A question for atheists:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.
The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
This argument is over 2000 years old
>Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
>has
there's your problem dippy
you imply we can understand it
>>70983418
We can understand the workings with science
>>70983259
Yes, its philosophically demonstrable that something beyond the material world necessarily exists.
Where's the question?
>>70983645
The universe is proof that God exists.
I am asking for you to disprove it.
Also remember that nothing can create itself.
Matter can not be created or destroyed.
Having a loop leads to infinite regress.
This is the Kalam argument.
Like I said, this argument has been around for 2000 years and is a basis for theological argument.
This is only the first part as well.
>>70984268
nice bait. back to r3ddit
>>70983259
>Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
you cant prove it. Cience cant prove it, just theorize about it. We are close to a physics solution to that, but not quite.
>If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
The universe could be cyclical therefore not having a point that marks its beginning so there is no need for an creator.
>> An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
This argument is over 2000 years old
Sadly the universe history is far older.
Sorry op your argument is weak, as is weak your concept of god, and your morals. Try next time after reading some physics, theology and philosophy. INB4 Tips Fedora.
>>70983259
>Whatever begins to exist has a cause
says who
Who created God, you stupid, retarded, sneaky, smelly, greedy Christian?
You've only proven how poor your philosophical capacity is.
>>70984476
Are you saying that things just magically appear out of no where?
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Think about it.
Also your argument you are representing is called "Infinite Regress."
Its flawed.
This is not my argument. I am just an advocate for it.
>>70983259
>uses the same logic as an atheist for the same unknown
Stop mixing scientists with atheists
Kill yourself
>>70984712
the jews, obviously
>>70983259
>Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The idea of cause and effect only exist because of the rules inside/because of the universe.
There is no reason to believe the causality existed before the universe and this is an unfounded beliefe
>>70983259
An American friend told me once that the universe is like a match or firecracker.
There was nothing.
Then an enormous burst of energy- flame
Our universe, all matter, are the embers and smoke dissipating in oxygen, cooling and being pushed apart by force.
I like this analogy because it shows just how our entire reality is pegged to time. Our entire universe lives in a bubble of time. When it ends nothingness will return and time itself will be lost, until the next massive explosion.
>>70984712
Nothing.
God has always has, always be. He is everywhere, yet no where.
It you drew a line for the start of the universe to the present, God would be the paper.
He is timeless and spaceless.
I am masturbating furiously.
*tips fedora
>>70983259
>Whatever begins to exist has a cause
the universe is not a "whatever". The universe is EVERYTHING that exists. The statement only makes sense WITHIN the internal laws of the universe.
So what caused God genius?
>lol no he's different he doesn't need one
>>70985236
Stfu you dumb queer nigger
>>70984268
r/atheism is a better place for your bait, mr. fedora.
>>70983642
I've never understood the cuz science argument. If religion and science are both man made structures, according to some, what makes one more real than the other. Science is observation and practice, which still in and of itself is not absolute. [Insert cannot create something from nothing argument here]
Its fairly amusing trying to see /pol/ autists trying to disprove an argument introduced by Aristole and developed for thousands or years.
Out of every 1 good answer there are 10 shitposts.
Can't wait till summer.
>>70983259
>Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
Ok... according to what we know the universe had a beginning and is not eternal like some commie atheists suggested ("Steady State theory", for instance, was completely rebuked by the discovery of the so called Big Bang, formulated by a Catholic priest).
>The universe began to exist;
Yes.
>Therefore the universe has a cause.
Right on.
>The universe has a cause;
That's what I'm talking about.
>If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Wait wut?
>Therefore an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
You just went full retard, brother.
The God concept is a viable one but "your" First-mover argument is a non-sequitor.
>>70985417
kek. It's always funny when theists try to engage in logical debates then quickly have to run back to their little safe space of NO, LOGIC DOESN'T WORK ON GOD.
I know women smarter than that. Women.
>>70984806
no, not at all, causality can be infinite. not on the next cause, but the first cause of a chain of events can be a logic illusion. Think about it, how far can a chain of events be ? implying it has to be a main cause is just not true. So saying that the universe has a beggining is just not possible yet. You see, even the bigbang theory dont say that there was a creator before the 0 near zero volume and total mass. That condensed material that created the universe since its the best shot the actual cience has to show how it was created dont say there was anything before it. it just was there hanging around.
>>70983259
All things must have a cause. What caused God?
If God Caused himself, then why can't the Universe cause itself?
The universe had no beginning. Trying to understand how the universe came to be is like trying to find the largest number. It is simply not comprehensible by the human mind, and your argument falls under the slippery slope fallacy you fucking faggot
>>70985716
You have to be baiting.
Humans are funny.
>the universe began
Citation needed.
>>70985716
The creation of something from nothing argument is debatably cyclical. Universe couldn't be created from nothing, something must have made it, so God did, but who created God since you can't say that he always existed because he is then also born of nothing. It's a self-defeating argument
>>70983642
Ya. Long time ago they thought the earth was flat. There is still debate on molecular theory. Pretty sure science is an elastic study that we can never guarantee to be accurate.
>personal
Could you explain why the argument doesn't work if the creator wasn't personal?
