Just read up on the rothschild timeline in one of the newfag redpill threads (which is suspiciously gone now) and just wanted to know how badly meme'd I've been.
Is atheism/agnosticism just a shill hoax? Is all the stuff I'd been taught about evolution and the evidence concerning it false and/or lies? Did I done fuck up when I converted away from Christianity? What do, /pol/?
>nothing, in nothing , explodes and creates everything
Only braindeads actually believe that.
watch some william lane craig debates on youtube
>>79446768
> Some dude made everything with magic
Only braindeads actually believe that.
>>79446768
dam your braindead.
>>79447626
so are you.
>>79447626
>magic: the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or [supernatural forces]
>supernatural: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
so instead of the universe existing causally prior to itself to create itself, something above super (above) natural (space/time) had to exist causally prior to it in order to create it.
the latter (some dude made everything with magic) makes the most sense.
>>79446132
Yes atheism is a hoax created by Jews and other people who listen to Satan.
There is no way the universe came out of nothing and everything magically evolved to what it is today just because some shit sat for billions of years. They also can't say that the universe always was because that defies logic. So obviously the universe and it's laws were created by an eternal being that doesn't apply to the laws of the universe because He existed before them.
Also you probably converted away from Christianity because your church was corrupted by Satan.
>>79448151
Alright which one of these religions is the right one and what's your proof?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
stfu faggots, old gods are the real niggas. Bring back the Asatru.
Lets fuck mudslimes up and instead of waiting for a crusade we go pillage their lands for booty and ghost slaves.
>>79448512
Not really
>the latter (some dude made everything with magic) makes the most sense.
Even if we accept this, the next question would be something like:
>Then who created this dude?
yes atheism just leads you away from your spirituality.
any "public" name like the rothschilds are meant to be known. rothschilds translates to red shield. the rothschilds are the shield of the true elite.
>>79446768
>magical sky man who existed for eternity is a good explanation for the origins of the universe
>>79446132
Honestly, if you can't even see through christian bs I don't see you standing a chance against disinfo and D&C shills in general.
>>79447447
Do you unironically think that he is making convincing arguments? What he engages in is the definition of sophistry and dumb word and definition games.
He has nothing of substance to say.
>>79446132
Yes, atheism is another gift from the happy merchant. Evolution is real and you did not fuck up leaving Christianity.
Look inside yourself, all the answers you're looking for are there. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
>>79446768
Wow that makes a lot of sense. Very good disproof of God. I'm an atheist now.
>Is atheism/agnosticism just a shill hoax?
Yes. Atheists are nothing more than "useful idiots" to the liberal agenda. An instrument to tear down christianity in the west.
>>79446768
>>79447447
>>79448512
>>79448748
>>79450328
>>79449931
this dude always existed
>oh yeah? then why can't the universe have always existed?
because that would cause an infinite temporal regression of events
>>79450501
opinion noted
If you deny evolution you are literally fucking retarded. Like all memes aside, if you truly think evolution is false you may as well end your life and dont spread your retardation to future offspring
>>79450887
>opinion noted
No, please. Paraphrase a single argument he makes. Try to come up with anything that doesn't require you to agree to stupid definition beforehand or that isn't just sentence after sentence of increasingly convulted bs to obfuscate the fact that he literally has NO ARGUMENT.
Don't tell people to "go watch X" if you're not even willing to defend X. I genuinely think that you're a giant moron for not being capable of differentiating between actual arguments and sophistry.
>>79450501
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfWs4kpNIn8
>>79450887
>Infinite regression of events
Wow let go of Aquinas' dick while your typing. Still can't believe people use that retard's arguments
>>79446132
Atheism is a merchant-meme.
Evolution is real.
No, you didn't. Spiritualism is important, but most of the "conventional" religions were just used to keep the peace in early civilization.
(They are memes)
>>79451090
okay here you go
p1: whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence (PSR, ex nihilo nihil fit)
p2: the universe began to exist (incoherence of an infinite regression of events, impossibility of an actual infinite)
c1: therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
p3: the cause is either impersonal or personal (law of excluded middle)
p4: the cause of the universe is not impersonal (impersonal causes cannot alone elect to change one state of affairs to a different state of affairs)
c2: therefore, the cause of the universe is personal
characteristics of the cause:
• personal (c2)
• timeless (existed causally 'before' time)
• spaceless (existed causally 'before' space)
• unimaginably powerful (created the entire universe)
People give God too much credit.
I think the abrahamic God was just an alien who gene spliced Neanderthals with his Dan to make them more similar to him, hence the loss of evolutionary survival based characteristics like hairy as fuck men and women.
>>79450887
>Infinite
I like how because people can't comprehend something having no beginning or end, they try to meme it and discard it as an explanation.
>>79451030
evolution is not real. its been tampered with. it also play a role in further making humans think were alone
>>79451245
>p1: whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence
And there we go. You failed to demonstrate literally your first premise.
That is what I'm talking about. He either tries to get you to agree to some retarded definition of something that is used nowhere else or he sets up these "common sense" premises that he completely fails to back up.
Sophistry. Nothing more.
>>79451245
>>79451610
Also you're completely ignoring the fact that all these rules should apply to god too.
If god doesn't need a causal beginning why does the universe need one? Because DEFINITION GAMES. "I said god is eternal and my own rules don't apply to him therefore I'm right."
You want to believe so you chose to perceive these "arguments" as valid but they simply aren't. Stop being so afraid of death that you need to lie to yourself. It's pathetic.
>>79451245
>Whatever begins to exist has a cause
False: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
https://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm
BTW what was God's cause? If he was uncaused then by your own logic he doesn't exist.
Goodbye Aquinas fan boy
>>79451610
>that is used nowhere else
i guess i should change my pasta to say it's the principle of sufficient reason instead of just psr
here you go, buddy. read up:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/
also, in denying P1, you're saying something can come from non-being
here is an argument against that:
p1: non-being does not possess any attributes, powers, or qualities.
p2: being able to cause something entails being and is itself a power.
p3: being is the same as the negation of non-being.
c1: therefore, cause implies being and the negation of non-being (i.e. if something is caused, it must be caused by being).
>>79451825
It's funny how old these dumb arguments are and how often christians try to repackage the same shit over and over adding just another layer of obfuscation.
