Hey /pol/, atheist here. This is a debate thread about god's existence or not.
>>75720882
Why, you think you have all the answers and nothing will change your mind. So a debate would be a waste of breath/keystrokes.
Can't be proven. Can't be disproven.
Debate over.
>>75720882
> Atheist
How atheist?
>>75720882
Would be much more fun if you were defending creationism. Can you do that instead?
>>75720882
Debate me with your faith. No thanks, it's my faith. I don't need someone to validate it or for it to be validated by someone, especially someone I don't know.
>>75721070
Not exactly. Converted to Atheism about a year ago. I am not an anti-theist. If someone shows me actual evidence that god exists, then I will change my opinion.
>>75720882
What do you believe?
>>75721312
Nothing. I am an agnostic atheist.
>>75720882
God is self-evident.
Your own consciousness is proof that God exists, as consciousness can only have arisen through consciousness.
>>75721389
Ah, begging the question. Hilarious.
>>75720882
What the fuck is the point of this thread? I've been an atheist all of my life, and I'm pretty sure the "I'm an atheist debate me" phase should have ended by age 17. You aren't doing atheists any favors.
>>75720882
If in an infinite universe anything is possible, does it mean that there is also the possibility of a God?
>>75721388
How did matter come to exist?
>>75721824
Via the Big Bang.
>>75721750
It's not infinite, retard. That's something they say to kids.
>>75721916
Doesn't answer my question
>>75721070
/thread
>>75721163
spbp
>>75722009
>How did matter come to exist?
Unknown.
It can be traced back to the big bang, but that's all.
>>75722009
How does it not answer your question. You asked how matter began its existence, and I respond with the big bang.
>>75720882
>>75721506
It's really very simple.
Nothing would exist without consciousness.
I say again, God is self-evident.
Only in your own experience can you come to know that God exists with certainty.
If you really want proof of God, the I suggest talking to Him.
Ask Him to reveal himself to you.
Search online for good arguments for God.
If you seek God earnestly, you WILL find Him.
Or are you just here for the sake of argument?
>>75722201
No, that's the start of time. How is matter created? Or if it was always there, how is this so?
>>75722242
The problem with that argument is you make the assumption that god exists, which is what we are debating. Also, more circular logic.
>>75722201
This is why I said you do atheists no favors. You come here, but you are uninformed, and probably just parroting easy arguments that you've read elsewhere.
Firstly, Big Bang deals with space time, but even so, any Christian can immediately follow up with "What about prior to the Big Bang?" You know, prior to Planck time and such.
The only intellectually honest thing to say as an atheist is "I do not know." Because, let's be honest, no one really has a clear understanding of pre-Big Bang cosmology, so trying to explain shit that even physicists don't have a handle on yet only hurts your argument.
>>75722393
As >>75722193 pointed out, matter can't be traced back to before the big bang.
>>75720882
the fact you came to this expecting to debate creationists proves you aren't worth responding to. God exists, you can get mad at him, you can spite him, you can say whatever edgy things you want about him, but that has no effect on the matter
>>75722759
You're still not answering my question
>>75721302
Do you have any evidence of naturalism or do you just believe it?
>>75722848
I have. I have given you the intellectually honest answer, in that we don't know.
>>75723020
do you know if we are not living in the matrix?
>>75723020
So if you don't know how matter came to exist, how can you claim superiority to any other claim about its origin?
>>75722623
Maybe because I am still uneasy about being an atheist? Maybe because I want to confirm my belief system.
>>75723163
Because not knowing is a lot closer to the truth than believing some random ass bullshit.
>>75723360
I thought you didn't know the truth, so why are you judging?
>>75723360
>Because not knowing is a lot closer to the truth
says who?
If you don't know what the truth is then how can you know how close you are to it?
>>75723163
I'm not. In fact, we don't even know if the universe exists or not. It is one of the basal assumptions. Besides that fact, by not knowing, we can have an open mind, ready to accept what actually formed the universe, instead of filling the gaps, like you have.
>>75723188
Honestly, having been an atheist forever, you are better of sticking to Christianity. You'll be happier and more successful on average.
>>75723188
>Maybe because I want to confirm my belief system.
Then do some introspection and reflection, rather than debate on fucking /pol/ of all places. Also, you generally don't want to write "atheism" and "belief system" within 20 words of each other. Atheism, rigorously defined, makes no demands beyond lacking belief.
>>75721302
No you wouldn't. You would then make excuses why you reject God, and why you think he isn't good enough to worship.
Don't throw pearls before swines. And we refuse to.
>>75723561
Interesting. Ok. I will do some reflecting. In the mean time, you faggots can debate and shit.
>>75723552
So your answer is "dunno lol" but then people who arrive at a different interpretation based on arguments you've never read are stupid?
>>75720882
Edgy. Bet you have long hair down to your knees and are wearing a Metallica or Slipknot shirt. Man. Atheists are just as annoying as Christians. "Look at me i'm a Christian" or Hey "Hey look over here, I don't believe in god i'm special"!
>>75723188
>Feel uneasy about my believe system
I guess stroking your ego helps, but don't come running when the existential crisis hits you though.
>>75723704
>You would then make excuses why you reject God, and why you think he isn't good enough to worship.
Not the poster you were referencing, but this is sort of a confused thought. The existence of a deity and whether or not it should be worshiped, if it exists, are two different topics.
>>75723806
The previous poster was correct in that "I don't know." is a adequate answer, and most likely the best possible answer.
To be intellectually consistent, one should have sufficient justification to make a positive claim. (i.e. changing from I don't know to a deity or something affirmative).
>>75723469
>>75723543
Are you guys really that dense? If you don't have an answer that makes scientific sense, then that's it, you don't have an answer. If you somehow got a wrong answer instead, then figuring out that it is wrong before going back to the not knowing state is an extra step.
Having "an answer" is not better than knowing that something isn't actually known. It's not like having a backup plan, or guessing something random when action is required. You can always do that. But when trying to explain things scientifically, it's very important to avoid wrong or "good enough" conclusions just because you want an explanation for the sake of having one.
Anybody can make up answers. The church of the flying spaghetti monster or whatever has answers just as legitimate as any others (but also wrong).
>>75724255
Prove to me that only knowledge obtained through the scientific method is true
>>75724754
Technically, no knowledge can be confirmed in any absolute sense. Some assumptions must be made and taken as axiomatic or nothing at all can be understood. That said, pure solipsism holds no explanatory value whatsoever.