>>70985856
i know eventually i will show that to op. God is not a problem. But the consequences of beliving in god as political stands are.
Earth is an electron.
>>70985910
Saying beyond our comprehension can also be said about God, cant cherry pick
>>70983259
And that creator isnt Jewhovah.
>>70985910
>>70986038
>the universe had no beginning
You're some special kind of mouthbreathing retard if you believe this.
Now even Stephen Hawking argues against that.
>>70986065
its the chicken or egg debate. causality cant deal with it, and its the basis of OP´s argument.
>>70983259
>using semantics and vague words to "reason" a conclusion
It may be 2000 years old but its still just as retarded as ever.
>>70983259
> The universe has to have a starting point
Tenuous, but okay, supposing it did
> It has to have been created by some form of intelligence
That's a nice leap off a fucking cliff friend.
>>70986330
Then what are all religious texts if not comprehension of a god?
>>70983259
If whatever begins to exist has a cause then it applies to god; if it does not, its negation may also be applied to the universe and use occhams razor on god.
>>70983259
I don't understand why the concept of the universe can't be the same as the concept of God
>>70983259
if there is no universe that means there is no time. therefore cause and effect doesn't work. if reality isn't there yet, then nothing has to conform to reality because it isn't there.
>Whatever begins to exist has a cause
> an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists
which is is faggot? Does everything that exists have a cause, or does an uncaused creator exist?
Ops logic :
everything has to have a beggining !!
Therefore GOD EXISTS !
aauheuhauhaauheuheuhauheuhaauhauha
>>70986624
replying to myself because OP will ignore this post as it BTFO of his shitty argument
I think we were a science experiment someone abandoned in their attic, got found a few years later, got shown a little love, then forgotten again.
>>70986396
Its the best theory there is, and don't act like Stephen Hawking's opinion is so great just because you see it on reddit
>>70986584
Read them, he'll skim, none of them explain what he is beyond what we think he is. They're religious history books. You could say the same about sciences books; they're both attempts at comprehension but neither are definitive especially since both were authored by man
"This argument is 200 years old"
LOL
sure, but what says its the christian god. its pretty even odds for all of them. besides im not an atheist, and have had many religious experienes with many different dieties. its kind of a shame christianity closes your eyes to the many lovely beings out there. too bad this sort of thing is seen as crazy. unless you actually see god as all of creation.. but you still lack so so much. its sad modern spirituality is way off of the real shit.
>>70986825
Deism
>>70983259
Life is crazy isn't it
>>70986624
That is the only logical explanation there is.
>>70985236
>my sky daddy can be infinite. No end or beginning
>your universe can't be infinite. There has to be an end and a beginning
Nigger, do you even read your own posts?
>>70986862
Simple use of Occam's razor can allow even the dumbest of people to see that there is no god. If you aren't willing to believe one thing that you can't comprehend, why believe another?
>>70983365
Explain?
I am an agnostic (practical atheist) that respect the religious and the sacred more and more.
I owe a lot of it to Jordan B. Peterson, an agnostic.
For those of you who want some interesting food for thought:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zCP9mW0GH4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c3m0tt5KcE
Christians, why would God (the Christian one) allow the black death to happen? Europeans were the most faithful during the time of the plague, and God still allowed 1/3 of them to die.
As we move further away from God, the quality of life just gets better.
I don't see any divine intervention argument for God.
The creation argument has already be debunked because who created the creator?
>>70983259
>Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
Prove it.
>>70987235
>your explanation for why the sky daddy is infinite is not sufficient
>but its totally sufficient for my explanation of an infinite uncaused universe
explain why the universe has no beginning then
>>70983259
I love it when Religion Americans try to use philosophy or logic and bomb like the US in Cambodia. Stop trying to use reason to support an unreasonable set of assumptions. It's like saying
>Look, I'll use math to prove that dirt tastes bad!
>1+dirt tastes bad +3 = 4 dirt tastes bad!
One of your units isn't compatible with the rest.
>>70987866
give an example of something observed having existed without a cause
>>70985236
>God has always has, always be. He is everywhere, yet no where.
Dr. Seuss?
>>70987954
>>70987954
>It's like saying
no it isn't. thats just you inserting a strawman to smash your crude analogy into a non argument
>>70986862
if you believe this, it doesn't matter if a "god" exists - makes no difference, humans decide
>>70987844
>I don't see any divine intervention argument for God.
I've see jews making that argument for themselves. Judging by the current state of the world, I'd say jews have a reason to believe in their God.
>>70986608
>use occhams razor on god.
or you know....use it on the big bang
>>70987329
Well yeah, it's cherry picking beyond that of logic or rhetoric. Faith is what it is because it's, in most cases, unfounded. Why people feel the need to go out of their way to prove what they believe in, I have no idea. I like it for discussion just to see views and variety in argument but I'll never go out of my way to prove to some stranger that doesn't believe in the same things as I do. The ultimate belief, if nobody wants to contradict themselves, is the belief in humanity; all of our theories, ideas, logic, science, religion, are all created or thought up by humans. How the universe actually came to be, who absolutely knows, but any method developed for interpretation and comprehension is man made. Man has limited experience, any argument for or against is limited, which is why I really don't feel like any argument trying to prove/disprove belief is ever really complete. Occam's razor can be used to prove the earth is flat ffs, the only people that really know are those limited individuals, in their limited perspective and experience, saw it for themselves
>>70988048
You, a human being, were born with the ability to become a very intelligent individual, but instead you were filled with a causeless stupidity and looked to religion for answers.
