His Arguement
It is most probable that the universe were created or came into existence by an Omnipotent force.

>The Universe had a beginning(the big bang), thus there was a time it wasn't there.
>If the Universe wasn't there then it must have come from somewhere other than itself in order to come into existence.
>Because there are laws within the Universe and because something can't come from nothing the Universe must have been created by a powerful, intelligent, and self aware force.
>This force could not have had a beginning thus it would have to be eternal and Omnipotent.

My arguement
Omnipotence is as probable and arbitrary as any other explaination for the Universe's coming about, except for the one that requires the least amount of explanation which is it came from nothing.

>The Big Bang is the origin for space AND TIME within the Universe. Time ONLY exists in the Universe and only began to exist at its beginning.
>All logic, rational thought and human brain power has evolved relative to the laws of nature on earth and within this Universe in order to survive, and is reliant on our sense of perception.
>If time and all of the laws of nature exist only within this Universe, then any deduction or reasoning based upon these rules become completely irrelevant outside of its 'bounderies'.
>Therefore assuming that cause and effect, which need time to be relevant, has anything to do relevance 'outside' the Universe is useless.
>IF(and thats a big IF) there is any beyond, ALL things are possible and no rules that we know of matters. So, to assume that Omnipotence is necessary for the Universe's inception is a baseless arguement and equally probable to the infinite probabilties, one of which is nothing.

You are a little bitch tho

His unfourtunate Response

>How do you know that time doesn't exist outside of the Universe, and that one is not be capable of making logical and rational conclusions about what exists outside.
>Furthermore, if one can assume that other galaxies or solar systems have the same laws of nature as in within this solar system without directly being able to observe them, or that the laws of nature will always be the same, Then why can't one make assumtions about what exists outside of the Universe even though we also cant observe it.

That entire response is a fucking strawman but i can't get him to understand how retarded that sounds.

>>600427562
post pictures of sharpies in all of your buttholes.

>>600427404
> debating athiesm
Post a timestamped pic of your fedora and I'll help.

FEDORAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>600427816
i mean is my argument not valid? Plus he's my friend i don't hate religious people i just gotta win to rub it in his face

>>600427562
Why do you say that time started at the big bang?

leave your friend alone you preachy fedorafuck

>>600427816

>fedora not mentioned sooner

well i'm very suprised

>>600428058
He started it. I told him i didn't want to start a debate but he wants me to be muslim.

>>600427997
Nice fedora pic.

Oh, wait.

>Time didn't exist until the big bang

>>600428176
leave him alone you preachy fedorafuck

>>600428437
space time is a fabric that the Universe is made out of. At the big bang time=0. so yes time had a beginning therefore had not existed before hand

stop fucking talking about religion and talk about Dota asshole

File: OP (3).jpg (21 KB, 336x403) Image search: [Google]

21 KB, 336x403

>>600427404

>>600427997
Here's the thing: you both have no argument.

Time is a tool constructed by the human race, same as hammers and laser levels. Physics tells us that the relativistic nature of time (i.e. the dependance on two observers to share the same reference for time to agree) leads us to conclude that although time is very convenient, it is not a "4th dimension" and should be excluded from the conversation about the origins of the universe.

>>600428779
>dota

>>600427657
His first point I agree with. We have no way of knowing if our logic or our mental faculties are even capable of meaningfully encompassing that which exists of our logic, whether that be what exists outside of the universe, or even that which is right next to us.

His next point is nonsense however. He has a conclusion and wants to contort anything he can to proving it. Humans exist on "faith", there is no way around it, but it comes to using it intelligently. I have no proof my memories are real. I have no proof i exist as I think I do. But it's just more convenient and highly probable my working ideas are adequate, so I employ faith in believing any given answer I come up with.

We exist in a framework of relative truths. All truths are reliant on another truth, and many truths are reliant on axiomatic basis in ourselves. We've made observations that work and can extrapolate that other solar systems abide by those laws. The model works. It is testable. We should blindly believe it without empirical evidence, but it works nonetheless. The notion of a God, which we don't know, has no place in any model and is an abstract arbitrary idea that cannot be tested for, as is any notion of what lies outside the universe. The two are not comparable.

I mean if anybody here doesn't have an argument than why aren't you all muslim?

>>600428975
that is my point. Time is irrelevant when considering the origins of the universe.

>>600429045
shouldn't blindly believe*

And the part about memory also relies on signals and perception gathered via interaction with stimuli in my external environment. This colors what is able to be trusted and makes it easier to "weigh" different ideas.