>>75725110
So it's possible to discover truth through logic alone, and not just a scientific application of logic?
>>75724754
Science is based around the senses and trusting what our senses tell us. Our senses are the only link to any sort of separate world that we have, without our senses we are completely cut off from the world. Because of this it is rational to trust your senses, if you didn't then there is no way to continue living because in order to do anything you have to take a leap of faith in your own senses. However, because our senses can lie to us the only way to trust them is to create a system that can lead us to the answer that is most probably true, which is the scientific method. That is why it makes sense to not believe in a god without proof. Why believe in something from the outside world if you have no proof of it existing? There still could be a god beyond your ability to sense it but there could be anything beyond your senses, you can't know what is beyond your senses. And yes, sometimes people believe things based on feelings like love for one but it is important to be rational in your beliefs because feelings are fleeting and constantly change but logic is rigid.
>>75724754
>only knowledge obtained through the scientific method is true
This is false.
Any knowledge can turn out to be true no matter how you've obtained it.
But the scientific method is one way to ascertain it. Observability, reproducibility, predictive power, etc. All ways to "show" that things are true without having to relie on faith.
The problem with faith is that anybody can make up bullshit. I could write a bible too and ask people to prove that it is false. But by following the scientific method, I would need to gather proofs.
>>75725354
You're contradicting yourself. If we can't trust our senses, how can we know we can trust our senses in a scientific context?
>>75725240
You are going to have to rigorously define your definitions here. Truth as in, what is actually in accordance with reality? What sort of formulation of logic are you talking about in regards to reason? I'm assuming by scientific logic you are discussing empiricism.
What are your axiomatic assumptions for reality?
For instance, most people that forward science will content that:
1. The world is explicable and understandable with the senses
2. Logical processes are consistent and unchanging. (You can't suddenly square a circle).
And things like that.
>>75725577
You should realize this is also a trap when attempting to "discover truth through logic alone," as you are using the same meaty substrate and senses to create thought experiments.
You'd have the same axiomatic requirements to make any sort of statement.
This is why solipsism is really boring shit.
Don't waste your time with the theist shitheads.
It's funny how so many /pol/ users love Jesus but despise his teachings about loving your neighbor and your enemies and treating them kindly.
You dumbasses are ironically anti-semetic, not knowing that Jesus would have been a Jew if he was even real.
>>75725577
Well I wasn't really trying to prove that science is true just that it makes the most sense to trust it. If you want proof of why it makes sense to trust it, just look at how effective it is.
Basically my point is that whether you like it or not your senses are all that you have and you will trust them. Even when you do something as little as adjust your position in a chair you are trusting your senses. If you truly rejected your senses you would just die. That's my point, is that everyone trusts there senses no matter what but we know it can lie to us so it makes sense to create a system that can try to rectify that.
>>75721916
law of conservation of angular momentum contradicts BBT. We have entire galaxies spinning in the opposite direction.
>>75723552
Does space exist? Does time exist? Does matter exist?
Yes.
The Universe exists.
>>75725110
>Technically, no knowledge can be confirmed in any absolute sense.
Is that confirmed knowledge?
>>75726292
This is precisely why I hate navel gazing philosophy.
>>75725669
Why make assumption of how reality is at all?
If 1. is true, we should make no assumptions and see how reality acts by interpreting information via the senses.
>>75725669
>>75725881
How can you make axiomatic assumptions about reality?
>>75725949
But the system is just as untrustworthy as the senses that created it. So clearly we need to trust the senses to be able to do anything
>>75725899
Jesus was real, only the nature of His miracles and Divinity are in question.
>/pol/ is one person and they all think the same!
>not all muslims are terrorists!
Piss off.
>>75726360
What you said leads in circles. No use for that line of reasoning, best to throw it away. If we can't establish that some knowledge can be held as true, and acts in accordance with "reality", what is the point? How is progress made? Because some things are true, we can test them, and they have remained true.
What you said is a philosophical concept.
>>75726563
>But the system is just as untrustworthy as the senses that created it. So clearly we need to trust the senses to be able to do anything
Now that I think about it yeah that wasn't a very good argument but as I said before you will trust your senses whether you like it or not. When you do anything at all you trust your senses so why reject them? You actually can't reject them and continue existing. It's utterly meaningless to argue that you can't know for certain whether anything is real or not as a reason to abandon science and your senses because as I said it is impossible to abandon your own senses.
>>75726464
WHAT?
>If 1. is true, we should make no assumptions and see how reality acts by interpreting information via the senses.
>by interpreting information via the senses.
This is an axiomatic assumption.
>>75726563
>How can you make axiomatic assumptions about reality?
Well you don't have to, but without them, you have no substantiated thought.
Without the assumption that we can sense our surroundings, and that our senses for the most part reflect reality then we we can't make a statement about anything at all, period.
You are technically correct, we cannot be sure that any thought exists. However, there is zero utility in that unless we make assumptions.
>>75720882
>This is a debate thread about god's existence or not
>Debate Me Creationists
just because i believe in god doesn't mean im retarded. stop equating us all with fucking creationists
>>75726811
No shit. This is what I've been trying to explain. I agree entirely that empiricism is the most consistent and very importantly practical way to obtain knowledge.
That said, it is also true that rigorously, nothing can be substantiated. I agree with you, however, in that that is a rather useless concept.
>>75726975
>just because i believe in god doesn't mean im retarded. stop equating us all with fucking creationists
Catch up with the program. We're debating whether we can think thoughts now.
>>75720882
There's this Chinese place right down the road near me and I order carryout from there whenever I'm depressed, feeling down, or having a bad day. Depending on the situation, I get always get a nice, comforting fortune related to my situation from the fortune cookie. I'm not Chinese, I'm white, but I believe God speaks to me that way, thru little messages like that, and it comforts me because whenever I'm down, I always ask for a sign or something to happen from God.
>inb4 faggot, retard, autist, loser, nigger, etc.
I sometimes get signs from God different ways too. But I've always noticed this one. The fortunes I get are NEVER the same. They are all different. I've saved them all.
>>75720882
Why do you even bother? They are fanatics.
>>75726838
>>75726914
So then we need to make assumptions about the world to be able to function. The first of which would be that we can trust our senses, and that our own (human) intellect can understand the world
>>75721506
As an anti-theist, I think you're pretty cringey. If you give a straight refutation, i.e. drop the euphoric rhetoric, more people will be willing to listen and possibly change their minds.
