nothing special.
you take specific aim at some specific passage in the bible or quoran or tora... and it just boils down to an ad hominem... it doesnt disprove the existence of god in any way, doesnt explain the conscious mind, the universe, our scortched rock in a sea of black.
everything you've said is elementary. if you continue down this path, you'll be an agnostic until you're 20 or so and realize existence means something.
>>77578567
>faggorty
deism is the belief there is a creator, not a governing being
>>77578614
To prove god in a contemporary sense, one must only recognised that in all, only a single archetype exists to accommodate the entirety of the material existence.
I really don't care who made the universe, how about that?
>>77578467
Faith also concluded that rain, storms, diseases, aids, faggotry and all that kind of stuff are punishments and rewards by a God.
We all know how that worked out.
>>77578050
>other people say stuff
ok, so i'm here, when did i say that?
>insertion of god into the equation
what equation... tell me of this higher level that wont have the muslims ripping your country apart in a few years... are you high bro?
>>77578934
While that is probably one of the more intelligent posts in this thread it is also completely besides the point as these christians believe that god is a beardman in the clouds (so to speak) who created everything.
If you ask them whether they would see a set of rules and circumstances which resulted in the "creation" of time and space as God then they would all answer no as it is not something they can grasp in their prayer-to-jesus fucked minds.
>>77578889
well I'm not christian, I'm pantheist so I agree with both claims
>>77578619
Does it matter whether or not it is real? Math is just as real as the text you've written in your post.
Maths is a LANGUAGE, not a science.
Physics majoe here you guys made le laugh nice shitpost
>>77578256
>things you dont understand
i understand about as much as any other scientists do... it hasnt shaken my faith.
i give you this take away if you'll let me... there is no part of science that demands you not to have faith... there is no part of religion that demands you not to ask why?
i know you fell for the science demands atheism meme... but you should take a step back and ask why
>>77578634
>god creates a stone that no man can life, god in his man, water or wind form cannot lift it. he could change to earthquake or world explosion
> Wat
Is god some sort of ultradigimon now who can change form into "world explosion"?
Holy shit the level of this thread is decaying faster than the speed of light (intended).
>>77569042
The question of "Who created the creator (of the creator of the creator etc.)?" counts against this idea of a divine being willing itself into existence.
If the divine being willed itself into existence then its will would have had to exist before the being. This means the being is not the first thing in existence but rather the will. So then how did the will come into existence?
>Turtles all the way down
Also;
>I don't believe that divine figure stuck around to govern every action in this universe so its entirely possible it doesn't even know humans exist.
How do you even support a claim like that? Seems like you claim knowledge about the traits of a thing you do not know if it even exists? Kinda weird tbfh.
>>77579265
>. there is no part of science that demands you not to have faith.
Faith is pretending to know things you cannot possibly know.
So you're wrong.
>>77575746
i dont think you understood him, the universe just exist. There are no before or after, its just is.
>>77579094
>intelligent posts
you're the guy name calling and calling people stupid... a mere utterance of the word faith triggers you to lash out in a childish manner... this was the most ironic post by far though, thanks
>.>
>>77578634
>burgerclap logic
>>77578656
see
>>77579094
Proof delivered.
So much text to explain that you don't understand that your type of a "God" can't solve any of the questions asked in this thread either.
The idea of a first mover is just as much grasped out of nowhere as the theories about the origins of our universe used in science.
>>77579094
Those aren't Christians and you're doing more harm to yourself than good by arguing because everything in this world is a complete illusion up until the point you discover the basis for it all.
God does exist, but he is not of this 'realm' (he is not material), but if you look into nature, he will make himself apparent, because you will recognise his beauty and perfection and ultimate order through all, for this is God's Will polarised into the material.
Real Christians believe that everything good is in accordance with God, fake Christians believe that god can be rationalised on human, or 'material' terms.
>>77571458
for once the leaf is right about something
>>77579478
There must be some language barrier here because absolutely nothing you said makes fucking sense.
>The idea of a first mover is just as much grasped out of nowhere as the theories about the origins of our universe used in science.
The theories about the origin of our current universe as accepted in science is founded in hard observable facts about the way light and matter operate in our universe, including concepts such as red shift, conversion of lower order elements into higher order elements, etc.