>>600429057
lol, shut the fuck up kid

>>600429045
exists outside of our logic*

Lots of typos. Not sure why I bothered to post.

>>600429553
>>600429553
It's OK. Just try harder next time

>>600429045
the problem with his first point is that he says that Omnipotence is the most explanation. What i am trying to explain to him is that all explanations are arbitrary, thus equally probable and irrelevant.

Time does not have a beginning...it isn't linear. It is relative. If the entire universe was contained in a singularity (infinite mass), then according to relativity, time is simply stopped.

Also, something can come from nothing....quantum fluctuation.

However, I do not believe there is such a thing as nothing. There is always something (dark matter for instance). That's why I think all matter has always been here. We think in such a linear fashion that it's counter intuitive to believe this is the case.

>>600429774
I meant "first point" as far as his first statement in the linked post.

>>600429879
yeah i didn't make it clear but i understand what you mean. The whole purpose of my point is to make him understand that time is only relevant in the universe. Also if you don't mind can you explain what quantum fluctuation is? might help me.

>>600427562
just realize op that you can't prove or disprove a diety and your friend can't either

Link him Modest Mouse's "The Moon and Antarctica."

Just to see what he'd say.

>>600430258
It was years ago I took courses on this stuff, so I don't remember any of the technical stuff. Lawrence Krauss would be a good resource on something along those lines. He's the author of A Universe From Nothing.

>>600427404
>defending myself as an atheist

[Tipping intensifies]

>>600427562
The big bang is just the name physicists gave the point in spacetime when what we know as physics breaks down. Basically we have no clue what happened before the big bang, maybe it was expanding from a previous collapse and does it forever and always has but who knows.

>>600431025
Did i say i was trying to disprove it? My argument clearly says that it is as probable as any other explanation.

This is only one part of the debate. The second part is, after establishing that Omnipotence is the most probable, that Islam is proven to be perfect by miracles and predictions within them. Such as describing the Big Bang or the origin of life.
Which i think i could prove wrong, but firstly must take away his obsession with Omnipotence.

>>600427562
His Argument
>How do you know the universe had a beginning?
>Universe could have always existed, how do you know it didn't? Logic is derived from our limited perspective of the universe. How do you propose to understand something if you can't even see all of it?
>Laws inside universe =/= laws outside of the universe, if such a thing even exists
>How do you know that force didn't have a beginning?

>>600431233
Well I stood naked shivering lookin' blue, from the cold sunlight that's reflected off the moon. Baby cum angels fly around you, reminded me that we used to be three. And that's how the world began, and that's how the world will end.

Well the third had just been made and we were swimming in the water, didn't know then was it a son, was it a daughter? And it occurred to me that the animals were swimming around in the water in the oceans in our bodies. And another had been found, another ocean on the planet, given tat our blood, is just like the Atlantic.

And how?

Well the universe is shaped exactly like the Earth, you go straight along, you'll end up where you were.

Until we have all the data this argument can have no conclusion. Don't try tying your religious (or lack of same) belief to the creation of the universe, number one. Any omnipotent beings out there didn't necessarily have anything to do with the space in which they exist.

>>600431160
Yeah me and my friend are both aware of who that is he's watched debates with him defending and so did I. He still thinks he's right.

>>600431666
>How do you know the universe had a beginning?
Was there a need for creation? That was hidden in a math equation, and that's this:
Where do circles begin?
(When you realize you have no point of reference, all intervals become both the beginning and the end. The universe may have never begin, it may never end.)

>Universe could have always existed, how do you know it didn't? Logic is derived from our limited perspective of the universe. How do you propose to understand something if you can't even see all of it?
He's correct. Without verifiable full knowledge of the whole you must acknowledge your equations are quantizations and may have fundamentally faulty embedded assumptions or accumulate error.

>Laws inside universe =/= laws outside of the universe, if such a thing even exists
We can barely verify the natural laws (and nature) of our own universe, which we can test to a degree. Outside the universe is a whole different matter. We don't even know what our universe is to begin with, or if those terms mean anything from an external perspective.

>How do you know that force didn't have a beginning?
Respond "how do you know beginnings exist either?"

The idea of beginnings necessitates the existence of ends. You cannot create without destroying, in our universe. You cannot gain without losing. You cannot change without both.

We struggle to verify if the ideas our logic creates really "exist", we struggle to figure what reality is. You have to chip away at the chain of axioms leading to this higher level discussion.

>>600431606
miracles and predictions within the quran i mean.