>>70988048
>give an example of something observed having existed without a cause
The universe. It's always existed and always will exist infinitely. Neither being created or destroyed. The exact same traits that people attribute to god can easily be attributed to the whole universe.
>>70985236
Just what the fuck. Actually kill yourself
>>70987421
Saying that everything that begins to exist has a cause,says that someone created it for a cause.
Therefore,this argument is invalid,unless you have proven before that someone has created the universe
>>70987027
>religious experienes
do you know that experiment, wher they put magnets on peoples heads, who then have "transcendent" experiences?
>>70988230
Addressed it here: >>70988363
>>70988279
And yes, Occam's razor is nothing other than deductive reasoning that can be applied to nearly anything "earth is flat"
>>70983259
>The universe began to exist
Prove the universe needs to "begin".
>>70987894
Because I do not believe that the universe did not have a beginning. If I believe this of one entity, why should I not for another?
And if I did, what makes that entity different from the other?
You're basically using self defeating arguments. There universe and god might as well be the same thing, too many similarities.
>>70988048
you're the one making the claim that everything exists has a cause
reminder that we're talking about a state without space and time, applying our rules to something that predates the very existence of the rules itself is extraordinary
>>70983259
>If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists
Who says? Just because something exists doesn't mean someone had to create it. You have no idea what caused it so you need to make up things to satisfy your incomplete image of a perfect meaning and order.
For all you know, none of this is even real and you are God, imagining everything. For all you know, the universe birthed itself from a tiny tiny nano particle that we havent even discovered yet.
> Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
Fallacy. Infinity has no beginning or end.
>>70988363
>>70988717
so, basically: "whatever, I believe what I want."
>>70987218
Why does the universe need a cause if the "Creator" does not? Your argument is literally:
>everything must have a cause
>therefore there is something that does not have a cause
you violated your premise and your argument is shit
Nothing really begins or ends. Energy is just converted from one form into another. We say the big bang was the 'beginning' of the universe, but really we just mean that it was a singularity before that, and that we cannot currently calculate its properties during or prior to it's infinitely dense state, since time is a property of space.
>>70989320
So you're telling me that I just appeared out of nowhere for no reason?
Just magic?
Everything that begins to exist always has a cause.
God never began to exist. He always always existed.
>>70985370
This. I love how the best responses never have any replies because u cant refute this response. Even the fucking leaf understands lol
>>70989395
I acknowledge other arguments and divulge in them but that doesn't obligate me to abandon my beliefs just because someone prevents limited evidence to things that are otherwise viewed as limitless. According to you, you can't believe in a limitless universe without believing in a limitless being. Believing in one limitless entity while disbelieving another. I didn't really have to say anything if you want to get right to the core, you basically beat your own argument with your initial reply to me. Won't stop you from maintaining those beliefs though, correct?
>>70989644
The universe has always existed and always will exist in one form or another.
>>70989644
It didn't appear out of nowhere, that implies it has a beginning. It just is.
lrn2math.
>>70989504
>strawman
I said that everything that has ever begun has needed a cause.
Everything.
Even the universe.
That means something at the very beginning must of been always there.
Either a force or a person.
Misrepresenting the argument doesn't make you right syrupnigger.
>>70989861
>big bang
>>70983259
you are right. your logic is flawless. there must be a creator. and his name vishnu.
>>70990084
That's a change in form, not the beginning of the universe.
>>70990101
Actually it's Odin .
Hurr prove me wrong faggots
>Op logic
>>70990084
The big bang wasn't the start of everything you dumb fuck.
>>70983259
I see you're taking a modern philosophy class.
>>70983259
Explaining the secrets of the Universe with flimsy human logic...kek
>>70983259
What created God then?
>>70983259
I love the tautological shit tier arguments of deists.
Acting like they have some understanding of biology. Or physics. Or philosophy. Or really anything.
Arguments w/o evidence can be dismissed w/o evidence.
>>70988926
you missed the part where his argument started from "if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause"
>>70990143
Then tell me what was there before that.
>>70990206
No it wasn't. But it was the start the time plane that we currently live in.
>>70983259
what begins to exist does not have a cause, though. it merely wishes to propagate itself
>>70984268
you never proved that the universe is proof that god exists
seriously, philosophers have been blowing the fuck out of religion since the dawn of time
the only reason we kept religion around is it was an easy means of control against the illiterate unwashed masses
"do gid hard work n be gud, heaven shall await you :^)"
"we take all the material wealth and live a life of luxury while toil in the fields for us"
thanks based religion
>>70985417
You misunderstand. The whole argument is that there is something outside the natural plane which can be talked about as a God or gods. Even if it's a big metaphysical lightswitch with no will of its own.
Surely you don't think there's an infinite chain of causal events? Or no cause for the universe?