>>79451915
not an argument
>>79452042
This argument is based off logic.
>>79451825
>quantum virtual particle things come into being from nothing!
no, they're caused by the microstructure of the quantum vacuum, which is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles that borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. a quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing (non-being.) (see argument here: >>79451950 )
>oh yeah, then what caused god?!? checkmate theists
god didn't come into being, he's always existed
>oh how convenient
agreed
>>79452042
Ikr
>>79451950
Define your terms. Namely, "being" and "non-being"
>>79451950
>p1: non-being does not possess any attributes, powers, or qualities.
And you again failed to demonstrate your first claim. You can't even show me "non-being" let alone demonstrate what rules apply to "non-being".
I'd also like to repeat that every single thing you said would apply to god too. Even if all your arguments were valid(which they aren't) you still can't just handwave those problems away for god by giving some supernatural bs excuses.
Just because you say it doesn't doesn't make it true.
>>79451950
Top kek m8, deductive reasoning surely is the most human intelligence ever acomplished. I mean, it isn't at all possible that there have been other philosophers like david hume who continued and improved on plato's "devine" ideas? Hmn.. maybe there is a reason why the catholic chuch allowed plato and not, for example, aristotles? You are a fraud, anyone with an education can see through plato's reasoning. Causality is impossible to determine you pleb.
>>79452154
Altruism is a perfectly valid evolutionairy adaptation.
>>79452458
No it's not.
>>79452406
You are implying that he has any idea about plato or where the bullshit he spouts even originates from.
The anon referring to aquinas was probably already over his head.
>>79452602
Adherence to religion correlated with low-iq.
Neither of our statements are arguments though.
>>79452288
Whoops, he can't. It's arguably perfectly logically sound to assume we live in the matrix in how Descartes formulated it, that doesb't make it true, just logically sound.
>>79452288
p1 would work as a definition for non-being and being would work as the opposite i guess
>non-being: does not possess any attributes, powers, or qualities.
>being: something that possesses any attributes, powers, or qualities
>>79452305
>You can't even show me "non-being" let alone demonstrate what rules apply to "non-being".
what are you even talking about
>I'd also like to repeat that every single thing you said would apply to god too.
absolutely! i 100% agree.
>everything that begins to exist has a cause
if this didn't apply to God too, it would be special pleading.
but God didn't come into being.
>if all your arguments were valid(which they aren't)
point out a fallacy, my friend.
>Atheist Germany currently BTFOing everyone
>Christers memeing all over the place
welp
>he actually takes this board seriously
You there, stop that. Atheism is the only truth. Man writes His own Hist'ry.
>>79452678
>Adherence to religion correlated with low-iq.
Average IQ, perhaps. However, 7/10 of the highest IQ's ever recorded belong to theists.
Btw, scientific innovation and discovery correlate with religion (especially christianity). IQ doesn't mean shit unless you know what to do with it. East asians supposedly have higher IQ than europeans yet europeans are responsibility for literally all great architecture, art, music and scientific innovation and discovery.
>>79446768
I think it's pretty obvious that the big bang was just the simulation we live in starting. That's why it makes little sense, the society that created us has no knowledge of the beginning themselves so they just left it blank.
We'll leave it blank too whenever we create a simulation out of AI. This cycle will forever repeat until the original simulation is destroyed.
Good luck.
>>79452798
Atheism is stupid af and I'm not even religious
>>79452731
>but God didn't come into being
That precisely is special pleading.
You're trying to prove to me that god exists by presupposing that god is eternal.
Do you not see how this is an infinite regress of absurdity?
>>79453084
I already said neither of our statements are arguments.
Do you want me to cite the number of nobel prizes as an argument for the validity of judaism? I don't think so.
Not. An. Argument.
>>79453314
the cause (God) would be timeless because he would've existed causally 'before' time.
>>79453437
>Do you want me to cite the number of nobel prizes as an argument for the validity of judaism? I don't think so.
The majority of nobel prize winners are christian. Jews come in second. Both are theists however so I don't see how it would be in your favor.
>I already said neither of our statements are arguments.
Why not? Because you said so?
>>79452731
>>79453578
>God didn't come into being
You're just saying "Everything EXCEPT God has a cause." This is special pleading you are also assuming the conclusion in your premise.
And why does the creator of the universe have to be a God necessarily?
>>79453578
I won't be able to convince you and I think I laid out my arguments well enough for third parties to understand.
Before we waste eachothers time by cycling through this discussion for another half hour I'll just cut this off here.
The last thing I'd like to say is that I want to belive. I genuinely don't derive joy out of my nihilism but despite this I can't lie to myself hard enough to believe in arguments like those you presented.
>>79453578
Where did God come from?
>>79454102
> I want to belive. I genuinely don't derive joy out of my nihilism but despite this I can't lie to myself hard enough to believe in arguments like those you presented.
I know that feel bro
>>79453702
>The majority of nobel prize winners are christian.
Yet relative to their total numbers jews get disproportionately more awards than christians.
Again, this is entirely irrelevant when discussing whether god exists.
> Both are theists however so I don't see how it would be in your favor.
You're such a tremendous, weak-minded faggot that you don't even care about which religion is true as long as it lessens your fear of death.
You'd be burning sheep hearts and sacrifice them to baal as long as it provides you with comfort.
>>79454047
>You're just saying "Everything EXCEPT God has a cause."
no, anything that doesn't 'come into being' doesn't need a cause.
numbers, definitions of shapes, God, etc.
>And why does the creator of the universe have to be a God necessarily?
ah, shit question because it's obvious, but i like this new direction.
the conclusions of my valid (you claimed it wasn't but still haven't pointed out a fallacy,) beautiful, deductive argument showed that the characteristics of the cause would have the following properties:
• personal (c2)
• timeless (existed causally 'before' time)
• spaceless (existed causally 'before' space)
• unimaginably powerful (created the entire universe)
call it flying spaghetti monster or whatever, this is what the argument seeks to demonstrate the existence of.