>>600432520
I don't get it, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? I responded to "His Arguments" as posed in OP, you're...clarifying my thoughts? idk

>>600433764
I'm saying he's correct with a lot of what he's saying, as are you.

You are both equally wrong. You are both equally right.

Your discussion is pointless, you're agreeing with each while outwardly disagreeing, and just don't realize it. Remove all the clutter and you can resolve it down to the real core disagreement. All of this really is clutter.

>>600434013
You're saying this is correct?

>The Universe had a beginning(the big bang), thus there was a time it wasn't there.
>If the Universe wasn't there then it must have come from somewhere other than itself in order to come into existence.
>Because there are laws within the Universe and because something can't come from nothing the Universe must have been created by a powerful, intelligent, and self aware force.
>This force could not have had a beginning thus it would have to be eternal and Omnipotent.

>>600427404
Tell him that the big bang theory was conceived by a Catholic...that'll fuck him up.

>>600431666
>>600434013

Wait, maybe it'll be more clear if I answered those questions I posed in my original post.

>How do you know the universe had a beginning? You don't, you have no way of knowing beyond speculation.
>Universe could have always existed, how do you know it didn't? Logic is derived from our limited perspective of the universe. How do you propose to understand something if you can't even see all of it? You can't.
>Laws inside universe =/= laws outside of the universe, if such a thing even exists. Cause and effect doesn't necessarily exist outside the realm of observable causes and effects. Hell we could go a step further and say it doesn't necessarily exist within the realm of observably causes and effects if we really wanted to simply by claiming an imperfect perception.
>How do you know that force didn't have a beginning? You don't, the "omnipotent" force could very well have had a beginning. You can claim by definition omnipotence has no beginning, then I counter, by definition the universe had no beginning.

>>600434679
kek
>>600434140
was your original green text response a critique of my Muslim friends argument? Because i wasn't sure if you were asking questions or questioning his reasoning.

>>600434140
>The Universe had a beginning(the big bang), thus there was a time it wasn't there.
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe somethings come from nothings, maybe nothings become somethings, maybe none of the above... maybe both?

We simply don't know. To suggest any viewpoint with certainty is faulty. The big bang is what we have the most evidence for. The cosmic microwave background radiation appears to be homogeneous and isotropic, which supports a lot of prior ideas. It may be expanding, and may continue to do so.

But to expand that and tack on "it was the beginning" is wrong. You're using evidence to resolve to an absolute conclusion that it simply doesn't support. Regardless of your viewpoints on reality.

>If the Universe wasn't there then it must have come from somewhere other than itself in order to come into existence.
"Itself" "Somewhere" "Existence" "was or wasn't "there"".
You've just been arguing if we can even apply our logic to what exists outside the universe, no? So where is all this coming from?

We can speculate, think about it, lean towards a certain opinion, but we cannot truly empirically test nor verify. It' just the way it goes.

>Because there are laws within the Universe and because something can't come from nothing the Universe must have been created by a powerful, intelligent, and self aware force.
This is an idea with no backing. It seek to provide a one true Truth to afford trueness to the rest of our framework of relative truths. God inherently exists apart from the rest of the logical system, that's its purpose. Unfortunately, that means it cannot meaningfully be verified, so "faith" is left to fill that void.

Like I said above, it comes to using "Faith" intelligently, or rejecting it outright, but that can lead to functional problems even for the most rational. See Descartes for example.
[character limit]

>>600435043
I was responding to his four points.

See >>600434900

Also, I got trips and doubles in this thread already. I should automatically be right.

File: images.jpg (2 KB, 102x91) Image search: [Google]

2 KB, 102x91

>>600431666
>>600434900
>>600435433

mfw all me, wasted in a religion thread

>>600435095
[Continued]
>This force could not have had a beginning thus it would have to be eternal and Omnipotent.
This just layers more assumptions, generated by our own logic, onto the same unbacked assumption. It is not a truth, it is an idea that exists in a bubble of faith. He can't prove it, you can't disprove it.

I can't disprove the idea that the sun is powered by undetectable particles that come from the core of the universe, and reflect off of mirrors in the Earth's core. I can't disprove the accusation that there are caverns beneath my house full of a radioactive variant of the ergot fungus, which affords the means to immortality, achieving the rainbow body, and ascending to a higher form of energy being...

But come now. I don't know it's false, but I can take a wild guess using the rest of what I know, and weigh it all accordingly. I don't have to come to something black and white or claim certainty, but I can pretty say "probably not".