I'll give you a hand: if you want to make this argument in the future, try this:
>There is no reason to believe the uncaused cause is a sentient entity. It may be a natural phenomenon with no ability to act of its own accord.
Was that so hard?
>>70983259
BULLSHIT
I'm no atheist, but you cannot determine the figure at the beginning to be "God" with any shred of certainty. Its possible, in fact MORE likely than not that there is an infinite (or at least Very Large) nested set of universes, each completely bound to and from the others in eternal separation.
God is the totality of that. All of this, and all there ever could be. The One and Only, the One and all. That's what it is, and its face looks exactly like whatever happens to be in your field of view at any given moment.
Jesus/Yahweh/Allah are all awesome stories, better than some Star Wars movies, but WHATS THE FUCKING POINT on getting hung up on all that, when the scale is so much bigger than some monkeys scooting their asses in the dirt.
>>70990367
>Then tell me what was there before that.
We can't yet measure that and it may never be possible.
>>70989971
>something
Even if ... then what?
A pointless stance.
>>70990581
Oh I forgot.
Hail Satan, etc.
Well I have to go and leave you autists with your own devices.
Basically what I got was 85% of people saying "Kys" and trying to dismiss a 2000 year old argument with one shitpost on a Mongolian weaving forum.
>>70990511
>seriously, philosophers have been blowing the fuck out of religion since the dawn of time
Can you accurately describe one complex philosophical case against religion? I don't mean "name a philosopher," anyone can post "MARX" or "RUSSELL," I mean, can you actually describe one of their arguments against religion?
I am inclined to believe you cannot. You see internet people post shit like "Socrates died for this shit" when their little atheist forum runs into ledditor drama, even though Socrates was religious and spent tons of time talking about his personal religious beliefs.
>>70989971
Correct, that would be an infinite being that is otherwise trying to have limitations on it. To say you can't create something from nothing, a limitation on something supposedly limitless, so it must have had something create it. The hole in the argument is that something that created something had to have been created by something itself. To say it always existed means it was somehow created by nothing into existence. It creates an exception for one while limiting another in the same argument without any kind of basis other than cuz I sed so
>>70989841
No beliefs here.
The scientific method works for me.
Some things are proven, some things are justified theories,
some things are unknow, some things (apparently) can't be known.
Don't see the need to make things up.
>>70985794
this guy gets it.
>>70983259
>everything has a causet
>God doesn't have a cause
Homerun argument
>>70983259
>Whatever begins to exist has a cause
says who?
>The universe began to exist
what if it always existed?
>>70983259
>the universe began
this phrase is meaningless.
>>70991387
You believe in science to hold the answers, to say that you hold no beliefs but trust the scientific method to prove things you would otherwise not believe exists is contradictory. Everyone has beliefs, all of them made up, one more favorable than the other. Is the world flat? No. You don't believe the world is flat. Is the world round? Yes. You believe the world is round. A lack of belief in one doesn't prove the existence of another though, we all (mostly it seems) know that to be true. To say you have no beliefs whatsoever goes against, well, everything that is human understanding
what if there was "some force" that caused all this?
what does that mean for us?
maybe 'don't destroy everything'.
but further than that ... ?
>>70990926
This makes perfect sense.
If the universe(s) can't spontaneously pop into existance or have just always existed. Why can God?
What if the Universe(s) are God but not in the way we think, like some creator thing that judges us, but just some impartial uncaring entity like nature, that spawned us because it could and doesn't give a flying fuck what we do.
>>70992248
Pandeism is the category
>>70991895
"believing" that the earth is round is not the same as believing in a god.
who are you trying to fool?
>>70983259
>Whatever begins to exist has a cause
prove it. you cant. youre just another retarded faggot
>>70992490
Where, in any of that, did I say that it correlated as such. Stop grasping at straws trying to find something in that statement. I stated that you not having any beliefs but then indirectly saying you believe in science is fundamentally wrong. Improve your rhetoric
>>70983259
Just belive whatever you want. Just don't be a fagot about it.
Atheists who try to 'debunk' god all the time are fagots
Christians who try to 'prove' god all the time are fagots.
I hate both of you fags
>>70990845
>not realizing you're on a chilean recipe exchange
>>70992899
>believe in science
it works. it can explain and predict things.
relying on science is not the same as making something up.
>b-b-but what caused existence
What is north of North Pole?
>>70993333
>"What is north of North Pole?"
I hear this argument all of the time, and it's a retarded analogy.
Before the Big Bang, there was likely a state of intense heat.
That's not "nothing". That's still something. How did that get there?
>>70993318
Both religion and science are man made, not insinuating anything just stating things, to understand the natural and supernatural. Trying to pit one against the other isn't practical because they don't even exist in the same realm of understanding. That's why I said I think arguments saying that one led to the other, directly or indirectly, is stupid. I'll maintain my belief in both but I also don't believe they should ever be compared and an open from speaking from stances outside of my beliefs just for seeing the response of others. No need to get your ass lit
I'm consistently amazed by the sheer audacity of these people not only to superimpose a human image or gender on the supposed supernatural, eternal creator of everything but also to posit, as if they are 100% certain, that their creation story is the correct one out of the millions that have been drafted by imaginative humans throughout history. It's like a cult of people who get off on being pious and worldly whilst simultaneously decreeing that the entire universe fits their extremely narrow, specific dogma. Fucking baffling.
