One thing atheists seem to be unaware of is the law of causality. Simply put, every effect must have a cause.
Now let me ask you atheists, which of the following follows the law of causality?
>nothing got infinitely hot and exploded into the universe for no reason
or
>the universe was crafted by a being who has the capability to do so
Example 2:
>Random mutations that came out of nowhere and made monkeys poop out humans
or
>carefully designed features from an intelligent architect
Why can't atheistic theories follow the laws of the universe but God can?
>>57365477
they didnt come out of nowhere
the entire step by step from the (theorized open to change ) big bang to current day is documented as well as the physics , chemistry and math behind it.
go educated yourself pleb
i bet you dont know even know the physics behind fire. stay dumb and ass mad.
I know this is a troll, but can point me to anyone, anywhere that proposes NOTHING giving rise to something, which, incidentally is what the 'god did it' explaination offers, with an additional step of claiming a self-created-creator-that-eschews a rule you just established as being supposedly uneshewable.
Whos the illogical one again? Thats right its your strawman.
Show me an example of ANYONE proposing a universe from nothing. What IS a nothing? How do we measure two nothings?
Is it possible to have a nothing somewhere?
Perhaps conceptial absolutes only work as ideas rather than actual things, in the same way that its funny how gods can supposedly live for ever, shoot lightening, but when it comes to stuff involving people that could be interrogated, gods can't actually do things that people can, like write a book, open a door, or have a regular conversation like we're having...
Get the fuck out
>>57365477
I do not argue that something caused the big bang. I argue that we can not know whether that "something" was sentient or not. And, even with the possibility that a sentient thing caused the big bang, that does not necessitate that this was intentional, and, even if it was intentional, that does not mean that it was any of the deities that humanity has believed in thus far.
So while I do not discount the possibility of a cause to the big bang, that does not mean that I accept your extremely narrow, unproven narrative.
then what caused god :^)
You can't argue from causality and then have your entire argument hinge on the unexplained existence of an intelligent architect.
>>57365477
>causality
quantum superposition would like to have a word with you
>>57365477
kek
>>57365477
I'm sure this is bait, but you're proposing that God solves the infinite regression of causality.
This is obviously wrong because as you regress from event to its cause to its cause, etc., you describe simpler and simpler events (because it's counterintuitive for something to be created by something less complex than it). Yet, at the end of this regression, after describing minutely simple things in the ancient, ancient past, you suddenly throw out the first cause...God, an infinitely complex, infinitely knowledgeable and powerful being, and then you say that It does not require a cause.
How can you believe that is consistent?
>>57366152
The First law of thermodynamics would like a word with you
>>57366142
B-but god n sheit.
The big bang isn't necisaarily the beginning of all time and existence you fucking moron
But God is. Or he always existed. And we're the ones who don't get causality?
I sincerely hope you kill yourself before you marry and have kids and get cuc ked you fucking worthless autustic christfag
>>57365477
>my explanation doesn't have to follow the law of causality
>how come my explanation follows the law of causality but yours doesn't
Science doesn't claim to know why the big bang happened, just that it did happen. It does not claim to know what caused the universe to exist, it only claims to know something about the manner in which it happened. The God hypothesis is a guess which claims to be absolutely correct and violates the law of causality. (Who created God?)
Educate yourself.
The big bang doesn't say the universe came from nothing. It describes the expansion of the universe from a single point/condensed space when there actually WAS something.
As for where the universe comes from, there are more than a few models based on more than emotional conjecture. Cyclical universes, bubble universes, quantum universes, string theory, etc.
>random mutations making monkeys poop out humans
Both of your examples show how much you know about any of this shit.
By the way, when we're talking about the universe, we're talking about the observable universe. Meaning the observable universe is not all there is. In ten billion years or so the observable universe will just be our galaxy, we literally wouldn't be able to see any other galaxy. That doesn't mean it's all there actually is.
>>57365477
Nothing can't become something. Something can't have always just been there either.
That's why this discussion is retarded. Theists claim atheists are stupid for believing one. Atheists think theists are stupid for believing the other.
>>57365477
What created the being that created the universe. There is more evidence of an ancient explosion than a creator. If God made life he did a real shit job.
>>57368556
>That's why this discussion is retarded. Theists claim atheists are stupid for believing one. Atheists think theists are stupid for believing the other.
Except for the fact that atheists don't claim knowledge, only point out the gaping flaws in christfag reasoning.
>everything must have a cause
>universe needs a cause to exist
>god doesn't
ok
Our existence is a mistake inside the nihil
>>57368647
The true scientifically minded ahteists don't.
The majority, regardless of stance on the issue, claim they are more intelligent than the other side and know the truth.
>>57365477
S A G E D
A
G
E
D
& reported
this meme is stale as fuck, OP.
>causality
>correlation and causation
Jesus Christ, these expressions get thrown around too often by you idiots, most of the time you don't even make sense and use it just because you skimmed through the sticky.
If you post in this thread taking it seriously you are cancer.
>>57368851
Even when I say "god doesn't exist", it's a tentative statement just like anything else in reality. If we were to talk about ABSOLUTE truth, which religious people are really fond of, in reality, we wouldn't be able to say anything is absolutely true except for rigidly defined logic and mathematics. I can't be absolutely sure I'm sitting on a chair right now in my office and not in a mental asylum somewhere.
What I mean is, the statement "god doesn't exist" is on the same level as "santa doesn't exist", and all it means is "get some evidence for your fairy or fuck off, child".