Saying that the sciences have pulled their theories regarding these topics out of thin air is nonsense. The very word theory in this context means, by definition, observed, tested, demonstrated to be explanatory models for these observations.
All knowledge is based on assumption.
The question is why do you choose to believe in what you do?
Atheists choose to believe in a world with no afterlife, no true justice, no reason, no binding moral structure.
Why?
>>77579669
>Real Christians
No true scotsman fallacy detected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9PfSJ72Xqg&ab_channel=HatFilms
>>77578902
I'm 27 and I'm very interested in figuring out where we came from without assuming any theory to be true.
Unlike christians I can actually admit I don't know whether there's a god or some set of rules that created this universe and as long as I don't know I choose to not blindly believe in something.
Trying to bring the bible or quran or tora into this is stupid as everyone with any common sense knows that it's a bunch of fairy tales written by one of the best pre-/b/-era trolls in history, especially seeing that the book is almost an exact copy of other religious books that were written thousands of years earlier.
I'm not even trying to disprove anything from the bible as it's simple fact that it was written by a human. The Quran doesn't even need extensive studying to come to the conclusion that it's written by a human who's emotions change over time (which is why in earlier parts muslims are supposed to tolerate and be friends with christians and jews and later on he says to kill them when he's at war).
So don't worry about me friend. I think I'm just fine living without some comforting "God" who gives half the world cancer and is fine with people being stoned (not the drug type) in messed up shitholes like KSA. Perhaps there is a God but in that case he won't give a shit about your individual prayers anyways so why bother devoting your life to it/him/whatever?
>>77579265
Which is why I'm not against faith. I am against believers who somehow think they can prove they hold the universal truth as they know just as little as everyone else but decided to believe in "something" just for their own comfort.
>>77579789
>All knowledge is based on assumption.
>The question is why do you choose to believe in what you do?
>Atheists choose to believe in a world with no afterlife, no true justice, no reason, no binding moral structure.
>Why?
Pragmatism. The only base assumptions that should be made are the ones required to be made to survive in reality. So you assume 1: Reality exists. 2: The logical absolutes hold true. And that's it. That's all you need to assume, and that is the closest you can get to unbiased from the get go as there is. Any other assumptions are excess, and therefore must be excised thanks to principles of parsimony.
Also, this line:
>>Atheists choose to believe in a world with no afterlife, no true justice, no reason, no binding moral structure.
Is like at least 70% strawman.
>>77579826
you should look into spiritual enlightenment senpai
>>77579823
Fag, there are so many denominations and so many heretics that the only remainng christians have already fled for the catacombs and the hills and the mountains.
Also, you cannot be a Christian and live in the city, this is a red flag for all true Christians subject to the Orthodox faith.
>>77579826
>>77579941
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_bs-W_xON4
>>77579410
>implying you're not talking in a belittling way, pretending to know how everyone is in life and how they think just to make your argument "stronger" at the end.
I'm not calling people who have faith stupid by definition. Just those who somehow think they can "prove" that they are right in believing in "something" which helps them sleep better at night.
For that reason, yes, my personal opinion is that you are stupid. If that makes me childish in your mind then so be it.
>>77580021
Doubling down on the No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't make it any less fallacious.
You're all Abrahamists to me, by the way. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Ba'hai, etc.
>>77579478
Imho the singularity/big bang idea is not that grasped out of nowhere. It is a theory of the admittedly unknown origins of the universe by observing the current state of the universe and extrapolating those observations to its logical conclusion. This theory of how things have come into existence means that for it to be true certain other things must logically also be true. For some of these things evidence has also been found, though for many no evidence has yet been found. Very little if any evidence has been found to disprove these things.
A true scientist will tell you that there is no certainty about the origin of the universe. Any scientist that tells you there is certainty is either performing politics or lacks in his critical mind. The absence of certainty does not mean though that it's not a best guess.
The first mover theory on the other hand has no evidence other than the absence of evidence and gets routinely disproven by toddlers asking simple questions.
>>77580110
Yeah, good for you sport. But in the end you will only judge yourself for you are still subject to divine law.
>>77579669
Why are you pretending to know what "God" finds beautiful and perfect?
Most things in our universe are dead round objects or gas giants. Why would you think God likes beautiful nature more than that? Wouldn't he just have created one huge sphere full of nature then which makes out the entire universe?
>>77578169
god damn those atheist 12 yr olds are cringy as fuck.