Same goes for God(s). It depends how you define "God' to start with, and even if it did exist, I cannot grasp true proof that would ever satisfy me, and just isn't meaningful. Believing in God, in my mind, is doing anything but taking the path of least resistance, it's a choice and a decision. Maybe we're all intrinsically wired differently, who knows.

File: b0a93a643eeb3b335e9000de8522f0f06c1c1974b0164e2c2a2a3affb470cbbe.jpg (57 KB, 625x466) Image search: [Google]

57 KB, 625x466

>>600427404

>>600435672
truthfully this is proof that satan loves you

>>600435095
>Maybe somethings come from nothings, maybe nothings become somethings
This is meant to be:
"Maybe somethings come from nothings, maybe somethings become nothings"

>>600427657
>Time existing outside of the universe
What outside the universe? What the fuck is he talking about? Does space-time ring a fucking bell? What would there be to track time of? With nothing, not in the usual sense of the word, but literal nothingness, then there is not time either, as before the Big Bang and as "outside the Universe" whatever the fuck that means.
>Laws and observation
We observe galaxies and this is how we know physics are the same everywhere. Lambda-cold dark matter model, cosmic microwave background, abundance of light elements, etc.
Please tell this fucking Muslim joker to educate himself.

>>600427404
Yeah and the M in MTV supposedly stands for music, yet they have none.

>>600427404
According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, a small empty space, also called a small true vacuum bubble, can be created probabilistically by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum. But if the small bubble cannot expand rapidly, it will disappear soon due to quantum fluctuations. In this case, the early universe would disappear before it grow up. On the other side, if the small bubble expands rapidly to a large enough size, the universe can be created irreversibly.

>>600436409
Get rekt

File: 1391881468122.jpg (52 KB, 574x448) Image search: [Google]

52 KB, 574x448

Pic related OP

>>600427657
actually the argument about time existing outside of the current universe is a thing but is not vaild in a god debate, believe it or not but if multiverse theory is true then there would need to be a void in between all the blah blah blah, im tried and brain hurts.

You see, all of what we know as the human kind is completely constructed by us to make sense of what can not. We create the formulas, the words, the time. All things we know we created. This is a problem that creates the arguments that you and your friend are currently in. Fact: time, the universe, apparently everything is absolutely based on math right? And math is always correct, right? Wrong! If math is perfect, then why does pie exist? Why are there problem that can't be solved? Or simple math equations that can't come back to the same numbers after only a few steps. This is an example on a mass scale. People have to believe therefor they do. Religious people are the worst they come up with the most crazy ass shit and they truly believe it and you can't change there minds. Truth is nobody knows. You can't say with assure this shit is real or not, just as I can't or even my dog. Everything we know is just a opinionated belief that was hammered into our minds one way or another and we came to follow it as countless have before and countless will after we exist.
Simple silo toon tell your friend "with all due respect, you believe what you want and I will believe what I want. Because there is no way to prove either of our points, so really it is all just a matter of opinion"

Simple solution not silo toon

>>600427404
>debating
are you 10 yrs old?

>>600427404
>muslim friend of mine
>>600427404
>friend
>>600427404
>myself as an atheist
sorry retard, the mudslime is not your friend

>>600429045
See "last Thursday theory"

>>600427562
>The Big Bang is the origin for space AND TIME within the Universe. Time ONLY exists in the Universe and only began to exist at its beginning.

Really if you want to have an argument about the big bang you should try to educate yourself.

It's no wonder your sandnigger friend doesn't understand your explanation,

You have to understand that big bang is not an event, which can be the origin/the beginning of something but a limit.

>>600427562
>Doesn't know time did not start at the big bang.
You lost the argument.
>Doesn't understand thaat if something is beyond our comprehension (AKA God), you can't explain it.
There are waves of light we can't see, and so colors we can't fathom.

>>600427657
But you're still wrong in saying time started with the big bang.
And you're wrong to think there's nothing beyond our universe, It's expanding into something, albeit we lack the tools to find out what.

>>600439329
>>600439542
>>600439353
Ok so then what happened before the big bang?

Also for the last fucking time im not trying to disprove Omnipotence. I'm saying that it's just as likely as any explanation, therefore shouldn't be thought of as truth.

>>600439542
>It's expanding into something

you are trying to grasp a too complicated notion with too simple tool and try to reason as if simplification that are used to popularize the knowledge where the actual knowledge.

When scientist say "the universe is expanding", what they mean is that they have evidence that the distance between parts of the universe is increasing. That's all. It doesn't mean it expand into something. They used the word "expansion" as a shortcut.