What is more likely/less likely, the universe spontaneously popped into existence or a being so powerful that it could create the entire universe, spontaneously popped into existence?
God adds an unnecessary complexity to it.
Also
>quantum fluctuations
Things can be created from nothing, quantum mechanics is voodoo
>>70994021
Also OP needs to use Occam's razor before sitting here telling us all this "this, therefore this, therefore this" bullshit. Science has a more rational explanation with fewer assumptions.
>>70993817
science has a real (huge) basis, belief has nothing but hopes and feelings.
>>70994078
This.
And the biggest hurdle is accepting that we simply do not have any way of understanding a beginning to our universe. There's no frame of reference for it. To us, the only thing that has no end are numbers, and those are axiomatic constructs. You can't visibly demonstrate infinity objects.
In order for the human brain to comprehend something, there must be something else to compare it to. We have no evidence of an infinite system that did not begin. For us, everything has a beginning and an end. There's nothing we can point to and go "hey, God is like this thing that also didn't have a beginning".
>>70983259
>This argument is over 2000 years old
its not the big bang was coined by a priest in 1900 something. And indeed confirmed god because atheist scientist thought that the universe always been here.
>>70990897
what road do you want me to go down to destroying the usual apologist argument?
Sure, I could start quoting verses like you do out of the cuck manual.
Life has no terrors for him who has thoroughly understood that there are no terrors for him in ceasing to live.
Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not , and when death is come, we are not. It is nothing, then, either to the living or to the dead, for with the living it is not and the dead exist no longer
my argument obviously being that there is nothing awaiting you even in death
That aside, there are many upsides for an individual to believe in a religion, even if it is an illusory conviction.
>>70994273
That's why the distinguishing factor was stated between supernatural and natural. They do not compute with one another regardless of origin
>>70983259
>whatever begins to exist has a cause
>implying that's even true
>implying the universe simply 'began to exist'
also, can we call Satan the anticuck from now on?
>>70994865
>upsides
The fundamental reason why most believe, namely the fear of what comes after death, and what makes the thought of death more comforting. The need to press those beliefs on someone else is just as stupid as someone trying to take finding comfort in accepting ultimate end away from someone.
>>70994078
Even though I am an Atheist, I hate when people bring up likelihoods, as if we can even test probabilities of the universe empirically.
Why is the universe here? Nonsensical question.
What came before the Big Bang? Nonsensical question.
You may as well ask what a triangular circle looks like, or what's "outside" the universe.
And another thing that seriously needs to end is thinking the universe came from "nothing" when the BBT never even posits that; it states that the universe came from a singularity and rapidly-expanded for who-knows-why [no, you will never, ever know the answer to this -- ever; it's a waste of time to even ask about it].
The majority of people need to just shut up and stop asking nonsensical questions that can never be answered or making remarks that aren't objective. [By nonsensical I don't mean crazy/stupid/outrageous/et al., I mean without sense; read some Witty if you have trouble.]
If you want to believe in a god, or God, fine, whatever -- same goes for the opposite -- but stop saying stupid things and just shut up.
>>70995154
No. Satan is a cuck.
>>70994905
great. call it supernatural and you can say what you want.
everything is possible, you just have to BELIEVE!
not impressed.
>>70988527
>has a cause
>for a cause
He means something that caused it to happen, not a purpose you mongoloid
>>70986624
fuck of cunt god is beyond cause he created cause
>>70983259
Bring up the Boltzmann brain and God. Drive the double digit IQ atheist nuts.
>>70995239
religious keks handle the death of friends and family members better, are happier in general, less cynical, think life has some kind of purpose etc etc
>>70994078
>What is more likely/less likely, the universe spontaneously popped into existence or a being so powerful that it could create the entire universe, spontaneously popped into existence?
So an explanation is more implausible than no explanation? That's full retard.
who created the creator? and who created the creators creator?
and so forth
>>70987844
Black dead was caused by hygene problems. people easily could have prevented this by not be filthy pigs
>>70985223
Somehow this post gave me some kind of a thought. One of the leading beliefs about the end of the universe is that it will be in the form of heat death. The thing is, energy cannot be destroyed. It can dissipate, and move further away until the infinite universe has spread it about so far flung that it is useless, and nothing can truly exist or use it, but energy is always still in existence, and it exists in matter. Another theory, associated with the Big Bang, provides that the beginning of the universe was a tightly packed mass that exploded to create everything that exists. What if the entire universe actually had some central, very small level of gravity that, once heat death occurred, or perhaps even before then, would gradually slow the expansion of the universe, or spread of all masses, until they changed directions, and gradually moved back to that central location, generating more and more gravity as more mass grew closer and causing unfathomable amounts of matter to collide and assemble at the point, at which, eventually the gravity was so strong it would reform that small, tightly packed atom that started the Big Bang? I didn't really read over this because I'm on my phone and the box is tiny, and it probably sounds retarded to anyone with more knowledge than me on the subject, but is there any way anything similar to this may be possible?