>>77580138
Right. Prior to the planck time, its all speculation, and may always all be speculation.
>>77580217
>Subject to divine law
You can't demonstrate a divine law giver exists, ergo there is no reason to conclude that divine law exists.
If you would like to attempt to demonstrate a divine law giver exists, please feel free to do so. I need a good laugh this morning.
>>77579778
They have not pulled their theories out of thin are but as long as they remain theories based on other theories and observations of things we can also only theorise about we're going in circles.
There is no way to predict whether or not our current theory of the origin of our universe won't change drastically in the coming years or centuries due to new technologies and observations (or theoretical calculations).
>>77580363
>They have not pulled their theories out of thin are but as long as they remain theories based on other theories and observations of things we can also only theorise about we're going in circles.
Uh, no. Fail right out the gate. That isn't a circle. That's a linear line of increasing knowledge.
>There is no way to predict whether or not our current theory of the origin of our universe won't change drastically in the coming years or centuries due to new technologies and observations (or theoretical calculations).
Irrelevant. The self correcting nature of science is its strength. Not its weakness.
>>77580138
I never said that the Big Bang isn't a very plausible idea. I'm just saying that the Big Bang Theory doesn't explain the real origin of our universe as it doesn't somehow manage to mathematically show what happened "before" the Big Bang and/or what caused it.
Hence neither the Big Bang or the existence of God excludes events that happened before which cultimated into the Big Bang or the "appearance" of said God.
I fully agree with your point on the first mover theory though.
There is no "creator of the universe." A creator would necessarily be part of existence, meaning part of a pre-existing universe. The only way you can justify a creator is by inventing a supernatural dimension that violates all observable laws of identity and for which there is absolutely no evidence.
The only thing you can say about the universe is that it exists. And if the law of identity holds true in all contexts--and we have no reason to believe that it doesn't--then the universe has always existed, and always will. Incidentally, this is what the ancient Greeks believed.
>>77579826
>blindly
there you go again... there is nothing blind about it. you have proven nothing but that the concept of natural human faith is foreign to you. you have twisted your mind around to accomplish this. you'll notice one day i hope.
>completely ignored my point
you admit or not that science and religion are not related? you seem to have ignored my point and launched into a broad ad hominem like i would ascribe to a teenager... so forgive me if i doubt your stated age given your statements/adhominem/insults. atheists always attack dogma... never faith... never admit science cannot answer those same questions and never will.
>dont worry about me friend
i'm dont care about your retched soul. just defending the faith lad, like your ancestors did for millenia and you refuse to. i foresee a day of regret for you.
>>77569042
The thing is, is that it don't matter if God exists or he don't, doesn't change nothin bout my life. So maybe he exists and maybe some can even prove it but what the hell should I care if it don't make no difference to me.
>>77574803
>you literally can not understand the natural human faith in god.
The organized religions tortured it out of me. Seriously, if we can just get rid of all the ones from the Middle East, the world would be a MUCH better place.
>>77580308
Read >>77579669 and >>77578249
>>77580603
Good to see someone else understands the nature of set theory, and the laws of identity.
You're exactly 100% correct from my view.
Nothing cannot exist, ergo existence exists axiomatically, and all existing things must fall within this set, and therefore if a god existed, it must by definition fall within the set of existing things, which would make it slave to existence, and therefore not god.
>>77580706
I've read every post in this thread and none of them demonstrate a divine law giver exists.
>>77580441
There's not even a point in discussing with you as you're doing nothing else but trying to catch me on semantics and pulling everything out of context.
But hey I'll try again:
The odds for the first mover theory to be correct cannot be calculated as higher, lower or the same than the theories we currently use to describe the origins of the universe.
The self correcting nature of science is not a given. It can be that right now we are pretty close to the truth, and due to new observations come to a theory which is COMPLETELY wrong after which we stop making progress alltogether.
There is nothing which excludes this possibility.
So no it's not a linear line of increasing knowledge. Certain curve balls in observation or simply human error might make us go into the wrong direction at any given point.
>>77579939
>not against faith
i got an audible chuckle out of that one. the bitter spite pours out from your soul and you gleefully apostatize as you pounce on the pious like a jackal. it must really make you fume to know there are people who can go toe to toe with your insane atheist logic and still have a better understanding of science than you. you'll find out one day son, hope it's not on your last day though.