>>75726914
>If 1. is true.
It may be an axiomatic assumption about interpreting information via the senses. However, it could be true. I think it is true. Do you not?
>>75720882
Br8 b8 m8 I r8 it 8/8
You can debate theological retards all day and defeat their silly attempts at defining a concept such as god. But the concept of a transcedental/almighty creator you can neither prove nor disprove.
You can get all smug about the scientific method too, but really thats just arrogance in assumption.
Gtfo, debating religion is so not current year.
>>75727443
You believe there is absolutely no chance that any sort of Divine God could exist?
No chance at all?
>>75727356
Like I said. Assumptions would generally contain:
Our senses can perceive the world
Rules of logic are consistent
>>75727462
Yes, I completely agree that our senses can be used to perceive the world. I mean it is trivially obvious as I type this on my computer. I support the axiomatic assumptions because they are the only useful way to have any sort of understanding about the world and perceived reality.
>>75727749
So it's established that we must assume our senses give an honest picture of the world. But why do we assume the rules of logic are consistent? There's certainly no proof of that
>>75727907
Because there are things which are not logical.
>>75727907
>But why do we assume the rules of logic are consistent? There's certainly no proof of that
Philosophically, just like the senses thing, you can't.
However, for understanding anything at all, logic is required to maintain any sort of consistency.
Effectively, you'll end up going right back into solipsism without it.
1. I perceive X (A circle)
2. Well, X could actually be Y, Z, or infinite other things. (A circle could be a square or the number 3)
3. We've retreated back to being unable to understand anything, because there are no rules for our perceptions to work from.
From a practical standpoint, this is pretty trivial. Computers run on logic which boils down to on/off. Almost everything we understand also requires it, such as mathematics.
>>75728188
certainly not those dubs.
Also, chaotic rule of the Universe cannot explain what set in motion the chaotic force loose. What was there before nothing? More nothing? How can a genesis of anything begin when there is no building block?
>>75729133
There is a building block. Most people call it God.
>>75728608
So given that we must assume the rules of logic are consistent, how do we know they don't ever change?
How can we know that the rejected scientific theories of the past weren't, in fact, true at the time?
>>75727907
Actually another point on this. This is often used in a formulation for a deities debate question.
Often someone will ask the age old omnipotence question, "Can god make a rock he can't lift?"
Many times, the response will be, sure can do both, lift it and make it too heavy to lift.
What is generally not understood is by using that admission, then the entire argument becomes moot. If logic is flexible, then there is no coherent way to form an argument as the rules of reason would be suspect.
>>75722294
This post 100%
If you genuinely seek truth, truth is what you will find
>>75729392
I find that question to be a trap actually. What it basically comes down to is: "Is God omnipotent? No or no?"
So it is a shame when people don't realise that
>>75720882
I worship the sun. It is the source of all life on earth, and it exists.
>>75729348
They won't change unless logic changes.
>>75722294
>Nothing would exist without consciousness.
for you
>>75720882
God existence is a fact, I think people have a problem following Him - they say they are more right than an eternal being, that is beyond space and time - that they as created beings with limited development have a better opinion and plan than God... it's mostly that with occasional full deniers that also show brain anomalies after autopsy.
Like Voltaire, who also before death, screamed like a madman "they are pulling me, there's a hell ahead, they are taking me" the nurse that took care of him said that she never ever ever ever again wants to take care of a dying atheist.
>>75720882
Muh Invisible Sky Daddy!!!!
>>75720882
>>75721302
>>75721388
>>75721506
>>75721916
>>75722201
>>75722564
>>75722759
>>75723020
>>75723188
>>75723552
You are probably not here anymore. But whatever, here you go, the ultra-quick and dirty argument for evidence of god.
Assume materialism, only physical tangible things exist. I perceive "myself" (consciousness), thoughts, and ideas. Both consciousness and thoughts are not tangible things, unable to be empirically evaluated or observed.
> Muh emergent property argument
Okay, they can be emergent properties of a physical system, but they are immaterial emergent properties of a material system.
Also, ideas exist, and they are objective. Anything, once defined, is objective. Two men, who have never met each other can both perceive the idea of "democracy" or "2". Tahdah, an objective thing that exists in two different places simultaneously.
> Materialism proven wrong. Supernatural things exist.
>Presupposing logic and the rule of non-contradicition for all of this.
>If supernatural exists, god can exist
/thread
>>75729348
>So given that we must assume the rules of logic are consistent, how do we know they don't ever change?
Philosophically, we can't, but again we technically can't know anything.
I mean, it seems to hold true in a practical sense using things like atomic clocks and radioactivity with particle decay half-lives of millions to billions of years.
>How can we know that the rejected scientific theories of the past weren't, in fact, true at the time?
Can you provide examples of this? Again, this seems to be a philosophically we can't, vs. the totality of practical evidence.
>>75729535
That isn't necessarily correct. A deity could be truly omnipotent, but if logic were suspended there would be no way to reason the truth value about it.
>>75729392
>>75729535
A rock would need to be infinitely large to beat an infinite amount of lifting power.
The better question is whether or not God can act in contradiction to His will, rightousness, or justice.
God cannot do that.
>>75729535
It's called a paradox for a reason.
>>75720882
To establish something "exists" you have to be able to measure the distance from it to other known existent objects. Things that exist are self-evidently existent, rendering the notion of gods existing riduculous.
>>75720882
>This is a debate thread about god's existence or not.
But you said above this is about creationism.
>>75729929
Newtonian physics were btfo by Einstein.
I think what he is really trying to ask is how do we know we didn't have it right the first time.
An actual example would be when some sort of scientist, not sure of name, tried to prove we had souls. He weighed the people as they died, and they actually lost weight.
It was rejected though.
>>75720882
Tell me what you think of The Book of Enoch?
A book written before Christ and its about Christianity and the prophecy of the Elect.
Can't we get along and save western civilization and white people, then atheists can circlejerk about this shit.
>>75729535
It's a silly question -- like asking whether Chuck Norris can kick his own ass.
>>75730085
>To establish something "exists" you have to be able to measure the distance from it to other known existent objects
No.
See? Just a word
>>75730085
If they are ever perceived, or can be perceived.
There are entire light spectrums we cannot percieve naturally without tools. They still exist. God can exist, it is a possibility.