>>600427404
Why don't you ask your Twilight sparkle body pillow for help?

>>600439305
I didn't know about that, but it happens that I've thought of the same thing indirectly, for a number of years.

I always thought about being built, as a machine, and being given false memories of humanity. You could even have your sensory inputs deliberately altered during processing.

For all one knows, oneself was built but mere hours ago. Put in place, then activated. Nothing would be amiss. Maybe something was off in your memory, or wasn't set up properly, and it would result in "oh gosh, where did I leave my keys..."
"I don' remember moving that plant."
"Has this door always been that tall? Hm."
But beyond that. how would you know. Even tearing yourself open and looking for proof, real human organs, could not still not inherently verify. An MRI machine would tear you apart, so that can't be used as proof. CT or Xray your faculties would just skew if they were programmed properly.

Etc. It's an interesting theory, but has no more weight and even less evidence than what your environment and memories tell you is the truth. So we take the path of least resistance.

>>600440196
>Ok so then what happened before the big bang?

you are reply to my post ( >>600439329 ) without understanding it.

You can't speak of "before the big bang" because big bang isn't an event that actually happened, but the name of a limit.

It's like if you wanted to reach 0 by dividing, you can come as close to it as you want, but you won't ever actually reach it. ( I don't know if you are familiar with limit of a function).

You try to reason like if the time was an absolute, something that doesn't change. It's not the right mindset when you are speaking of big bang.

I'll oversimplify because i'm not a native english speaker but to give you an idea : it's like as you come closer to the big bang time will "dilate" more and more as you get closer and closer, and the time t=0 will never be reached and only exist as a theoritical limit. ( like the 0 of my other example)

>>600427404
Debating with a religious person is pointless as their BELIEFS are what they want to be true. Your friend will not budge until his religious faith is shattered/damaged, possibly by a bad religious experience or by finding a non-religious partner.

And yes, your arguments are correct but that wont matter to your religious friends as he does not WANT them to be correct.

just say that you both have your believes and respect that, otherwise your friend might go allahu akbar on your ass and declare you haram

>>600428051
Because time can only exist in places of dense matter

>>600427404
He is muslim so he is not your friend.

>>600441752
Holy shit i didn't know that. I do know what limits are but i didn't know that it applied to the big bang. If that is true, it actually helps me rather than makes it harder. His whole argument is based on a beginning. I'll look into it to make sure.

>>600442388
He's pretty nonreligious and isn't sandnigger muslim. He's bengali so he eats dope ass food and is kinda more indian instead. A lot more moderate and when we aren't talking about religion we're mostly talking about porn or some shit.

>>600442636
>it actually helps me rather than makes it harder

remember i'm over simplifying it because i can't speak english very well, but if you want to have a debate you'll need to read more than my post, because the origin of the universe is a topic where science reach its limit ( i mean they actually have no idea of what happened before plank's time t=10^-43 s).

File: whatisIslam.jpg (564 KB, 1891x2048) Image search: [Google]

564 KB, 1891x2048

>>600427404
pic related.

>>600442636
>If that is true, it actually helps me rather than makes it harder.
>helps me
Don't do this.

You're using something I came to call "debate logic", and it's all about putting together and conveying information in the way that makes you seem most correct and convincing. Ultimately you'll lose perspective and become myopic.

>Source
Done it myself. Yes, you have an idea and people don't seem to get it, but your very search, at this instant, is itself the best proof of how things really are. Don't forget that.

>>600427404
did u check him for explosive belt ?

>>600427404
He follow the alleged words from Allah who gave his teachings to Muhammed who married a 6yr old girl and fucked her at the age of 9.
Muhammed had more brides than allowed in Islam, he did not love/treat them equally.
And to top it all of, Muhammed is a sandnigger who kiss large rocks.

File: skruf.jpg (130 KB, 802x272) Image search: [Google]

130 KB, 802x272

>>600427404
>i'm defending myself as an atheist
He should have to defend his position, not you. If he can't, then you can just say "I don't believe you" and end the conversation.

>>600444426
He is a terrorist.

>>600444046
yeah i'll get to all the quranic flaws after i establish that Omnipotence isn't the MOST probable explanation for the origins of the Universe.

But i gotta do it smart, because he could just tell me those are incorrect interpretations and we'll go in circles.

When i was catholic we used to have religious debates about shit like this but i never went after the scientific stuff and inconsistencies because the bible had the same thing so i'd be fucked, but now that's not a worry.