>>77580246
If you've never been in space how can you know for certain that the planets are what the scientists say they are?
Also, about god and beauty, read up on the pythagorean sects.
What's with this massive cuck ideology of a single, all-powerful God we all need to bootlick and praise?
I mean, there's literally nothing keeping you from believing anything different, right? So why not believe all conscious beings willed ourselves into existence, and together crafted a physical world we could experience in a mortal form, without infinite knowledge, power, or presence?
It seems illogical and just...wrong that there'd be a single domineering will in a universe that has thus far displayed not only a duality, but a massive gray scale in between that duality.
It just makes more sense that there'd be at least one more will to keep a balance.
>>77577915
I'm not saying the implications of this article (and all that have been written on the same vid) are true but your message made me think about it : http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mysterious-chimpanzee-behavior-may-be-evidence-of-sacred-rituals/
>>77580748
That's your problem retard. It's like you think that the whole world belongs to you, and you alone.
>>77569042
Be a slave to a god or cast off all gods/demons and be a god.
Choice is clear
>>77580609
There is no such thing as natural human faith. How can you claim that it is natural if it was given to you from childhood. Do you remember dreaming about god or jesus or a higher being before you were influenced by your surroundings?
Of course not!
>>77580609
The "holy books" can hardly be seen as an ad hominem unless you are the reincarnation of Jesus now.
> YOU WILL BURN FOR THIS HEATHEN 8è!"!è"'!"è'!"
You should start CS (christian state) somewhere in the desert.
>I know everything about made up ideas of the universe
> God ha! the universe is god
>is God exists then it is no god
> What created God?
> Dark matter
> Infinity
holy shit is this really what i sounded like when i was an atheist?
>>77580823
>There's not even a point in discussing with you as you're doing nothing else but trying to catch me on semantics and pulling everything out of context.
Uh, no, the definition of a theory in science is not a semantics game, its critical. Theory in science does not mean what the layman thinks it means. When you say that scientists are just using theories built on other theories, you're attempting to downplay the critical importance of that.
Theories are proven models in science. They have been demonstrated to work, to accurately explain the phenomena we are observing such that we can predict how these phenomena will play out in various scenarios.
>The odds for the first mover theory to be correct cannot be calculated as higher, lower or the same than the theories we currently use to describe the origins of the universe.
This is just plain false, and leads me to think you've never taken a basic stats course, or a basic logic course.
I'm sorry but it just does.
The odds of a first mover theory being correct are miniscule, virtually nil. The very premise is logically fallacious on its face, as it is a case of special pleading. Illogical things can happen, but there is no case to be made that we should just assume the probability is the same as observable phenomena, like the Big Bang. Which is observable.
>The self correcting nature of science is not a given.
This is nonsense, the entire process of science is, by definition, built to be self correcting.
Basically, your argument is founded in a total misunderstanding of what science is and how it operates.
>>77580894
It's an ideology that allows for kings and gives divine affirmation to authority. You are naturally above the citizens just as God is naturally above all people. If you make authority a law of nature by defining it as the law of the universe you empower yourself if you are an authority figure.
>>77580968
Still not seeing a single piece of evidence to demonstrate the existence of a divine law giver.
I do see someone getting frustrated and resorting to personal attacks when asked to simply provide evidence to support their claims, which is often a sign they have none and know it.
>>77580830
Again my logic isn't atheist. My logic is that I don't know what's out there and not resort to a "God" just for the comfort of my "soul".
If you can't even derive my opinion properly after 10+ posts then I'm the one that should "chuckle".
And really, all your "burn in hell" provocative bullshit won't help either.
The most ridiculous part about your religion is that you somehow believe that if a God existed (which is possible for me), he would give a flying fuck about a spec of dust praying in a remote area in the vast universe.
That means both you and me.
>>77580873
So scientists are in fact demons who try to stop us from seeing God's real beauty.
Noted.
>>77580106
>i'm not calling people who have faith stupid.
yes you did, including in this post
>>77579826
>>77577723
>just those that think they are right
i am right. continue being wrong if you'd like to. i sleep great btw. i realize it must be just terrible twisting your mind to be an atheist... i went though that phase as a teenager too, but 27?
maybe you are just expecting concessions from religious people for no reason, is that what they do in belgium? you have proven nothing, except your lack of science knowledge and your lack of faith and how you are drawn to atheist memes like a moth to a flame. this has brought you no closer to any understanding of life, all in the name of science (which doesnt say to do this to yourself)
>>77581244
>The most ridiculous part about your religion is that you somehow believe that if a God existed (which is possible for me), he would give a flying fuck about a spec of dust praying in a remote area in the vast universe.