>>75730105
>I think what he is really trying to ask is how do we know we didn't have it right the first time.
I was getting a different feel. I felt that the focus on logic being faulty or not axiomatic was to posit that "other ways of knowing" were potentially just as valid as empiricism.
>>75730121
>A book written before Christ and its about Christianity and the prophecy of the Elect.
A book that the architects of Christianity no doubt read.
>>75720882
Way I see it the universe is like a board game. Science is the rulebook, but why are we playing the game? And who put the rules there?
The universe follows a hierarchy. Absolute laws, logic, mathmatics, good and evil > Science. You can say all those things I listed are just conceptions of the human mind, but these are laws that could and have functioned without humans. Just because we gave something a name doesn't mean we invented it. Hardcore atheists just don't understand that science can't possibly be everything. Even if God isn't real, then there's still a collective universal spirit that strives for existence while following fundamental laws, a "force" if you will. And as long as that exists you might as well just call it God anyway.
>>75729940
>>75730024
>>75730245
Actually, its an illogical question.
Like asking someone to imagine a square circle. Something that is both a square and a circle by definition, simultaneously. This is illogical, aka not logically possible. Its not that it just doesnt exist, it cant even be imagined or conceived of.
Can god make a rock bigger than he can lift?
Can X do more than X can do?
> is X > X? That is what this question is asking, and it is a logical absurdity. X must be equal to X for a cat to be a cat and a dog to be a dog. Otherwise a dog can be "not dog" and "dog" simultaneously, aka, logically absurd.
Saying that God is not omnipotent because he cannot do the logically absurd, (illogical, logically impossible) is not an argument, its a fallacy.
>>75730311
Well, animals are born with inherent "knowledge" of migratory patterns and what not.
So instinct perhaps can be a way of acquiring knowledge? Even passing along knowledge? In some cases.
>>75730477
Dubs speaks the truth
>>75730477
>Even if God isn't real, then there's still a collective universal spirit that strives for existence while following fundamental laws, a "force" if you will.
This is incoherent.
>>75730581
Did you really just quote your own dubs? Weow.
>>75730477
Actually, science is nothing. Science is just a practical, really limited, small tool. We know absolutely nothing about the world, what anything is or why.
>>75730541
I understand your x must = x proposition, but you posted:
> the question is asking is X > X, was this a typo?
Also, isn't it asking is X > Y? God and the rock are two different entities. I need you to clarify so I may understand more thoroughly.
>>75730541
Actually, following logical rules, if God makes a rock he can't lift, there is a contradiction. And when a contradiction is true, then everything is true. So, in any case, God is omnipotent
Thoughts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Fred-Hoyle
http://www.icr.org/article/not-according-hoyle/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy (calls him an astronomer and a writer… very misleading)
Judge the theories, the mathematics, his contributions, not the man, and not solely on one poorly misunderstood and misquoted metaphor.
Book: http://www.panspermia.org/mathematicsofevolution.htm
Related:
The Design Argument: Answers to Atheists' Objections
http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/The_Design_Argument_Answers_to_Atheists_Objections.html
>>75730730
>I know absolutely nothing about the world, what anything is or why.
Get bent fedora loser.
Got is real IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE!
Pic related: You right now LOL.
>>75730860
Go on, try to explain what something is, retard. You will see how quickly you realise you know nothing
>>75730651
Let me slow it down for yah bud. The universe follows laws, everything in the universe wants to survive, nobody fuckin knows whyyy. Hmm, maybe there's some sort of force behind it all, that makes it do that.
yes of course
your one god out of many thousands before and after is real despite no proof.
>>75730554
Anthropomorphizing hard-coded behaviors is tricky.
It feels like one would have to make a fairly substantial argument against neurobiological determinism, which is a fucking mess and a half.
>>75730860
You obviously don't know jack shit about science. There's whole fucking TV series made off of shit scientists can't explain. There are universes flying away from us faster than the speed of light which is impossible. But it's happening. kek what a dumbass
>>75721302
Atheism is not a relligion you dibshit.Therefore you can't convert to it.
>>75731011
I'm not sure what determinism has to do with this. Whether that happens, because of that, or because of something else, doesn't matter.
My main point is that knowledge can be passed down, and realized through instinct.
Or is that wrong? Why?
>>75730981
>The universe follows laws
Okay.
>...everything in the universe...
So your knowledge outside of Earth comes from what exactly?
>...wants to survive, nobody fuckin knows why
Survival is actually very explicable.
>...maybe there's some sort of force behind it all, that makes it do that.
I have a well evidenced answer, but you might not like it.
>>75731171
con·vert
verb
kənˈvərt/
1.
cause to change in form, character, or function.
"production processes that converted raw material into useful forms"
synonyms: change, turn, transform, metamorphose, transfigure, transmute
>>75720882
god exists, atheists are immoral faggots who end up slipping down a slope of shit eating their own offspring. We had atheism for 150,000 years, religion built civilization and organised people to the level where idiots like you can 'reject god'.
Everything around you is because of the systemic belief in God. Without God, everything goes to shit because humans become relative to each other and there is no moral absolutism to guide and control the anarchy that will follow.
>>75731203
>Survival is actually very explicable
Try to, try to say "survival is explained by X". Then you will just be asked to explain "why X"
>>75731203
Our universe is constantly dying and reanimating over the process of trillions of years, survival is futile therefore the fact we have an instinct for it makes no sense. The matrix huh
>>75731203
You know how I know the rest of the universe follows laws? Because the entire universe is one fucking piece. If it acts somehow over here, it has to act the same over there, or else none of this shit makes any sense.
>>75720882
Exquisite example of complete illiteracy about religion, OP.
>>75731360
>Our universe is constantly dying and reanimating over the process of trillions of years
Evidence for this?
>survival is futile therefore the fact we have an instinct for it makes no sense
Does not logically follow.
>>75730085
>To establish something "exists" you have to be able to measure the distance from it to other known existent objects.
So gravity, every single emotional, every thought, every idea, philosophy, all these things don't exist? Tell me how far is capitalism from another object?
>>75731360
>Our universe is constantly dying and reanimating over the process of trillions of years
>survival is futile therefore the fact we have an instinct for it makes no sense.
That is because it hasn't been doing that.
>>75730773
No, it wasnt a typo.
Ill explain more for you.
Can God make a rock so big that god cannot lift it?
This can be broken down into simpler terms:
Can God do something that can result in God being unable to do something.