>>70996034
I just realize I was talking about energy but never actually used it to explain anything later in the post. Forgot where I was going with that, sorz.
>>70995311
somebody shit and skeet in your Cocoa Puffs this morning? What else would it be classified as? Awfully pissy to have so much RRREEE in all your posts
>>70983259
So what you're saying is, if the Bible's definition of God is true i.e. he is omniscient, omnipotent, and immortal, then he exists and he created the universe...
which is exactly what Godel tried to explain using modal logic. The problem is that this theorem takes as an axiom that the Bible is 100% true. We have no proof that this is the case, so the theorem fails.
In truth your argument fails in the same way as the Big Bang Theory. Scientists have no explanation for where the condensed matter which cause the big bang came from, or at least none that I've heard. Your theory fails to explain the existence and origin of God.
>>70984612
chicken, egg
>>70983259
>The universe has a cause;
Source?
You can't even prove the Universe exists, nevermind that it has a cause.
You ASSUME it exists.
>>70983259
>The universe has a cause;
yeah. it's called a qauntum fluctuation.
>>70996322
You can trace matter and energy back to a central point, where they expand from. Hence the theory.
You can't trace history back to the Bible, it doesn't match.
>>70995672
Death is likely the largest part as to what religion they choose and why. Heaven? Cool shit! Virgins and 72 of them? Fuck yeah! We don't know what comes after death, we say nothing but have only played the role of those who observe death, dead men tell no tales. Believing in something that sounds like it holds the answer as to what happens after we kick it is the largest appeal
>>70984268
>The universe is proof that god exists
Elaborate?
>>70988407
a love how these same faggots who say god doesn't exist because hurr science continue to suggest that the universe didn't have a beginning. fucking big bang, hello????
>>70996574
Yes, you can trace it back to the point from which it expanded, but where did it come from before that?
>>70983259
>Whatever begins to exist has a cause within the universe
Fixed
>the universe began to exist
The observable universe, sure. Not sure about the rest of it, or before if you can even call it that.
>therefore the universe has a cause
Not really.
>if the universe has a cause, then an uncaused
Special pleading
>personal
Baseless speculation
>Creator of the universe exists
More baseless speculation
>this argument is over 2000 years old
Probably why it's so shit
>>70995949
what created nothing and what created notthings nothing and so forth
>>70996261
so ... what?
you admit that believing is completely arbitrary?
what do you want? respect for that ignorance?
>>70996951
A single point.
So the theory is that it rapidly expanded from a single point. That is all we know for certain, assuming physics are consistent in all time/space.
But that's the big bang. No one claimed to know the cause. They just know it happened.
>>70983259
I've murdered a rock, drawn blood from a stone, hospitalized a brick...
>>70997084
What you should be asking is does it warrant that much aggression just because I won't bend and take your disbelief stick all the way up and through. It goes from discussion to just having a bad day
>>70997131
And that's the point I was making. No one knows. If the BBT is the truth, where did the matter come from, originally? If God is real, where did he come from? There are no answers for either question at the moment.
>Whatever begins to exist has it cause
No it doesn't. Look up pair production and quantum mechanics in general. There is no such thing as direct causation.
>>70995672
The end justifies the means.
That's your argument for your believe in god?
>>70984806
>implying the universe isn't eternal
>implying God doesn't need a cause
>implying God basically doesn't exist
>science is not 100% accurate
>therefore I will believe in the 2000-year old jabbering of a desert kike
Okay.
>>70997296
You are comparing apples and oranges.
We can trace the Universe back to a central point. We know the big bang happened. No one claimed to understand the cause of the big bang, but we know for certain that it happened.
Second, we have no evidence of any God or any form of creation. We can trace life through evolution, but there is no examples of spontaneous creation. We can't trace anything back to a God, there's no reason to assume one would exist.
There are no problems in the Universe that require a God to solve. There's a nature explanation for everything.
>>70997264
you're just dodging my questions.
>that much aggression
where?
It is difficult to argue contra God. It's easier to argue that physical laws exist which, independent of a metaphysical entity, can result in a universe. But as always when the question of why a universe should exist, reason fails. At the end of the day it's neither possible to prove that God exists, or does not exist -- but if we look at society, even atheists frequently insert god into their conversations. And then there's the mystery of numbers. That we have infinite sets of abstract entities suggests the possibility of a metaphysical entity. If infinity is possible, then why not an infinitely powerful being?
>>70983259
Whatever begins has to have a cause
>then an uncaused creator
>>70983259
That is NOT a Spartan helmet; that's a helmet from the movie "300"; it's of entirely fictional design.
>>70997675
There is no evidence that the Universe is real.
Nor is there any evidence that you can learn something about it.
You assume the Universe is real, and you assume you can learn about it.
You assume models with predictive capability are more useful than models without.
These are not facts, they are assumptions. Time and Space can ultimately be distorted and everything we comprehend could change, but it's not very likely.
Just as it's unlikely to assume there is a decision making being with supernatural powers that makes decisions that correlate perfectly with the natural state of the universe. It doesn't help you make predictions, there's no reason to even assume such a thing exists.