WEW
E
W
Noah would like to have a word with you.
>>77569042
>I cant rationalize how something was created out of nothing...
>without a divine figure that willed itself into existence.
Is this bait?
>>77569042
what if i refuse to submit to any religion but still live as a good person and treat people in a good way ? am i gonna go to hell for not being 'religious' ?
>>77581168
anon you aren't really saying anything.
Youre just being a pretentious faggot
>>77580968
> That's your problem retard. It's like you think that the whole universe belongs God, and God alone.
>>77581399
Deism is a belief not a religion
>>77581351
>Noah would like to have a word with you.
You mean an imaginary character from a book of fiction, a 700 year old man claimed to have built a boat in his backyard large enough to house 2 (or 7 depending which version of the story you pick) of every animal on Earth while the entire planet was flooded, for which there is no geological evidence and no reason to conclude this story is anything but fictional narrative?
Cool story bro.
>>77580697
europe is finding out how awesome atheism is for their culture and society at the moment.
>>77581382
hook line and sinker
>>77581479
let's just assume i don't label myself as anything, i just don't like the idea of submitting myself to a religion, letting the religion tells me what's wrong and right, etc., but i still live as a good person. where do i belong ? heaven ? hell ?
>>77581621
depends on religion?
>>77581002
children are born knowing god. knowing that they are special, that they are perceiving sights and sounds in a special way. it's only though parental misdirection that they are led astray into a selfish existence full of pride.
>>77581210
I know how it's used to control people, I'm asking how come people don't realize that's what they believe in and stop believing?
>>77581673
>children are born knowing god. knowing that they are special, that they are perceiving sights and sounds in a special way. it's only though parental misdirection that they are led astray into a selfish existence full of pride.
[citation required]
>>77581510
Don't forget that it was stolen from previous texts and myths from older cultures.
>>77581399
You know the answer. Yes, according to many religions.
>>77580028
>BTFOs everyone ITT
>nobody responds
>>77581767
is it fair and justice ?
>>77581168
>Theories are proven models in science. They have been demonstrated to work, to accurately explain the phenomena we are observing such that we can predict how these phenomena will play out in various scenarios.
Proven to work in scenario's and observations that are limited by our current knowledge and technology
>This is just plain false, and leads me to think you've never taken a basic stats course, or a basic logic course.
It's not since no scientist or mathematician will be able to draw you up a formula showing how close we are to the truth in the current state.
Using the concept of infinity in maths can actually help you understand this.
The universal truth is a number which can reach up to infinity
The current theories have a value of 100
The first mover theory has a value of 0 (because it's based on nothing)
100 is not closer to infinity than 0. Hence, both "theories" have the same odds of being closest to the "real" truth.
>I'm sorry but it just does.
Good that you're sorry about something.
> Basically, your argument is founded in a total misunderstanding of what science is and how it operates.
Basically you think that humanity can only move into a straight line towards the universal truth which has been proven to be wrong throughout history.
>>77581665
what are you, christian ? how would jesus sort me out ?
>>77569042
You can't just jump around into conclusion that there is a divine figure whether they are a deity from a particular religion or an extra-dimensional entity. IMO by following the scientific method, I wouldn't believe something that the scientific community doesn't know yet (yeah I'm that guy) but I would entertain the thought. One step at a time we'll find out the answers to your question unless we're dead in the future.
>>77581327
No since people who have faith don't think they can prove the existence of God by definition. Some of you people are actually rational and admit that even though they believe in God, they cannot prove him to be real as of right now.
Your kind is actually closer to radical islam than real christianity.
This doesn't have to be a problem though. It just is for you.
>>77581244
you are a apostate turned atheist. it is a sad case. i wont judge you, but hope you have time in your life to come to know the truth and repent.