This, broken down further, looks like this:
Is God able to make himself unable?
This is logically absurd. If he is able to make himself unable, then he is unable. If he is unable to be able to make himself unable, then he is unable.
So, this is the same as asking is God>God?
Then, the philosophically uninformed answer by saying "If God isnt more powerful than himself, then he isnt omnipotent"
This is because they are defining "omnipotent" as "the ability to do anything, both logically absurd and logically coherent". Whereas, "omnipotent" should be defined as "having the maximum amount of uncompromisable power".
This failure of many to see the fallacy of their own thinking is even easier to point out this way. Who is more powerful, a man with 10,000 units of power that can never lose it, or a man with 10,000 units of power that can choose to become a slave and lose all of that power. Obviously, the man that cannot choose to be a slave is more powerful despite having a reduced number of choices, because he cannot make choices that can compromise his power.
Choices do not equal power either.
Hope this helps explain both the problem with the rock and why God cannot sin.
>>75731179
Instinct can run down the generations. Yeah, I agree with that.
Does God exist, yes.
Can the presence be proved, yes.
Not by debate, or science, or logic, those things just deepen understanding.
But by you, practically. You walk the walk, you search for the holy grail, you take the journey. The journey changes you, you work with god, God works with you, then you know.
>>75731587
Can a deity suspend logic?
>>75720882
>god
religion is man made bullshit to scam the masses
but
God is real.
>>75720882
prove that god doesnt exist
cant do it huh though luck pal
>>75731758
At this point, I don't really think you even know what you mean when yousay "logic"
>>75731587
God bless you.
>>75731880
And His name is the LORD.
>>75731587
God can choose to limit his own power. But someone of an inherent nature cannot be other than that nature. If God chooses not to lift the rock, he can choose not to.
>>75731897
Want to discuss modal, symbolic, or whichever you prefer?
>>75731948
YHVH
>>75731988
Sorry that was tautological in the last sentence. If he chooses not to do something, then he can limit his own power in a sense.
>>75729875
Why do you think consciousness and thoughts aren't tangible?
>>75732006
You just throw the word so that it means whatever you want it to be. You should see this the moment you talk about "suspending logic"
>>75731758
This question does not make since.
The rule of non contradiction says this:
> X = X X cannot = "not X"
Where "not X" is anything X is not.
For example, a cat is a cat. A cat cannot be a lampost, and a submarine, and finger, and watch, etc. Because then the term "cat" means nothing, or everything.
Your question is the same as asking, can a deity "sa,djfbhq;wuiegb f,ikawgbef three sdfv;kjasbhfgviuawebf". It means nothing.
You think being able to suspend logic is powerful, but it is not, because then power and "not power" would be the same, so he would have removed his power. He would be unable to do anything, because everything, and nothing, and anything, would all be simultaneous and impossible.
So no, a deity cannot suspend logic. Not because logic is "more powerful" than a deity, only because it is logically absurd.
Its like asking can a deity remove the number "two"? No, if you have 1 of this thing, and 1 of this thing, then you have "two" things. The number "two" simply exists, it has necessary existence. It is impossible for "two" to not exist.
So it is with logic. Otherwise impossible and possible would be the same, in which, you are beck to self-referential absurdity.
Hope that helps!
>>75731517
>>75731533
We know that our universe was started by something sucking everything in and then exploding, now the universe is expanding, it's just a matter of time before whatever did that repeats itself. And even if I'm wrong on that, the Earth isn't going to last forever anyway so what's the point in trying to survive. We're on a sinking ship.
>>75720882
Do you believe in love?
>>75731360
if you didnt have a survival instinct you (and your predecessors) wouldn't survive doofus ie it is evolutionary necessity.
Sorry I've been gone for a while
>>75729929
>I mean, it seems to hold true in a practical sense using things like atomic clocks and radioactivity with particle decay half-lives of millions to billions of years.
All we know is that, at present, particles have a certain half-life. This may not be true in the past or the future.
>Can you provide examples of this? Again, this seems to be a philosophically we can't, vs. the totality of practical evidence.
Compare the idea of the luminiferous aether (a medium that light travels through) to the present idea that light requires no medium to travel through. How do we know that both understandings are not correct for their time?
>>75732066
Not limiting His power practically, He is simply refusing to use it. If you decide not to use your full strength does the limit of your strength actually change? No.
>>75731988
This is simply false.
If I am arm wrestling a 2 year old, I can choose to not use some of my power, but I did not "limit" it in the since of making it no longer exist for a time.
Whats more, saying that an all-powerful being can make himself less "all-powerful" is again illogical (logical absurdity, logically impossible). You are saying God can make himself less than God.
Thus, you are saying God can make:
> X< X
but no, this is logically impossible, because X must EQUAL X for anything in the entire universe to mean anything. If a lamppost can be "not a lamppost" or "less than a lamppost" then being a lamppost means nothing, or anything, or everything.
So no, an omnipotent being cannot choose to limit his own power, it can merely choose to not use some of it at any given time.
>>75721163
>Can't be proven. Debate over.
FTFY
>>75732166
>by sucking everything in
No. The Big Bang Theory says that all matter was contained within an infinitesimal point, spinning round and round, then something happened and caused it all to burst forth and expand.
The problem is that we have planets, and even entire galaxies that spin in the opposite direction. This defies the law of conservation of angular momentum. If you fly off of a merry-go-round, you will spin in the same motion it was spinning.
>>75732117
Because, until now, no thought or consciousness has ever been observed by a third party. That is not to say that consciousness, or thoughts cannot interact with the physical world. Nor am I saying that the physical world cannot interact with the immaterial world.
But, for something to be "material" it must be observable by a third-party and measured empirically, which is not possible, at least not so far. Nor do I think it ever will be.
Even more though, is ideas. Even if thoughts and consciousness are somehow material, ideas are absolutely not. They are objective entities that can exist in multiple places simultaneously without any external phenomena, therefore, immaterial by definition.
Once I prove that 1 immaterial thing exists, the door for many immaterial things existing is open, even the possibility of "god".
NEVER FORGET
Its literally irrational to reject Gods existence. Care to refute pic related?
>>75732797
Science has already illustrated to us the physicalist ideology is the most plausible. Consciousness and ideas are just electrical signals between the synapses of the neurons.
>>75721163
You don't "disprove" things you retard...
Can't be proven. Debate over.