GOD TALKS TO ME.
SHE SAID TO CUT MY DICK OFF AND BECOME GODS SISTER, SO I DID.
GOD IS GREAT!
I MISS BLOWJOBS.
>>70997447
depends on the ends and the means. i'm not religious and didn't argue in favor of believing in god.
>>70997819
>There is no evidence that the Universe is real.
lets take a theory what has 0 evidence and makes 0 sense
>>70998036
The Universe
>>70983259
proof?
>>70997910
shouldn't you be religious, if you believed your statement was true?
>>70984806
You have no way of saying that the universe began to exist. As far as we know the universe exists by default, and was never created.
>>70997819
This is prima facie ridiculous. How can you claim the universe doesn't exist?
>>70997264
troll.
>>70997819
>Therefore
But I made the model to predict, that's the point of a model.
>>70998480
Are you 100% certain that the Universe around you is real and you are not just in the Matrix?
Can you prove you are not in the Matrix?
>>70997604
>There's a nature explanation for everything.
plz explain big bang then.
if you do that, please explain how the PHYSICAL particles were present that cause it. These physical particles had a creator of some sort. This has to be. The first physical thing that ever existed in any form had to have come from somewhere. As much of a cop out as the notion of 'God' being the cause, it's the most logical one at this time.
>>70998548
Not proving something isn't a prediction. You can't make a prediction about the Universe that would only occur if God was real.
>>70990569
I would just say that what you're arguing for does not resemble in any way a judeo-christian-islamic God. Those religions specify we were made in His image, etc.
As far as that external force existing, it is certainly possible but I can't see what advantage that theory has over just the universe existing. You say that it is impossible that there is an infinite chain of causal events or that there is no cause for the universe, but go on to claim that there exists a realm or force or whatever where that is not the case. Have you considered that that might be the case for the Universe?
>>70997682
Right. Whatever violated this first, was something that created itself. Some omnipotent being, if you will.
>>70998677
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3#.lcnixq9lv
>>70998677
We don't know.
But not knowing isn't evidence that there isn't a natural model to explain it.
It's also not evidence that we need to break the natural laws in order to explain it.
And it's also not evidence that it didn't happen.
>>70998324
what of what was said is not a true statement? religion does have good qualities to it just as it holds negatives;
e.g indoctrination, teaching kids that things of the bible are true, listen & believe mentality, discouragement of rational, critical thought, censorship etc
>>70983259
And you are right. I can only imagine the asspain of those who don't believe in God and their dogmatic and positivist answers. They will ignore logic and nature's law to deny God. They get angry at things like the quinque viae.
>>70998896
We can make a strong assumption it violates the known laws of the universe. Physical things don't spontaneously come into existence. Yet, as we stand, it obviously happened.
>>70998905
shouldn't you be religious then?
>>70998967
>We can make a strong assumption it violates the known laws of the universe.
well there were no laws of the universe before the universe even existed, much less before they were even set in stone. just agreeing with you.
>>70998604
Yeah, I am. What makes you think you're in The Matrix?
How can God create himself but the universe not create itself?
>>70998879
From the source:
>and the abundance of the primordial elements, such as helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and so on, can all be calculated using the theory.
Where did these goddamn helium atoms and deuterium atoms come from? This makes the assumption the conditions were already there. My argument is that the conditions of PHYSICAL ATOMS had to have a creator of some sort.
>>70998967
Physical things do spontaneously come into existence.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
You have a lack of understanding of how far advanced Physics have come along.
>>70998677
Atoms are just condensed energy.
>>70999074
>well there were no laws of the universe before the universe even existed, much less before they were even set in stone.
Very true. Good point.
>>70999090
>Where did these goddamn helium atoms and deuterium atoms come from?
from nothing. a quantum fluctuation, likely at the end of a previous Big Rip.
>>70998604
retard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlD-CJPGt1A
universe fine tuning .Even dawkins said its eitther god , multiverse , it has not been discovered yet , and its not finetuned .. This is what the top scientist say.
>can you proof that the world was not created
1 minute ago.?
>>70999078
I'm not, I just assume the Universe is real and I assume I'm not tied to a chair in an insane asylum.
I can't prove everything in front of me isn't a massive illusion, I also can't prove I'm just trapped in a cage made by aliens.
I just assume the Universe is real because there is no evidence that my senses are 100% true. I just make an assumption based on what other people tell me.
>>70999155
No, I can't prove it wasn't created 1 minute ago.
Just as I can't prove God created the Universe, or that that the Universe is even real.
However, we can observe that the natural universe does exist, and there is no evidence of God or divine intervention at any point in time.
You are assuming that something yet-explained cannot be explained. But there is no example of something that has been created by divine intervention
>>70999071
why should i believe in something that i don't think exists?
>>70998524
>pot calling the kettle black
Okay Muhammad
>>70999214
I find this kind of skepticism bordering on dogmatic. For example, I am 100% certain that if I punch myself in the face, it'll hurt. I can trust my sense on that.
Now, looking to your broader point: it's belief that we can never perceive reality directly. I think this is mistaken. The existence of a mountain is independent of my conscious perception of it. Likewise, the existence of the universe is independent of my being there to perceive it.