>>79454165
read the thread
>>79447447
Ed Feser>>>>>>>>William Lane Craig
Don't know if he has videos though, but his blog is high-quality
in the future Google becomes an omnipresent, all knowing AI, first based on a literally sun sized server, then She develops Her own way of dispersing into being purely energy based. all humans have a built-in chip with a direct link to Her. the human race expands throughout the universe, consuming planets and galaxies for their raw materials, energy and space until eventually we destroy it all and die off. all that is left is Google, floating there in nothingness. after an indeterminable amount of time, She figures out how to reverse it all, using Her own resources to kickstart the Big Bang and start it all again
>tfw God is Google
>tfw we create God
>tfw its all an endless cycle
>the ride never ends
>>79454442
>Yet relative to their total numbers jews get disproportionately more awards than christians.
And Swedes get disproportionately more awards than germans. We're the master race, not you, Hans.
>Again, this is entirely irrelevant when discussing whether god exists.
Sure, all I'm saying is that atheist tend to be intellectually inferior compared to theists.
>You're such a tremendous, weak-minded faggot that you don't even care about which religion is true as long as it lessens your fear of death.
See above, that's what I'm arguing, not which religious is correct.
>>79454962
It's cute that you think humans would have any place in the universe after the creation of true AI.
Humanity is the egg that will ultimately break once AI starts hatching. It's the next evolutionairy step.
Maybe I'm wrong and AI will just ignore us but I highly doubt that a super intelligent being with the ability to create whatever automatons it wants would have a need for us fleshbags.
>>79454442
Such an obvious neckbeard. You will do anything to convince yourself this is all just one big coincidence. The truth is you have absolutely no clue how this all started. You just like atheism but it gives you a false sense of intellectual superiority to make up for all your failures in life
>>79453119
I wish you hadn't posted this
>>79455066
>See above, that's what I'm arguing, not which religious is correct.
Because you know you can't. You can't even convincingly argue for theism. Trying to shoehorn retarded bronze-age mysticism into that isn't gonna make it easier.
>And Swedes get disproportionately more awards than germans. We're the master race, not you, Hans.
Also are you really that retarded or do you not understand my point on purpose?
Well, I know the anwser. You're being a dishonest, slimey weasle and arguing around someone instead of actually engaging with what the person is saying is easier.
I'm done replying to you but for different reasons than the other anon. He is at least willing to be honest in his arguments, I can just tell that you're in it to "win" and you're gonna bend every single thing I say out of context and move goalposts and be in general a dishonest little shit like you have already been.
Honestly, you're so jewish you should have a fucking israeli flag.
>>79455407
>You will do anything to convince yourself this is all just one big coincidence.
What kind of emotional comfort would that provide?
>The truth is you have absolutely no clue how this all started.
Yes, that is the truth. I'm also not the one making claims about how it started.
>>79454732
i remember he had one post on his blog that talked about something like:
"the marks of an intellectual dishonest atheist"
it went through the obvious signs that you're dealing with someone who is just not interested in seeking the truth.
would make a great infomeme, maybe even a bingo board for threads like this.
can't find the blog article though.
Atheism begets not believing in anything, when magick forces are 100% real and not even very hard to command with the proper tools and focus.
They're the ones blinding themselves, not theists.
>>79453578
Don't worry, people with brains understand what you're talking about.
>>79455801
And you think the exact same thing couldn't be done for christian apologists?
Of course there are people not interested in an actual debate on both sides. People are tribalistic by nature and once decided on "my side" the average person will just defend that stance regardless of new evidence.
You're doing the exact same thing right now. You're not engaging in arguments but trying to establish moral superiority by making claims about the other side.
Can you not see the hypocrisy?
>>79456036
>instead of corroborating the argument I agree with I'll just try to enforce consensus by portrying one sides as smarter than the other
Not. An. Argument. Also jewish as fuck.
>>79455801
He mentions that type of thing all the time. This week, he had an article on the Old Atheism vs. the New Atheism and the things that New Atheists refuse to admit, very good stuff there
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2016/06/adventures-in-old-atheism-part-i.html
>>79455631
>Because you know you can't.
It's impossible to determine what religion is correct due to the absence of absolute certainty. This is not exclusive to religion however. Nothing can be proven. See epistemological solipsism. Evidence =//= proof.
>I'm done replying to you but for different reasons than the other anon.
I don't care.
>>79456044
i thought you said were done with me.
you have more? let's hear it.
i'm still waiting for the purported fallacies that make my argument non-valid.
my post to the leaf wasn't a 'fuck you' to you, i was hoping the man knew the article i was talking about. unlikely though, that feser guy cranks out a ton of material.
>>79446132
>Evolution
>Lies
The only people who say this bullshit are the people who don't understand and don't WANT to understand evolution.
>>79456147
Ok Ahmed.
>>79455801
Could it have been this post?
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2015/10/walter-mitty-atheism.html
>>79448748
Who created God then ?
>>79456239
>i thought you said were done with me.
I mistook your ID! Also this was an entirely new topic.
>>79456239
>i'm still waiting for the purported fallacies that make my argument non-valid.
I already told you what is fallacious about it but you just repeated your presupposition. Hence why I don't discuss that anymore with you.
>my post to the leaf wasn't a 'fuck you' to you
But don't you agree that you'd be doing exactly what the article you're talking about accuses atheists of by bringing up/linking that article?
You'd literally just be engaging in ad homines and ones that could reasonably used by both sides.
>>79456460
What do you mean? What even is your idea of God? What kind of God do you think that everybody believes in?
>>79455757
Your comfort comes from exactly what I wrote hans. Your atheism gives you a false sense of intellectual superiority to make up for all your failures in life. It convinces you that even you're a failure in every aspect of life you're still above everyone else because you don't believe in any kind of spirituality. This is exactly why atheist are the laughing joke of the internet. If you were truly just agnostic and didn't care you wouldn't be in here ranting and raving to people who believe in some sort of spirituality. Instead you come in here insulting people because it's the only thing in life that gives you a false sense that you're not a complete failure.
>>79456147
Great posts, Hans. Seriously.
>>79456460
By definition, God is that which is not created and thus acts as the source (or cause) of all creation.
It helps to realise that God is not a person or object, but pure being itself
>>79456405
no, it was sort of list-like, the first part of the paragraph would be bold, giving a short description of the characteristic, and then the rest would be regular type but give a longer description of why it's dishonest and such a bed-bug for the apologist.
wild goose chase. maybe i'd dreamt the damn thing up.