> 5 000+ years of human civilizations
> not a single conclusive proof of any deity of any religion
> we are still having this debate...
Humans are retarded sheep.
All progress is thanks to a handful gifted individuals, rest is just a chaff that needs a skyfairy to not eat each other...
>>75732877
Thats pretty impressive actually. That last bit is a bit hard to swallow, but it is logically coherent.
Not only can God exist, but a omnipresent, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient force must exist.
Thats impressive, and irrefutable other than screaming "i disagree!"
>>75732877
It might mean that existence / time is cyclical and there is no prime mover.
Or, as the modern science suggests, due to quantum effects, universe could arose from nothing without any prime mover.
Also, how does the prime mover explains that the god is exactly the god of bible? Human-like or even concerned with humanity at all? It is a proof that Krishna exists or it could be as well just a demiurge.
>>75732931
I have to go teach, but I will be back later.
But no, you did not read what I said. Consciousness "might" be material, but it is impossible by definition for ideas to be material. Thoughts, "might" be material, but not ideas. You can have a thought about an idea, but the idea is separate from the thought.
The idea is definable, perceptible by a conscious mind, and able to be perceived simultaneously in multiple locations.
Nothing physical, by definition, can be in two places at once. Thus ideas must be immaterial.
So, no, "physicalist ideology" is not the most plausible, because it has been disproven. You can hold to science, and evolution and everything, thats fine. But if you dismiss the immaterial because your worldview cannot handle logical truths, then your worldview is garbage and you are deceiving yourself.
>>75733224
The entire argument is based off of the prime mover.
>>75733066
That's a very arrogant stance though. When it comes to religion the threshold for proof is a subjective one.
For me, simply looking around at creation and the feeling of God's presence when I pray is more than enough proof to make me confident in my faith.
For you, God would have to be standing in front of you performing miracles with a neon sign that says "I am God" before you would even consider believing in him.
The reason we are having this debate is because people are able to look at the same situation and reach different conclusions. That isn't a bad thing. It's a hallmark of a critically thinking society.
>>75733224
>It might mean that existence / time is cyclical and there is no prime mover.
Even a cyclical universe would require a starting point somewhere. However its not an important question as this argument relies on there being change fullstop, not just the state of the universe. Hence even the change is proof of God.
>Also, how does the prime mover explains that the god is exactly the god of bible? Human-like or even concerned with humanity at all? It is a proof that Krishna exists or it could be as well just a demiurge.
It doesnt, it just demonstrates that there is a God.
>>75732422
Limits his power for a particular purpose. Your post is only semantics
>>75732455
see above
>>75733579
No. He does not limit His power. He doesn't use it.
>>75732931
We don't 'know' this at all. Consciousness implies higher orders of consciousness, just as there are gradations of consciousness, from the almost nonexistent, there must be the capacity for almost unlimited consciousness. Consciousness and mind imply the Great Mind
>>75733066
Most of the great people believed in God. This is fact. Those who changed how we think, how society works for the better, who created great art and who progressed science massively in the understanding of how reality works and how it can benefit mankind, nearly all were believers. Unbelievers, however clever, are stunted spiritually and cannot draw on the resources of the whole soul and mind. They cannot (or very rarely) conceptualize the notion of what is good for humankind, what can benefit humanity as a whole in the present and for all time. Only the believer can genuinely think in terms of long term good, because the atheist is sure that such things will never benefit him.
>>75733579
This. The whole lifting a rock debate is a question about linguistics and it's pointless. You can't apply imperfect language to a perfect being.
>>75733224
you aren't answering the argument at all, all you do is shift the goalposts
>>75733497
Well, and I have disproved the prime mover.
>>75733557
Well, then lets not call him God but Krishna, ok?
>>75733066
>>75733224
I wish retarded fedoras stopped talking about things they don't understand.
>>75720882
You can't prove his existence or non-existence.
>>75731948
Misspelled KEK
>>75720882
>>75733889
I disproved the premise - 1) there is no need for prime mover at all
2) even if it was it doesn't prove christian god or any god in particular
>>75733480
You're trying to create a dichotomy between thoughts and ideas, and within that framework the idea would be the electrochemical signaling template while the thought is the physical representation of that template. That is the idea is a blueprint which multiple brains can simultaneously mimic in different points of space.
You're attempting to make this dumb supposition:
>Nothing physical, by definition, can be in two places at once
Sure it can, a hydrogen atom is a template which can have instances of it in multiple places at once yet these instances would be indistinguishable from eachother other than the property of space
>because it has been disproven
So far as we know, physicalism has been able to explain everything we have researched. You're living centuries ago where philosophers had little knowledge of the sciences and you're not taking advantage of our current wisdom.
>>75734005
not an argument
>>75734042
I don't need to argue anything with a mongoloid.
This entire interaction is hopelessly retarded.
what caused the big bang
CAN'T BE PROVEN.
No need for debate. All christians can do is wishful thinking. And get cucked...
Prepare your churches, muslims need your help.
>>75720882
If the universe is doomed to die from entropy, how did the universe come to be? Either the universe is eternal or it was created so it can die.
>>75734118
/thread
>>75734095
Well then stfu retard.
I swear that you damn americans don't even have elementary schools, thats the only explanation for this level of stupidity.
Why don't you go wash some muslim feet and prepp your wife for them?
>>75734155
Alright, whose god did it?
>>75720882
You don't believe in God but you practice Bible-esque virtues. Am I wrong? If it wasn't for honour and kindness brought from the Bible, our society right now doesn't exist.
>>75733820
You're trying to be super deep and abstract, and use the word consciousness like it is some bewildering entity we can't comprehend. Consciousness goes within those class of words like sentience. When you take these words literally from their definition, they stop becoming so enigmatic and intimidating. I really don't respect philosophers like you who use terms like "Great Mind", it reminds me of this religious obsession with spirituality that pseudo-intellectuals have, they would rather dream up a perception of the world in their own special snowflake framework than describing in more detail the terms they are using are and through reason and evidence resolving what it is.
>>75721302
Only one religion has anything that can be remotely construed as "physical evidence" of it...
>>75733923
No you haven't... you have to logically defend your position. You still have a wall of text you need to answer.
>>75720882
What happens with the people that have never heard the word of god?
Obviously they go to hell if they don't follow the commandments - but they have no clue about the aforementioned commandments... so why would they go to hell?
>>75733923
>Well, then lets not call him God but Krishna, ok?