On the other hand, there's the notion of being stuck in an illusion (similar to Descartes' demon) in which you're stuck in some nightmare, never really out there in contact with existence. You can't eliminate that possibility, but that seems so...absurd that I can't see a justifiable reason for believing in it.
>>70983259
>Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
Spotted your bias, OP.
>by faith alone I decide that the universe needs to have "began to exist" but God didn't
>>70999559
You are not 100% certain you don't live in virtual reality.
There is no 100% certainty in the Universe.
You have to assume that what you see is real. There is a possibility, however small, that everything around is an illusion or just shadows of the past.
Do you agree on this point?
>>70999645
>You are not 100% certain you don't live in virtual reality.
holllly shit i remember now i used virtuall reality in the year 3055 how do i unplug ?
>>70999838
Exactly.
We both agree, we both assume the Universe is real.
We can't really prove it, but it's a safe assumption.
Back to punching yourself in the face.
We assume that you have a fist and a face, because we are both going to assume the Universe and everything we observe is real.
Our next challenge is that we assume we can learn something about it.
There is a chance that everything we learn about the universe is wrong. Your fist could be made of air. Your skull could be jelly.
It's possible that your fix will just pass through your skull and nothing will happen.
We are just assuming that your bones are hard and your skull is hard, and that the nerves in your face will feel the impact and notify your brain.
We could be wrong.
Is this a safe assumption?
>>70999645
It's not so much about accepting the possibility that you may be right, but what does the weight of evidence, reason, and logic, ceteris paribus, support? I think, the simpler explanation suffices: I am perceiving reality with 100% certainty. Might there be additional realities I don't perceive? Sure. I don't perceive the subatomic, or universal-scale events.
I honestly don't get the point of saying there's a virtual reality, and that I'm stuck in it. Why would I be in a VR world instead of a real world, and why when all the evidence I have available to me supports the idea of a real world would I go on believing that I live in a VR world?
>>71000411
Because that's what the super intelligent machinations that far superseded humanities mental capabilities constructed for you to be. The best way to control is the illusion of free will
>>70983259
then God has to have a cause too retard.
>>71000411
Those are additional reality, they are comprised of the same Universe.
There is one Universe. If you are going to assume there are multiple-universes that co-exist, than you cannot say with 100% that the Universe you live in is real.
Like I said, this Universe could just be the shadow of another Universe, and you are simply living through events that already happened. Your decision were already made millions of earth years ago.
There would be no noticeable difference between living in a flawless VR world or a real world. You could be a brain in a jar, you could have been hit by a car 10 years ago and living in a coma this whole time.
There is no way to disprove those theories.
That's the point. You just assume the Universe is real.
You are assuming that your perception of reality is correct, that you are not colour blind, that you can hear correctly, that you have a sense of touch and taste and that they function normally. You make a lot a of assumptions without any evidence.
>>71000681
>>71000711
>You make a lot a of assumptions without any evidence.
I'm not assuming. I'm certain. You're assuming that I'm assuming, and I'm telling you that I'm certain. I've heard your account of reality, and you've heard mine: I think we're going to disagree. I'm 100% that I'm perceiving reality, and that I'm not a brain in a jar, or someone controlled by a computer, or some other absurd scheme.
I'm pretty sure science backs me up. And I'm content with my position.
>>71001163
you
>ou can't eliminate that possibility, but that seems so...absurd that I can't see a justifiable reason for believing in it.
You are not 100% certain. You are still assuming.
There is nothing wrong with your assumption, and I'm not arguing that you are wrong.
But it is an assumption.
>>71001163
>Yfw science is nothing more than widely accepted assumptions
Who's to say the world doesn't reboot right when we're at the brink of creating, reaching, beyond our means, and starting everything over. You wouldn't know in the instance that it happens
Sometimes I want to talk about these things but then I get caught up in what a fucking mindfuck reality is. Not to sound too pseudo-intellectual and dramatic, but the more we find out about the universe, the more we realize we don't know shit.
Things are just kind of here and all perfectly work together. Maybe it couldn't be any other way, I dunno, but to me it's a total mindfuck that there can be atoms floating in empty space and somehow I'm conscious. How come the universe is like that and not just entirely empty?
As to not further delve into shitty philosophical babbling, I personally don't really believe in anything but I'm also not opposed to the idea that there's something, someone who made all this. Wouldn't surprise me and can't fault anyone for firmly believing it.
>>71001313
The argument got updated after we exchanged words: you convinced me that I'm certain. 100%. That's why I told you I'm 100%.
>>71001533
Who's to say my table doesn't grow wings and fly away? Who's to say I don't wake up tomorrow able to teleport, or with the formula for nuclear fusion? I don't get the point of these hypotheticals
>>71001813
>I don't get the point of these hypotheticals
The point is that you assume these things won't happen, because you assume the Universe is real.
Since you assume what you learn about the Universe is 100% certain, you know that if you punch yourself in the face, it will hurt. You know your knuckles are hard and that the nerves in your face will feel pain.
There is a hypothetical that you don't have nerves in your face, or you can't form a proper fist. But I assume you are a normal human being.
Is this a correction assumption?