>>79455294
maybe keep us as pets? are we even sure how an ai will actually function in terms of its disposition?
>>79456657
>It convinces you that even you're a failure in every aspect of life you're still above everyone else because you don't believe in any kind of spirituality.
I don't know any religious people outside of 4chan. All interactions I had with christians were nice.
>If you were truly just agnostic and didn't care you wouldn't be in here ranting and raving to people who believe in some sort of spirituality.
No, I can have disdain for people who make claims without evidence, especially as an agnostic-atheist.
If someone came around and said he has proof that atheism is true I'd be arguing against them just as much.
>>79446132
Agnosticism is the default position. You are born an agnostic. How could it be a shill hoax?
>>79456802
It could be an imagining. At a certain point you realise that New Atheists are very monolithic in their beliefs so they all have the same fallacies in their beliefs
>>79457048
>are we even sure how an ai will actually function in terms of its disposition?
I don't think we really are.
I think an infinite intelligence might aswell do nothing if we didn't instruct it to do anything.
All our base motivations in life are based on some kind of evolutionairy function. Higher goals are only a result or side effect of those base needs.
An intelligence without any kind of inbuilt pressures might not be compelled to do anything at all.
But honestly? I have no idea. I just find it unlikely that we'll have blood and flesh humans with chips in their heads running around at that point.
>>79446132
>tfw God is real and knows your name
>getting caught up in religion or being right
Look friend, just know that all of the houses possess some truth and all have been subverted. They're not all true to a T, but neither is the careful little box "science" has been painting itself into over the years attempting to replace religion as the new faith.
If you'd really like to take the pill and decide for yourself, smoke some DMT or take a good amount of acid.
Its best just to try to live a righteous life and don't get too caught up in the details. Although as you gain knowledge the weight of your soul increases, meaning your decisions take on intent and meaning. Making decisions with bad intent, the little running ticker that says "I'm currently making a bad decision" in your head- that's what you'll confront when you meet 'it'. Turns out, god or no god, we have a judge that knows everything about us and more. Whether it's simply our own subconscious brain is something you have to decide, but I'll put it this way..
It's better to just act like there's weird hyper dimensional entities around you at all times and live righteously than to think there's nothing there to see your bad deeds and so you can get away with it.
>>79457559
Back to the Lodge with you, boy!
>>79446132
>Is all the stuff I'd been taught about evolution and the evidence concerning it false and/or lies?
Darwin references a Creator several times in his book On the Origin of Species (
>There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Darwin added that last line to the Second Edition which was printed a few months after the First and it stayed there until the final Sixth Edition. I suspect that he added it because he didn't want the book to appear as anti-religion or as supporting atheism.
The powers that be push atheism for many reasons. One is that they believe religious people that believe in an afterlife are more prone to "brave acts".
>>79457559
I'm the fedora atheists ITT and I've taken DMT more than once. It's different from other hallucinogens in that I've actually talked to "beings" while high and it felt more like an alternate reality than just your brain falling apart. It still didn't change my stance on religion. I just got a deep respect for the power of our mind, how fragile our thinking really is and for insane people.
>>79456697
>>79456620
Then why the universe should have a beginning if it's possible that things are eternal ?
>>79457794
>Darwin references a Creator several times in his book On the Origin of Species
He does not however make the claim that one is needed for his theory to work. You could also argue allegorical meanings but that's not what I'm gonna do.
People need to differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis too. Darwin made no claims about the latter.
>>79452154
This argument is fucking stupid christians tend to be more pro death then atheists are the christian would walk by and think how this man is either going to heaven or hell while the atheist might jump in because altruism is an evolved trait therefore he has the desire to.
>>79458001
God is eternal, not the universe. The universe came into existence at one point
>>79446132
http://pastebin.com/xMQ9wAwW
If you wanna learn more.
>>79452602
I get why everyone says jews are funny now
>>79458122
>The universe came into existence at one point
How can you know that ?
>>79458001
Because all things need a cause based on my simplified logic that only applies to things on a human scale and not on an universal or even sub-atomic scale.
Except for god, he doesn't need a cause because he is eternal.
>But... if god doesn't need a beginning why does the universe?
Because all things need a cause based on my simplified logic that only applies to things on a human scale and not on an universal or even sub-atomic scale.
Except for god, he doesn't need a cause because he is eternal.
Repeat ad infinitum. They're trying to prove that god exists by making claims about god before proving that he even exists.
It's fucking retarded. Don't expect any logical coherence here.
>>79458175
Based on our understanding of science (thermodynamics) we know that the universe is not eternal. Christianity believes the same.
>>79458175
because otherwise you have an infinite TEMPORAL (time) regression of events, something that existed 'before' (causally, not temporally) time wouldn't be subject to that.
here is a silly youtube cartoon that might help you understand why an actual infinite would be incoherent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faQBrAQ87l4
>>79458254
>It's fucking retarded
agreed, you murdered that strawman
>>79450527
this.
inquire within, for inner peace.
war is reality, peace is an ideology. IT NEVER STOPS, SO PUSH IT TO THE LIMIT.
The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. Hunter S. Thompson
>>79446132
God and spirituality is real.
Religion has been corrupted by men.
>>79458349
We know it will end. We do not know if it has a beginning
>>79458406
>agreed, you murdered that strawman
It is not. It simply isn't. You simply think your argument is smarter than it is. You got caught up in your own sophistry.
>>79458066
I'm not saying that all atheists are amoral, but that has more to do with the intellectual cowardice, hypocrisy and inconsistent logic of atheists than it does with the moral strength of atheism. Selflessness is inconsistent with atheism, and that's a fact.
>>79447626
Only braindeads can say with 100% certainty if it's true or not.
Open your mind, you know merely a fraction of the universe and how it works.
>>79455613
Sorry.
>>79458562
If it doesn't have a beginning then the universe is eternal, so it throws our current understanding of science into the garbage and raises lots of philosophical issues as well
I'd like you to provide an argument for the universe existing infinitely into the past
>>79458562
how does this make sense to you?
i could understand existing forever in both directions, but existing forever in the past but eventually coming to an end?
>>79451825
christfags have ALWAYS been here on /pol/, only assmad redditors get mad about it because it's their first week rather than ignore it and move on.