Feel free, we could call the moon ploogle plod as well without anything changing
>>75734016
You didn't disprove the notion that at some point power must be actualized. And 2/ is just that, shifting the goalposts. But in fact it is irrelevant whether Krishna or YHVH is the ultimate being, the point is that there is one.
Now determining which religion is true is another issue. I guess if you feel that Krishnaism or Hinduism produce fruitage consistent with true religion, then I encourage you to pursue that.
>>75720882
God's light is proven by its absence in modern degenerates.
>>75734118
We will eventually figure it out, like we figured out that there is no god up in the sky.
>>75734016
You didn't, you huge retard. Saying something is a cycle (a stupidity that you haven't pondered for more than 3 seconds) doesn't mean nything.
>>75720882
You're still an Abrahamic religion, you just cut out the YHWH and kept the rest of the universalist Jewry.
>>75733925
>Y-you just don't understand!! Stop talking!!
Retardation: The Post
>>75734021
Physicalism can explain what it sees generally, but not why. A classic case, is quantum physics. Also the nature of light. Actually, physicalism cannot explain the nature of light, really
>>75734118
I don't know, but I can tell you for a fact it wasn't God.
How can I say this so confidently? The same way you will say "[insert any other god from any other civilization here] didn't cause the big bang."
>>75734479
You talk about lack of education, but this is the remark of an ill-educated autist, although most internet atheists seem to be of this obnoxious, loudmouthed type. I'm glad you understand the nature of all the mysteries of the universe, but you might find out that your omnipotence is overrated
>>75723704
>translation: my low quality 'evidence' has its flaws pointed out and I don't like it
lol it's cute you think what you would throw could even be considered 'pearls'
>>75734016
>>75734042
>>75734126
>>75734221
>>75734479
Shouldn't you be helping your sister film a porn, Vaclav?
>>75734639
Aehtism in a nutshell.
By the way, I don't say other gods didn't cause the big bang. I just say they don't exist, the same way I say your atheist fantasies aren't real
>>75734678
>your omnipotence
The only people claiming to be omnipotent here are religious folks.
Atheists say "we don't know what caused the big bang."
Religitards say "we know god caused the big bang."
Religious people are the ones who claim the have all the answers to the philosophical questions in life. It's pretty sad, really. They're so arrogant that they can't accept the fact that we just don't know the answer to some questions. Simple as that.
>>75729875
>both consciousness and thoughts are not tangible things
lmao spoken to a neurologist in the last century?
>>75734562
You're conflating physicalism with our current understanding of the universe. Just because we don't have the means to explain certain physical phenomenon doesn't mean physicalism cannot explain it. If you're not a pseudo-intellectual like half the people in this thread, you adopt an ideology that actually is plausible, and that means taking the most sensible alternative hypothesis. Science has given overwhelming support with physicalism to objectively explain what things are and how they work. The why can be postulated all day long, with no progress, I may add, until the what and how is clarified.
>>75734429
>>75734319
Or it could be demiurge and they are all wrong.
Also, your theory doesn't explain how the prime mover came to be. You just say "there must be" without explaining why. I say there doesnt have to be, whether it is cyclical and eternal or "out-of-nothing". I denied your premise, therefore I don't need to disprove the "wall of text" based on it.
Since you are quite polite for Christians, let me ask you another thing, if god really loved humans and wanted to help us, why he never revealed something remotely useful? All these prophecies and prophets and saints and angels... Imagine if arch angel Gabriel revealed the basics of steam engine to Machomet, instead of that shitty sequel? We could be conquering galaxies by now...
Also, how come that this prime mover, perfect, omnipotent and omniscient being, concerns himself (is he even him?) if I masturbate or not? Or how come that burning oxen is a pleasurable smell to him?
I mean - even if the prime mover was a fact, then your religion is still pile of lies meant to control plebians and you are bitting the bait with hook.
>>75734887
You don't know the answer to any question, retard, you have no basis for anything, while religous people have a consistent reality, you have nothing.
>>75734877
>atheist fantasies
Hahahaha look at this retard.
Atheism is the very disbelief in the nonsensical fantasies you retards present.
Kill yourself before your lack of grasp on reality does.
>>75734118
argument from ignorance is not an argument for your particular god.
>You don't know why this happened
>must be god
>muh god of the gaps
none addressed my question.
I shall repeat it:
How could there be a fair and loving god if there are people who don't know his word and yet because of this still go to hell if they break the commandments?
Let's skin it to the concept of an unbaptized child - why would he go to hell if nobody ever told him or his parents about the word of god?
>>75734877
Do you have to practice being that retarded? I bet you practice
>>75734678
>>75734823
Not an argument, please fuck of, sillies.
Science will triumph in the end. Shame that prayers can't power up your notebook or that your god can't give back legs to cripples.
>>75734221
spergy faggot
>>75734959
Reading your post in a spanish accent makes it hilarious.
Keep trying, one day you might get more than two (you)s
>>75734479
but what if god is an immaterial entity
there is now way to physically quantify god
>>75734981
The same reason you can go to prison for breaking a law you didn't know about.
>>75734942
>Also, your theory doesn't explain how the prime mover came to be
You idiot, if there is no uncaused cause then you have an endless chain that can't end. You can't traverse an infinite set, you can't count from minus infinity to zero. What you said leads to nothingness, to a huge contradiction. You deny because you are so stupid that you don't understand the consequences of your denial, because you are just one of those retards who don't understand the argument and ask "and what caused God?"
God defines what is good and therefore what is useful. Why should I want to "conquer galaxies"? Are yo out of your mind? I don't care about the basis of the steam engine, it is only you who are retarde enough to worship machines.
Someday you will grow up and then people will stop lauging at you. If you survive long enough, since it would be no surprise if you forgot how to breathe
>>75734981
This.
If God created everything, he can't be just pure love, he is also an ultimate source of all evil.
But christians are trained and raised in double think, si it might never occur to them.
>>75734133
>entropy
prove that all matter in the universe will vanish
>>75734639
>>75734979
I'm not saying it was god either
but what could prevent it from having been a sentient entity that humans identify as "God" for lack of a better explanation
>>75735154
>if there is no uncaused cause then you have an endless chain that can't end
>but don't worry... my god of the gaps fixes that problem (that may not even be a problem) :^)
>>75734960
No, atheism is a fantasy, a myth based on pride and trying to simplify reality. Just like old civilisations tried to limit reality creating myths to limit reality to the things they could extrapolate. the same way, you pretend you can just explain everything with just an extrapolation of your useless fallible senses.
