All things in the universe have a scientific explanation for their own existences: stars, comets, galaxies, and planets. There are three exceptions: time, matter, and the universe itself. Therefore, somewhere down the line of different realities and dimensions, some intelligent being created the universe. That being is God.
>prove me wrong
Your claim is that matter time and the universe exist because a higher being will them into existence. You must have more evidence besides this or your argument is circular that god exists because Matter time and the Universe exists because god exists...
You must have evidence besides this circular reasoning to stand on a valid claim.
I need no further reasoning than Matter, time and the universe exists without god to demonstrate my claim.
Matter time and the universe are observed god has not been observed.
You know that scene in toy story where Woody pushes Buzz and Buzz' space helmet opens? Buzz starts gasping for air because he thinks he's going to suffocate without his space helmet. After a few moments he realizes 'wait. the air isn't toxic here.' He puts his space helmet back up even though he now knows it's useless.
I'd love to be the Woody to any theist Buzz in the world. I'd want to be the one that opens the space helmet of religion for just a moment.
>I need no further reasoning than Matter, time and the universe exists without god to demonstrate my claim.
You are assuming that God does not exist. You have failed to provide any evidence for YOUR claim. So here we are, with the question of Gods existence hanging in the air and no evidence for either side.
I shall start with evidence in favor of Gods existence. We use logic and reasoning, mathematics and the notion of right and wrong. These things go directly against the idea of randomness and chance. For these things to exist, and indeed to be correct, there must be an intelligent design.
>All things in the universe have a scientific explanation for their own existences: stars, comets, galaxies, and planets.
That's not true. 96% of the universe is made of something we can't see. It could be a giant cat.
That's not how this work. My claim is a negative. Yours is a positive. If you want to make a positive claim you have to provide positive evidence.
Also your brain is not a milk stain. Your brain is the consequence of cellular evolution which has taken place over at least 4 billion years of time.
Oh, good, then where's his tomb? Where's his body?
How is it that the bible says he came from Nazareth when Nazareth was not even settled until the first century?
Did he walk on water or raise the dead or change water to wine and was there a resurrection from what tomb you think he might have been buried in?
By the way how does any of this tie back to your original claim that matter time and the universe need a god when we observe them but no god?
>My claim is a negative. Yours is a positive. If you want to make a positive claim you have to provide positive evidence.
What the fuck does this even mean? It means literally nothing. A claim is a claim, and unfounded clam is an unfounded claim.
Your arbitrary statement means literally nothing
>If you want to make a positive claim you have to provide positive evidence.
Well then by your logic a negative claim needs negative evidence. Care to provide some? Also protip: "We cant see god" is not negative evidence. Can we see gravity? Can we see time?
>Your brain is the consequence of cellular evolution which has taken place over at least 4 billion years of time.
And what about this makes our line of reasoning correct at any time? Our brain has not evolved to do anything other than keep us alive, so any task it performs that does not contribute to keeping us alive cannot be confirmed as correct by evolution alone.
where's his tomb? Where's his body?
He was buried in the Church of the Holy Sepulcre in Jerusalem. But his body is not there, because he rose on the Third Day. :)
>How is it that the Bible says he came from Nazareth when Nazareth was not even settled until the first century?
I tried searching for myself this fact but I could not find it anywhere. Could you please link where you got that information from?
>how does any of this tie back to your original claim?
Refer to my previous post about how God reveals himself in Special Revelation in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, His own Son. I was responding to another poster about how God has not been observed.
VSauce uploaded a video talking about last Thursdayism. Everything, including your memories could have came into existance last Thursday and you would never know. Welcome to the first week of your life
last Thursdayism is just an offshoot of a common philosophical question.
>How can I trust my memories and perceptions.
This is asked many ways, such as:
>how do I know the universe didnt start last thursday
>how do I know Im not just a brain in a vat of water connected to wires that input senses
>how do I know im not in the matrix
>how do I know life isnt a dream
>not defining "God"
>asserting time, matter, and the universe have no scientific explanations
>asserting undefined god does not exist
>what is burden of proof
You are making the claim that a god exists. It is your responsibility to provide evidence, not for the disbeliever to prove it wrong. If I told you I was abducted by aliens last night, would you believe me? Why not?
It's the same standard of proof courts use in criminal cases. Defendants are either found "Guilty" or "Not Guilty", not "Guilty" or "Innocent". If there is not solid evidence pointing towards the defendant having committed the crime, the jury should vote "Not Guilty". The defendant still could have actually committed the crime, but at the time of the trial, the facts did not add up to that particular conclusion. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that he committed the crime. It is not the job of the defendant to prove he is innocent.