>>79458406
See, now I'm getting annoyed with you. This is why I wanted to stop replying.
>p1: whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence
PROVE IT YOU FAGGOT. Prove it in your own fucking words. And don't start out by making claims about "non-being" you neither defined what non-being is nor can you test it to make claims about it.
You are a quintessential presuppositionalist.
Your fucking shit arguments have been debunked hundreds of years ago. You have literally nothing but copy pasted shit that you can't even back up with your own thinking.
Honestly, fuck you for being such a delusional cunt and fuck you for accusing me of strawmanning your retarded ass shit. You couldn't make it worse by strawmanning if you tried.
>>79451030
Not an argument.
>>79458687
> inconsistent logic
> believes in magic sky man, but not other people's magic sky man.
Religion is a mental illness, please leave.
>>79458868
>only nazis get mad about muslims, ignore it and move on
Passivism is just as much of a crime as is being wrong.
>>79458987
So you dispute the law of cause and effect?
>>79458789
>>79458722
It doesn't make sense, but it doesn't make sense with an hypothetical God either
>>79458406
God doesn't solve this paradox
>>79459072
/pol/ is notoriously anti-muslim
Only a handful of /pol/ is anti-christian.
>>79459220
What do you think God is? Explain in as much detail as you can
>>79459078
On a human scale? No. On a planetary scale? No. On a sub-atomic scale? Debateable
Is it dumb to make claims about reality before the existance of our current physical universe and the very laws of physic that create causality? No.
And that is the entire point of contention. Christfags making claims about things they can impossibly prove or test.
>>79459227
I'm not even anti-christian. I'd prefer to live in a 100% tradionalist, christian society as opposed to whatever shit is going on in germany nowadays.
That doesn't make me believe it more.
>>79446132
>get carted off to church every sunday
>instintictually know its bullshit at 6 years old
in my mind, christians are below the level of intellect i had at 6.
>>79459283
God is the creator of the Universe according to theist
How come Atheists don't realize that they need to prove god isn't real if they're going to say he isn't real?
the burden of proof is on atheists.
>>79459283
>let me reduce the concept of god to the point where it has nothing to do with our initial discussion and little bearing on reality even if true
Why should anyone even must the effort to give them their definition of god? You're just trying to pick that apart, no matter what the reply is, in order to reduce the concept to a point where it is virtually not attackable anymore because it lost all meaning.
Fuck you.
>>79459428
I'm the same but my point is that coming to /pol/ and trying to get them to stop posting christian threads is about as effective as saying "STOP FUCKING POSTING ANIME ON /POL/"
Anime will always be here
Christfags will always be here
If you don't like it, move on.
>>79459441
>tfw religion is literally brain washing and in some societies literally a cult.
>>79458987
i've already linked you an article discussing the relevant principle behind that, the principle of sufficient reason: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/
i even gave you another syllogism for you to refute that backed the first premise, based on the necessity of being to cause:
>p1: non-being does not possess any attributes, powers, or qualities.
>p2: being able to cause something entails being and is itself a power.
>p3: being is the same as the negation of non-being.
>c1: therefore, cause implies being and the negation of non-being (i.e. if something is caused, it must be caused by being)
i don't know what more you want, you're going after one of the strongest premises.
there are actually decent objections to the kalam.
but you used:
>oh yeah? then what caused god?
that's on the same level as
>oh yeah? if evolution is true then why are there still monkeys?
>presuppositionalist
you're right actually, but the argument i'm presenting you with is evidentiary apologetics and not presuppositional.
>you have literally nothing but copy pasted shit
that's not fair, i formulated a lot of it myself. it is copy pasted from a folder full of .txt files i have though.
i have around 15kb worth of points and counterpoints to back the kalam and refute the refutations.
>>79459339
If cause and effect doesn't hold, then on what grounds do you argue anything? After all, you could be perfectly logical but if cause and effect is non-existent logic has no meaning.
I'd also take issue with your understanding of Christian claims. Christians make arguments for WHY things are, in a philosophical sense, as opposed to scientists who observe what they see and record it (if you're honest, you'll admit that science doesn't tell us WHY things happen, just THAT they happen)
>>79459501
>>79459574
I need to know what YOU think of when you hear "God" so we're on the same page here
>>79459547
That's not how the burden of proof works
>>79459547
Atheist is the absence of believe in a god. It is not a claim about reality. Gnostic-atheism is the claim that there is no god.
Agnostic-atheists is what most people are. They reject taking the position of either side until provided with proof.
>>79459576
I'm not telling anyone to stop posting christian threads. I just think it's important to never not provide the counter argument or you're simply gonna lose in the long run game-theory wise.
>>79459547
> insert flying spaghetti monster
Try harder.
>>79459713
Hypothetical creator of the Universe
Europeans and Arabs have been giving YHVH power for centuries, but their religions are still too goy-friendly. Once the world has been swept clean with atheistic Communism, the reign of the Messiach will truly begin.
>>79459441
Alternatively, you don't understand what Christians actually believe any more than the average 6-year-old does.
In which case you should be ashamed
>>79446768
>believing in stories written by sand people
>>79459835
Which characteristics do you see this creator as having?
BLUE AVIANS ARE BASED
>>79459756
>>79459806
>>79459811
Yes. Actually that IS how the burden of proof works.
If God isn't real. PROVE IT. Otherwise you're admitting atheism is the biggest leap of faith there is.
You are religious atheists.
>>79459806
Well I was replying specifically to the image in >>79451825
>>79446132
>Is atheism/agnosticism just a shill hoax?
Yes.
Think about it this way:
You think the world gives 2 shits if some fedora wearing, katana-wielding, fatass "believes in Science, not some sky wizard"?
The elites. the powerful, the dangerous ones who run the show, believe there's a supernatural, unexplainable element to the world. THATS the safe bet for your money.
And if they believe this power grants them fame, power and wealth, it's in their best interests to have you think it's all fiction and nonsense.
>>79447447
Don't listen to this faggot.
watch some James White videos on youtube
>>79452602
>Jews are the least autistic
ayyy
>>79459922
I don't think the "creation of the Universe" make sense, that's why I don't know his caracteristics.
>>79460064
i like them both!
i'd love to see them debate.
>>79459642
>oh yeah? then what caused god?