>The most ridiculous part about your religion is that you somehow believe that if a God existed (which is possible for me), he would give a flying fuck about a spec of dust praying in a remote area in the vast universe.
there you go again, just like i said... you discount your own conscious mind, body, and soul as literally less than nothing. this is a mental disorder imo... you have selfworth, meaning and purpose, i dont even know you and i know god loves you.
why is it necessary to belittle yourself for your atheist logic to ring true?
>>77581243
Last time I say it.
Everything in this world is formed out of a particular mathematical order called an archetype.
This archetype cannot exist in the physical world, so most probably it exists in the aether, the aether of which imposes this archetype onto the material.
This archetype must have been contemplated beforehand, or it wouldn't have been enforced. The contemplator is the source, and the source is god, for the archetype is perfect and divine. This btw was discovered a long time ago in prehistory, but the pythagoreans contemplated beauty and art, and incorporated the mathematical archetype into their work.
>>77581621
hell because you stand before God on judgement day and he will judge you on your works instead of Jesus who you reject
>>77569042
pseudo intellectuals the thread
>>77581351
This has to be a trollpost rofl.
>>77581892
you might want to read this
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell
>>77581510
>>77581767
hey look it's the middle school edgelords... real thinkers.
>>77581405
This.
>>77581997
so someone's attitude and heart doesn't matter ? like, how someone treats other people. someone can be not religious and still be a good person.
>>77581543
Implying that the dark ages were good for Europe.
I know your American but please educate yourself in European history if you wish to use that subject.
The entire advanced civilization (including yours) actually derives from the moment when people decided to put themselves and human progress in the center instead of blind belief in religion.
>>77581673
How do you know this? You have the brain of a child it seems but that shouldn't allow you to communicate with 6 month old babies who were born alone in some cave without external influence.
>>77581510
cooincidentally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
going back to 40,000 years it's even higher elevation change.
>>77581825
Implying anyone is gonna watch an unknown bald guy with bad teeth for an hour on youtube just because you posted it in this thread.
>>77582157
All things are good in that they are required for what you perceive as good to happen.
>>77581720
>that id
i already mentioned previously your childish ideas were toxic, guess i should have hidden your posts... i see you just cannot add anything of value to the discussion. a true fagot.
>>77581847
>Proven to work in scenario's and observations that are limited by our current knowledge and technology
Uh, no.
>It's not since no scientist or mathematician will be able to draw you up a formula showing how close we are to the truth in the current state.
This is a non sequitor and completely meaningless.
Your "math" explanation is just...please go take a basic statistics class and logic class.
Holy shit.
>Basically you think that humanity can only move into a straight line towards the universal truth which has been proven to be wrong throughout history.
Uh, no. This is just a strawman.
When you can come up with a substantive rebuttal that doesn't involve multiple appeals to fallacy and a demonstration that you don't understand mathematics, statistics, or logic, please let me know.
Just because you don't believe in a god doesn't mean you are applying the principles of rational skepticism properly.
>>77581991
>
Everything in this world is formed out of a particular mathematical order called an archetype.
[citation required]
>This archetype cannot exist in the physical world, so most probably it exists in the aether, the aether of which imposes this archetype onto the material.
Please demonstrate that this "aether" exists.
>This archetype must have been contemplated beforehand, or it wouldn't have been enforced. The contemplator is the source, and the source is god, for the archetype is perfect and divine. This btw was discovered a long time ago in prehistory, but the pythagoreans contemplated beauty and art, and incorporated the mathematical archetype into their work.
Your argument boils down to "If you accept my assumptions about this aether that I cannot demonstrate exists, then you must accept my assumption that these archetypes I cannot prove exist, exists, and therefore my imaginary sky pal God must exist."
No.
>>77582342
If you spent like fifteen minutes looking into all of this you would get your answer, but no..
>>77569042
Ignorance = Sky Daddy
2/10 best I can do
>>77582322
>children are born knowing God
>childish ideas were toxic
Which is it, faggot? Is childishness to be knowing God, or is it toxic?
>>77581990
No I am a realist and you telling me about burning in hell indirectly really doesn't change the fact that you don't know and can't prove anything either.
I don't discount my own conscious mind as less than nothing. I want to help humanity progress as a species but I'm not going to pretend my individual soul is worth a thing towards some magical spacewizard who created EVERYTHING in the entire universe.
And no, it's not more true because Jesus told you so.
You see it as belittling myself. I see it as being rational which allows me to make choices in life which might help humanity to get closer to the truth.