>>75735028
>>75735104
I really love triggering fedoras by saying what they like to throw at others.
>>75735205
>>75735114
At least try to formulate an eloquent answer. You cannot compare man made laws with divinity. That would disprove god in itself.
>>75735205
I'm a christian culturally and i will always identify as such. But it's good to ask yourself questions.
Ultimately it's everybody's choice to believe in God or not be it for a good reason or just because you want to turn a blind eye to the contradictions.
After all, faith is subjective
>>75735306
>atheism is a fantasy, a myth
Explain what you think atheism is.
>>75735205
Wrong. God can't live with sin.
>>75735258
>but what could prevent it from having been a sentient entity that humans identify as "God" for lack of a better explanation
Nothing. Either way those "sentient entities" that would have hypothetically created the universe are not in contact with us, so we have zero practical use for it, so religion just ends up being a pointless meme since that "god" is not in contact with us.
>>75735038
you said
"like we figured out that there is no god up in the sky"
This is arrogant, delusional bullshit. You had some excellent argumentation to deal with in this thread, which you either evaded or just obfuscated around. Is it because English is not your first language? Then you come up with this unmitigated arrogant bullshit. No wonder atheists are shunned in polite society
>>75734887
See above.
You say you don't know, except you say you do. I guess being preternaturally hypocritical is de rigueur for the atheist. Actually, saying you are atheist is a statement that you know that God doesn't exist. I presume you were there at the moment of creation.
>>75734917
Physicalism may explain all the phenomena observable at some point, yes. But it still doesn't explain why
>>75735205
Evil is a consequence of free will. Evil is defined as that which goes against God.
You should be trained to use your brain. You just spit words without knowing what they mean
>>75735288
God is the uncaused cause. Repeating atheist buzzwords isn't going to change your absurdity. By the way, there are no gaps, there is a huge void, since you wont be able to explain anything.
>>75720882
you know he dont exist you retard
go slag off islam..the church is no longer a threat and the bible is important for social cohesion stop being an edge lord and grow out of "that phase"
>>75734959
>religion
>consistency
I'll take misconceptions for 200
>>75735306
Oh, you were just pretending to be retarded, I get it
>>75735362
It doesn't surprise me that the eyes of atheists shut down when they seesomething that harms them. 3/5 of my message is that explanation, but you just ignore it and ask me to explain it. You are completely insane
>>75734942
We apply physical laws and causality to those objects which we know possess physicality and are subject to causality, that is the observable universe. We cannot apply these notions necessarily to objects that are both not directly observable and outside our universe
>>75735110
How come? if he created universe and all in it, he must have interacted with it at some point and we should be able to find evidence for that.
Also - we can detect immaterial entities like neutrinos and photons, higgs bosons and all of that stuff - if there is a god or even a soul, that is in a way "supernatural" but does interact with real world, then we should be able to find at least a trace.
>>75735114
Or a cycle, which is my point exactly. Also, there is the "universe from nothing" theory too - All I'm saying is that there are alternatives to prime mover, so prime mover proves nothing.
The rest is - well - not an argument.
So maybe one day you will read some books and you will start asking questions, like, how could all of the earths animals fit to one boat? Or how come there was no kangaroos... and then maybe you will realize that you were living a lie... but I highly doubt that, seems like your indoctrination is too strong.
>>75735431
>Repeating atheist buzzwords
You mean pointing out why what you believe is a fallacy?
Nice buzzword buzzword.
>since you wont be able to explain anything.
Yes it's called being honest. Unlike you, atheists are more than happy to admit there are things we don't yet know, whereas the religious say "hurr muh gawd did it".
So, try again this time without the god of the gaps or special pleading
>>75735419
>saying "I dont know" is actually arrogant because simply saying "I dont know" means youre saying something which means you really "know" that "you dont know"
Holy shit I've never met this level of retardation.
>>75735205
>I'm arguing against God but i've never actually taken 2 minutes to read the bible and know what the fuck I am talking about. Debate me!
Mongoloid....spergy faggot......
>>75735380
But if you try to theorize or construct what was there before the big bang or if there was a big bang at all or what happens to matter inside a black hole
That also constitutes a belief
>>75735494
I didn't ignore anything. I read the entire post of you waffling on about something that has zero to do with what YOU think atheism means.
So explain
>>75735431
God created the free will, hence he is responsible for all the evil in the world.
>>75735444
Yes, unlike atheism, which is a monstrosity that crumbles in a thousand different ways. Just look at >>75735493 That is what atheism is reduced to, some retard trying to be witty when the phrases he read in some atheist blog don't work
>>75735590
>which is a monstrosity that crumbles in a thousand different ways
Start naming some.
Your parents have done a number on you
>>75734942
Advances in technology are not always beneficial. We could have had the nuclear bomb by the 6th century. We could have had facebook by the 12th. The fact that young people especially are slaves to gadgetry is an extremely deleterious development for humanity. Social interactions are at an all time low ebb of courtesy and value. But I digress.
You assume that your interpretation of a worldview of theism is the only necessary one? How strawman of you.
Incidentally the word masturbation is not mentioned in the Bible. And please consider the word 'anthropomorphism' in the context of a moderately literate audience, and the fact that the Bible is a literary as well as religious text full of allegory and metaphor.
>>75735110
>but what if god is an immaterial entity
That's an incomprehensible statement similar to saying god exists
>>75735419
>But it still doesn't explain why
I already alluded to that point in the reply so you're just reiterating yourself with deaf ears.
>>75735212
Ever heard of the laws of thermodynamics?
In any enclosed system (as in there's no exchange of thermic energy) entropy rises
>>75735545
No shit idiot. If you do enough mental gymnastics everything is a belief.
If you're taking a hike in the forest and see a pile of ashes, you can assume that there was a fire there at some point. Of course, someone may have simply randomly brought ashes and sprinkled them there to fuck with you, but that doesn't mean your assumption of the fire is illogical.
No one is trying to understand what happened before the big bang. We simply can't figure that out. Time will literally not allow that.
Anyone attempting to explain why or how the big bang happened is speculation. Now, we might come across some hints, but that's about it. Just like in the scenario of the fire, we can only look for clues. We can never actually travel back and see it happen. Using clues is not a belief. Pulling god out of your ass is.