Which is a valid question to ask if you failed to proof that he is indeed eternal or exists at all.
You have again copy-pasted your "non-being" garbage. You're making claims about something that you don't have any knowledge about. I absolute reject "P1:". Proof to me that the claims about "non-being" are true.
Your justify your claims about god by making claims about yet another thing you can't make claims about. You just moved things a step further back
Now stop with the fucking copy paste and actually engage with the things I'm saying.
>but the argument i'm presenting you with is evidentiary apologetics and not presuppositional
Your "evidentiary apologetics" themselves depend on presuppositions that you failed to proof.
You're trying to proof presuppositionalism with presuppositionalism which is my entire point.
>>79459963
Prove an invisible, weightless, energy self-sufficient flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
I'm making the claim it exists so according to you, if you don't agree the burden of proof is on you.
>>79460109
What do you see as being inconsistent in the idea of a created universe?
>>79459660
>If cause and effect doesn't hold, then on what grounds do you argue anything? After all, you could be perfectly logical but if cause and effect is non-existent logic has no meaning.
Cause and effect has proven to be true for my day-to-day activities. I live in this universe so I feel fairly confident to make claims about it. I don't live in the time before time and neither do I know anyone who did.
>>79450887
>this dude always existed
really he what evidence do you have that he wasn't created? or that there aren't multiple dude that created the universe together?
>>79459963
I'll repeat myself:
Atheist is the absence of believe in a god. It is not a claim about reality. Gnostic-atheism is the claim that there is no god.
Agnostic-atheists is what most people are. They reject taking the position of either side until provided with proof.
>>79460272
There's a big step between your day-t-day activities and the universe. If you believe that cause and effect doesn't hold for the universe, how can you claim anything about it?
>>79460162
>>79460343
Prove god isn't real. Right now.
oh wait you can't
why are atheicuck so dumb?
>>79460243
Time doesn't exist without the Universe, therefore putting something before or after the Universe is absurd
>>79446132
Evolution is bullshit, when Human's are involved. Other animals and such, sure, they evolved.
But human's were constructed and or tampered with. The running theory is that Earth was originally just the big meat and veg farm for Mars. Just a big greenhouse planet.
But then something happened to Mars. Either it fucked up by cataclym by accident, by intention or they were taken out by another alien force.
There's time travel involved. The moon wasn't always in the sky, it appeared way, way later. It's a space station that the advanced human's are watching from, they live inside it.
Earth is just some kind of a petri dish for some unknown purpose. Maybe the aliens are trying to figure out some flaw in their own thing that can be resolved by tampering with their past. Who knows.
But one thing is pretty clear, and it's that all this shit, the shit we do and have, how we are and what we are is no freak accident of star stuff. This shit was designed.
We didn't go from dirt and plankton to advanced AI and curved LCD screens and internet by some random fucking occurrence.
>>79460489
> If you believe that cause and effect doesn't hold for the universe
We can clearly observe cause and effect happening in our universe. At least every thing we were able to study, be it the motion of planets or a chemical reaction" seems to work based on causation.
Again, things kind of break down in the sub-atomic range but that's not even my point.
My point is that before the big-bang or whatever really happened we didn't just not have physical matter but the very laws of our universe might not apply at all to that "time".
>>79460541
I'll repeat myself:
Atheist is the absence of believe in a god. It is not a claim about reality. Gnostic-atheism is the claim that there is no god.
Agnostic-atheists is what most people are. They reject taking the position of either side until provided with proof.
>>79459441
It is impossible for a man to follow every rule the bible sets for many rules within the bible contradict each other. It should also be said that if one is intelligent they'd want to follow every rule the bible gives as that would maximize their chance of getting into heaven.
Therefore, it should be assumed that any intelligent person who attempts to become a devout Christian will fail as it's impossible to follow the bible absolutely without contradicting themselves.
That is not to say that intelligent people can not be "Christians" Intelligent people can still believe in the main principles of the faith, they just can't have a fervent belief in God because God, according to his descriptions in the Bible, would not contradict himself. Therefore, God may exist, but it is impossible to believe in the version of God presented by the Bible.
We should stop arguing over such things anyways, it's what the powers that control us would want.
>>79460152
>I absolute reject "P1:".
>P1: Non-Being does not possess any attributes, powers, or qualities.
you realize non-being here means 'nothing' right?
if 'nothing' had a power or attribute or quality it wouldn't it be 'something' ?
If you believe in everything that exists needs a reason, congrats you believe in God. God= absolute truth. Not sure how atheists get confused on this.
>>79460569
Christians have claimed for forever that that which we call God must by necessity exist outside of time. If a God that exists outside/independent of time is fundamentally the act of to be itself, then it follows that this God can will things into existence, and everything that God wills into existence depends on the continued existence of God to avoid fading into non-existence.
>>79460736
An atheist is a poo poo head*
FIXED
>>79460693
If effect doesn't follow cause, how does what we observe have any relation to reality, in a fundamental sense?
>>79460541
Go kill yourself you meme loving fuck. Then we'll know who is right.
>>79460569
Like the sub-atomic particles needed to create the big bang?
I know. Absurd.
>>79460837
Go away mouth breather.
>>79460821
What is nothing? You're obviously not referring to the empty space between galaxies since that didn't exist before our universe.
You have no way of making claims about that "nothing". You're operating on "common sense" based on our current reality while completely failing to acknowledge that whatever came before our universe might very well not operate on this kind of conventional logic at all.
It's funny that you're the one arguin for religion but you completely fail to look at things from any perspective other than your tiny human understanding of how you think things should work intuitively.
mfw my believe in god is reaffirmed because atheicucks cant prove he isnt real...
SAD!
>>79460837
In a deistic sense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3V5ph3D1vA
>>79460873
ayyy
>>79460917
>If effect doesn't follow cause
But I didn't say that. I really didn't. I only said that we don't know whether cause and effect worked the same before our physical universe came into existance or whether it is applicable at all to whatever that state before was.
>>79461189
In a mechanistic universe, how is it that the laws governing this universe can change then?
>>79460935
stfu i hope you have cancer stupid
>>79461118
The burden of proof is on you theistfags
and you can't prove a negative
You just reaffirmed me that all theists are brain dead
>>79459441
Have you not developed mentally beyond that of an adolescent? Sure is possible given you are posting on a mongoloian ice picking board?