>TFW we could be in a small universe in a cluster of universes smack dab in the middle of infinity
thats what i rekon it is.
we could be a part of a living creature
whoah man, like dude weed
>Matter time and the universe are observed
See, this is where it gets funny.
Have you observed time or is it linear?
Can you change anything you did a second ago?
Maybe you're just under the illusion of time as a thing because you're not fourdimensional.
Let's put it this way, you are HERE right now but nothing you ever did can be changed now.
So you're simply existing under the illusion that you have a free will or that time exists.
Remember back one second ago, one minute ago. You can't go back and change any of those actions.
Who'se to say they even happened in the first place and weren't just something you imagined?
>our galaxy is one atom in god's left pinky toe
>one single atom in your left pinky toe houses another galaxy
But who made God?
checkmate. The argument that god exists because the universe exists is fallacious, because it doesn't get around the core problem of how did we get here. It just says God did it. But this logically presents the problem of "who made god?"
Your understanding of the burden of proof is hilariously outdated and biased.
In a philosophical or scientific question, the burden of proof is on everyone. Everyone who makes a claim must be ready to provide proof for their claim. Every claim is saying that something IS the case, that is the definition of a claim. I am claiming that it is the case that there is a God. You are claiming that is is the case that there is not a god.
The court is not comparable because in court there is only a inquiry because someone has brought something to the courts attention. It is then the responsibility of the accuser to provide proof for their claim before the defendant must provide proof for theirs, because the defendant likely didn't want the issue to be brought up in the first place.
In the case of science and philosophy, both parties have the same interest, the truth of the matter. Both parties are lobbying that they have the truth, and thus both parties are equally responsible for providing evidence that their claim is the truth. There are no accusations and no one must defend their own interests, only the truth is being sought after.
>But this logically presents the problem of "who made god?"
God transcends our humble understanding of logic. That is kind of the whole point. A supreme being is one that doesnt need a cause, that is what makes them a supreme being.
>Therefore, somewhere down the line of different realities and dimensions, some intelligent being created the universe.
How the fuck do you know? That's a pretty goddam big leap.
"We don't know how this came about, so clearly it was designed." About as stupid as saying "We don't know how this thing came about, so clearly it was always here"
>You are claiming that is is the case that there is not a god.
No, no I am not, and you missed the point of my analogy. The point was that all of the available evidence should be examined and that without irrefutable proof one way or the other positions on the matter are tentative.
My position is that I don't know whether or not there is a god, but I'm going to reserve judgment in the face of lack of evidence. I'm not going to start praying to this god or otherwise alter my life to suit an idea that could be false.
It is a fact of the matter whether or not a god exists. There should be a standard by which we use to determine fact from nonfact, the scientific method. This is the single most reliable tool humans have for discovering truths about the universe.
>I shall start with evidence in favor of Gods existence. We use logic and reasoning, mathematics and the notion of right and wrong. These things go directly against the idea of randomness and chance. For these things to exist, and indeed to be correct, there must be an intelligent design.
I think you've confused evidence with opinion.
>fails to even start a critique of the evidence and explain why in his esteemed opinion it is, in fact, not evidence
Ok so you say that you are proportioning your belief to the available evidence. Great. Can you tell me what evidence there is that there is no God?
>he has exactly zero influence on anything
The creator of everything would also be the planner of everything. Every action that occurs today is linked back through previous actions to the beginning. What was decided then, decides what happens now.
inb4 muh free willz
You cannot trust your own thoughts, as all perceptions of exterior - and to an extent, interior - "being" are simply a mass of organic chemical reactions in one's synapses. We know for a fact this "wiring" of the brain is liable to fault, something demonstrated in Schizophrenics.
To doubt the validity of one's senses, in the knowledge of such demonstrable faults, is called "Cartesian Doubt".
You simply cannot assign the consequential nature of time and events to a god. The snowball effect of actions is a basic "rule" of the universe, not a result of meticulous planning.
If I cannot trust my own thoughts than why should I trust the arguments that point to atheism?
If I believe that my thoughts are the product of intelligent design than I can trust them.
If there is a cause other than chance then it must be intelligent, mustn't it?
Why does our universe have rules? What put them in place?
Order is observer-dependent. So, in reality, there are no laws. All we truly have is interpretations which ultimately are meaningless.
*Then, not "than".
>If I believe that my thoughts are the product of intelligent design than I can trust them
You have completely turned around on your own arguments for the sake of preserving your sphere of logic. Do you not remember saying the following?
>How do we know to trust our own thoughts then? If it is all random chance then why should I listen to what we consider to be logic and reason?
I mean really? What pathetic University did you attend?