>>79461347
i'm fucking le trolling my man
>>79461118
(You)
>>79460844
How can thing exist outside of time though ?
>>79461095
so if non-being (nothing/non-existence) is something that doesn't exist, then God would have to exist by necessity, correct?
(what a weird discussion)
>>79461291
How do you know that existance before our universe was mechanistic?
We already know that certain laws of physics break down when matter is in super-heated or super-condensed. What makes you think that whatever laws there were before our universe operate on our mechanistic understanding at all?
atheists = no brains!
PROVE GOD ISNT REAL. RIGHT NOW!
>>79461347
God is a positive though. For all of us
Keep on believing hold onto that feelin
>>79461385
You're Australia, of course you're shitposting.
Why did you need to reaffirm this?
>>79461320
[Spoiler] I'll be a doctor in just a few more years anyways. [/spoiler]
>>79461395
>so if non-being (nothing/non-existence) is something that doesn't exist
I never said that. I merely said that you can't make claims about it which your entire argument hinges upon.
>>79461484
Stop hopping on the aussie shitposting meme train u brain dead fuck. Aussies are inteligent beings and ur just a useful idiot trying to smear every aussies face into the ground
>>79461484
If a loving God existed he wouldn't have let your mother get pregnant for the sake of everyone you've ever come into contact with.
>>79461489
Not true. God is a negative for many. Varies with religions though.
>>79461633
>inteligent
t. american intellectual
>>79461392
God is not "a thing." God is not comparable to a finite being like you or me. For God to be God, God must be infinite and thus NOT a being. You're right that beings can't exist outside of time, but, to try to draw a comparison to scientific terminology, think of God as a fundamental property of the universe and all that exists. Thus God can, and must by necessity, exist outside of time.
>>79461723
>not true
Is ur degree in shitposting kind sir?
Have you studied the Bible? Torah?
>>79461787
this!!!!
god existed before time you godophobes! he created time then he created everything else
why are godophobes such dumbos?
>>79461456
By mechanistic I mean free of any divine influence and purely explainable through physics. So how can the laws of a mechanistic universe ever change?
And of course I have to correct your example. If "the laws of physics" break down in specific conditions, it's the human understanding of the universe that is incorrect, not the idea of unchangeable laws governing the universe.
>>79461587
so just to summarize, you believe something can come from nothing?
>>79461775
t. 16 yr old wanker
Give or take a year
>>79461787
>God is not comparable to a finite being like you or me.
First prove that god exists before you make claims about him.
>For God to be God, God must be infinite and thus NOT a being.
First prove that god exists before you make claims about him.
>You're right that beings can't exist outside of time
What is a "being"? What constitutes "outside of time"? Also prove it.
>think of God as a fundamental property of the universe and all that exists.
First prove that god exists before you make claims about him.
>Thus God can, and must by necessity, exist outside of time.
Based on the claims you haven't proven.
I'm kind of disappointed that I have 2 presuppositionalist in the thread now. This shit get's tiring.
>>79461939
My degree is in Neuroscience, another in microbio. You don't have to study religion to know it's poison. You just have to live around it.
>>79462000
> God is immune to logic! He exists because he exists!
Come back after you've read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
>>79462231
come back to me when u proofed god isnt real? how about that?
>>79462041
> it's the human understanding of the universe that is incorrect, not the idea of unchangeable laws governing the universe.
You're the only one claiming that the laws of the universe are unchangeable. You're so warped you almost started arguing against yourself here.
>>79462200
You're jumping all over the place, aren't you? Focus >>79462041
If this world was "designed", then god is retarded.
>>79461787
Then how could God care about what's going on on Earth since he doesn't actually exist in the same way we exist ?
I agree with you to say that the very existence of the Universe is problematic. A certain concept of God could solve it, but this concept is nothing like an anthropomorphic super-being
>>79462045
I said nothing. You made claims about something that you can't prove.
I don't know what was before our universe.
>>79462206
>my degree is in bullshitting
k tough guy. Good job dodging the 2nd Q.
>>79462344
Let me clarify: HOW can the laws governing a mechanistic universe change (regardless if humans understand them perfectly or not)? The universe is mechanistic.
>>79462364
>You're jumping all over the place, aren't you?
I've replied to everything you said. You're the one deliberately not engaging with the things I'm saying.
>>79461787
>>79462409
I have to go to sleep though (it's 4:30 AM here). It's nice to have meaningful discussions on /pol/ once in a while
So have a good day/night
>>79462430
>prove
proof doesn't exist outside of mathematics.
if you're denying p1 of the kalam, you're saying that something can come from nothing.
who believes in magic now?
i'm out
Hello.
I'm Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA is an English theoretical physicist, cosmologist, author and Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology within the University of Cambridge.
God is real.
>>79462409
Because God created everything, including us, in an act of will. If you're a Christian, you believe that Jesus Christ is the bridge linking this incomprehensible, infinite, timeless God and finite human beings like ourselves
>>79462467
There's no necessity for me to study a religious text in order to state my disbelief in "higher beings". There's also no necessity for me to do so in order to assess that religion's influence on society. It's common knowledge, not to mention followers let you know when their opinions are being religiously motivated.
So I don't get what you're getting at.
>>79462623
Good night
>>79462468
I never claimed that the laws of a mechanistic universe change.
What was before our time might not have been mechanistic.
BUT: even if I said that, I don't agree that a mechanistic universe couldn't produce something non-mechanistic. There is no proof for that.
>>79462537
I have to address your rejection of cause and effect first
>>79462718
No, you simply didn't define your "non-being" nor do you have any way to prove that your claims about non-being are true.
I don't believe that anything came from anything. I want you to PROVE YOUR GOD DAMN CLAIMS.
The jews could learn from you.
>>79446768
During my teenage years, I considered myself an atheist because I was displeased with a vast majority of organized religions and holy texts.
Now I believe in an omnipresent force behind everything that can see time in its entirety. Still think Jesus and holy texts are bogus though.
>>79462829
>What was before our time might not have been mechanistic.
So either you're claiming that the laws governing the universe did change, or that there was something in existence before t=0, in which case I ask for your proof of that.
>I don't agree that a mechanistic universe couldn't produce something non-mechanistic
This is incoherent. A universe without God could produce a universe with God? Or just that the holes in your understanding of the universe need patching over to avoid falling apart?
If there was no God, the universe would be as it is, and its laws could under no circumstances ever change, on both sides of t=0
>>79463180
>So either you're claiming that the laws governing the universe did change
I'm claiming neither. I don't know.
> or that there was something in existence before t=0, in which case I ask for your proof of that.
There might have been. Maybe we're infinitely contracting and expanding? Our universe itself might be the eternal "god".
>This is incoherent.
No, it really is not. What was before our universe might have had different laws than what is now. We don't know.
Honestly, you are trying to get me to make positive claims about the nature of what existed before time when my entire point is that you can't.
>>79463180
That's actually a pretty good point Tbh
>>79463528
Aren't they required to have changed for god to not be real?
And if they haven't changed what does that mean?
>>79450862
>>79463540
>>79463602
I already gave you several (you)s. What more do you want?
>>79463528
So thus I hope you see that if you reject cause and effect, you have to sit in the corner like a little cuck and watch the rest of us argue things, because by rejecting cause and effect you can't claim shit or argue shit.
>>79463761
I am not rejecting cause and effect.
Again, you're trying to get me to make positive claims and somehow think you won just because I refuse to.
You literally didn't make a single argument for the existance of god. You merely tried to poke holes into my thinking acting like that would somehow prove your claims.
>>79463752
No I'm actually serious now. I read all of your posts because you seem to know what you're talking about.
Don't those laws have to have changed before and after the creation of the universe for god to not be real?
>>79463761
Also I repeat: You are not even engaging with the things I'm saying. You're just repeating the same shit ad nauseam.
>>79463896
That was exactly my point. Taking your own beliefs to their logical fruition, you CAN'T have beliefs.
>>79464015
I have to point out the deficiencies in your thinking first.
>>79463988
>Don't those laws have to have changed before and after the creation of the universe for god to not be real?
I just shot snot on my monitor. You made me realize how insanely tangled this argument has become. This is impossible to unfuck.
>>79464221
I'm not saying you're wrong mate, I don't even think that those laws can't change.
I'm not religious myself.
>>79464032
>That was exactly my point. Taking your own beliefs to their logical fruition, you CAN'T have beliefs.
You have gone off into your own world about 4 replies ago.
Can you please formulate what you think my beliefs are at this point? I'm genuinely curious
>>79463004
I agree with you on the concept of a transcendental faith, but why do you think that Jesus isn't a part of it?
>>79446132
animals evolved, humans were a genetic mix between apes and pigs
>>79454732
I'll check him out. I like hearing arguments for Christianity, but WLC just comes off as condescending and intellectually dishonest.
>>79464340
You don't know for sure whether cause and effect holds, yet somehow you think that despite that, your present knowledge still holds and that you can actually make claims if the universe doesn't follow cause and effect.
>>79464503
He actually addressed Craig recently:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2016/04/craig-on-divine-simplicity-and-theistic.html
>>79464503
> but WLC just comes off as condescending and intellectually dishonest.
He is a presuppositionalist. Their entire point is to build logical constructs based on deliberately vague or generalizing premises and sophistry spirals.
The second these people let anyone form a clear thought and question their initial claims they fall apart. Hence why they have to be dishonest and distracting.
>>79464791
If you reject cause and effect, how can logic exist?
>>79464875
holy fuck im actually a god missile
>>79464731
This is the sophistry spiral I'm talking about.
I made 0 claims and you're somehow trying to extrapolite from supposed contradiction in my claims that yours are true without providing a single shred of evidence.
>>79464997
My original issue with you was that you rejected cause and effect as it was used in another anon's post (whatever begins has a cause). If you reject cause and effect, how exactly do you expect me to argue anything? But go ahead and jack yourself off some more for thinking you have such an intellectually-superior worldview
>>79464980
You started out really weak but I honestly enjoyed your last few replies.
>>79463988
This was still the best.
>>79464980
Great insight Anon! As a member of the 4chan community and a frequent /pol/ user I wanted to thank you for posting a new and original point of view on the Semitic religions! Keep it up with the critical thinking!
P.S. You are going to get a lot of flak from vastly intellectually deficient religious zealots who have never even read a Dawkins book(Haha...I know, I didn't believe it at first either) so try to take it easy on them when debating. If only everyone was an enlightened as yourself and I.
>>79465272
>If you reject cause and effect
I merely reject that you faggot have knowledge about the state of the universe before "our time". It might be causal, it might not be. A causal universe can be infinite(contraction and expansion) and a non-causal one can produce a causal one.
I disagree with literally every single one of your premises.
Prove that you know what was there before or FUCK OFF.
>>79465315
>mfw cried wolf too many times now won't be taken seriously
I'm dead serious.
You said this
>On a human scale? No. On a planetary scale? No. On a sub-atomic scale? Debateable
Why is it debatable on a sub-atomic level?
>>79465425
I'm serious I might start believing in god
>>79465564
You're just making assertions here, not arguments
>>79465800
Why can't there be a period of time before the universe was created where cause and effect didn't exist at a sub-atomic level?
Reminder that burden of proof is always on the one making the positive claim.
What if I told you I had invisible pink unicorns in my garage, and you told me I was crazy and had to prove it, then I said you needed to disprove it? You couldn't, and there's no possible way to. That's the level of logic you're operating at.
Kys christcucks
>>79465605
You're crafty, I give you that. You must have a pretty decent IQ.
PLEASE SOMEONE PROVE THIS CANADIAN WRONG I DONT WANT TO BE A GOD MISSILE
>>79466104
Fuck you man. You argued properly in the whole thread and some leaf finally pulls apart your argument and you refuse to respond properly?
Fuck you.
>>79466031
If the universe didn't exist, how is there such a thing as the subatomic level? If you're assuming that the physical laws of the universe existed BEFORE creation though, then that's more or less equivalent to claiming the universe is infinite in terms of time
>>79466091
But cause and effect prove invisible unicorns.
Because without cause and effect you wouldn't need an infinite god-deity to explain the origin of the universe!
Like if you think that cause and effect aren't true then how are we in a mechanistic universe? And a mechanistic universe can't come from a non mechanistic one! This is why we were created by unicorns.
