$100 on Paypal to whoever can explain to me, IRREFUTABLY, how this can be right and true 'cause, when you look at atheism this way, honestly, it just seems like a huge bunch of senseless crap.
Yeah, the invisible man in the sky inventing everything has never been found and it comes in great conflict with lots of forms of analysis and reasoning that can be made upon it ...but whatever, we're talking about the very foundations of atheism which are pretty well depicted in this picture, in my opinion. If they can't be somehow explained I think atheism can be reasonably discarded as well.
There has to be an uncaused cause. What seems more likely, a wizard or a a random explosion of energy? Also, Atheists do not claim to know for a fact that no god exists. They just hold the opinion that there is no god. Agnostics just admit that they do not know.
>>692560503 Then, isn't it obvious that this uncaused cause can be named God, or Allah or whatever fucking name you can think of and that doesn't change what it is? So let's see, if you call it God then oh no, atheists will say "hell no" ...but if you call it uncaused cause, then they go "oh sure, yeah" ..........BUT IT'S THE SAME FUCKING THING.
>>692558952 I'm not very sure what your problem is, however let me first point out that this picture is a gross oversimplication of the big bang while also ignoring the other theories to explain something coming from nothing. Secondly, let me say that your entire point is an issue of semantics for atheism is not a belief that god does not exist, it is the lack of belief in god. That lack of a belief then can be broken down into those who claim with certainty that any idea of a god is impossible and those who claim it is unknown. I think the diagram above me explains it pretty well.
>>692558952 Because rational thought dictates that we don't assume complicated explanations for the explainable. The simplest explanation, that require the fewest assumptions is what we tend to believe until we see evidence otherwise. You are the one saying something exists. I know this is a cliche at this point, but it's true: the burden of proof is on you, not us.
>>692561630 Yes, and what we're doing here is try and test the ideas in such statement, to finally see that they don't make a lot of sense really, like, it was nothing and nothing turned into some things, then those things kept maintaining order, so that they become bigger and self replicating things .......all because of nothing, cause there was nothing and there's no reason, no purpose............ .........I JUST DON'T BUY THAT.
>>692561967 I think the "proof" is all the complicated and tremendously synchronized processes that take place in nature itself; again like this guy says >>692562388 ...u just can't buy the "behind everything there's NOTHING at all" story.
>>692558952 Whenever I have this argument with a theist, it always ends up boiling down to "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I cannot refute this argument, but I can say that an absence of evidence is, unequivocally, an ABSENCE of evidence. When science poses an explanation of a natural event, it provides evidence, facts, and logic. But when religion tries to pose an explanation of a natural event (ie; intelligent design over evolution), the only proof ever given is "it says so in the bible/koran/blah blah book" or "you just need more faith"
Atheism is being mindful enough to respect the fact that it is ignorant, arrogant and disrespectful to assume we, as a relatively young and primitive species have any idea what created the universe and/or it's inhabitants.
>>692563824 >>692564124 Haven't you ever thought that it may be like there is a creator ...yet this creator somehow exists in such a dimension, a different set of laws, parallel universe or possesses a certain quality that makes it impossible for us to ever detect directly. We can only see indirect "evidences" of it, like the universal order aforementioned.
Just like this famous cartoon of beings who exist only in 2D, and they can't even fathom what the 3D world is like, they can't even conceive what 3D is.
Yet, atheist continue to deny it 'cause they're always expecting the utterly direct and explicit evidence. They can't do as Truman Show, connecting the dots and patterns in nature until they go "dammit, there's gotta be something here".
>>692558952 >The belief that there was once absolutely nothing, and nothing happened. No one believes this, except Theists. It's the ONLY argument they can come up with to "refute" Atheism.
There is no magical power in the sky watching over you making sure you don't do an evil thing; and if you do, he won't sent you to an evil place. Because no such place exists either.
If there is any sort of "higher being" that being IS the Universe. The Universe created the atoms that created the stars that exploded and created the molecules that created your very existence.
If you want to believe in something; believe in what is real. You're not going to heaven, you're not going to hell, when you die, that's it. Nothing else. If you can't cope with that; I suggest you get a shrink.
People give God too much credit for having a hand in every implication of our lives. My friend had a mosquito land on him and he said "I wonder why God made that what's it's purpose" that's exactly how you can tell god did not hand craft each aspect and corner of our universe instead whatever higher power it is we don't understand simply set forth the energy of the universe and allowed it to take its own course of random events based on the laws of physics in place
>>692565137 Yeah, I've thought that. But I give it as much credibility as any "thing I thought about once". It is possible I was correct, but it would be luck or some being I can't comprehend implanting that thought in my head. If I operated believing everything I thought of had as much weight and validity as gravity or how internal combustion engines work or how and why I get sick, I would have schizophrenia. Again it's not impossible the belief in God is an accurate one, there's just no way to know and it ultimately has no real effect on me
Take all that bullshit text and replace it with only this:
"Atheism. A complete lack of belief in any God."
Period. That's it. No bullshit theories, no answers to questions, no magic, no half baked fantasies. Simply the lack of belief in any god. It's quite simple.
Do you believe in Unicorns? No. Same deal. Now you know exactly how an atheist feels. Just replace the word "Unicorns" with the word "gods".
Look at the root of these words:
Amoral. A lack of morality. Atonal. A lack of tonality. Apolitical. A lack of politic affiliation. Atheist. A lack of belief in theism. Asexual. A lack of sexual feeling. Atypical. Apathy. ... The list goes on.
>>692558952 atheists dont actually believe there was nothing. they believe there was a singularity. everything that exists, has always existed.
Frankly, i dont buy that. I think there must have been a before forever. And in that sense there may have been a creator, certainly something unbound by the laws of physics. But they dont care what you wear, eat or who you fuck.
>>692558952 saying that there is a mystery at the root of things is in no way saying that jesus or krishna or whatever DOGMA is the cause/source. fuck if i know how it all happened, but youre an idiot to wave a bible around when its full of easily documented fables which persist in similar forms in different cultures - all attempting to put a veneer of cause on a fucking mystery. my mystery of self-replicating bits is more profound than your stop-gap angry bearded sky faggot. id say thats irrefutable. and your pic is just dumb. >lol youre crazy cuz you acknowledge the vast and mysterious complexity of the universe compared to my story time angry beard faggot No.
>>692561339 Most people don't understand what agnosticism is. It's not some third option in between theism and atheism. Some theists are agnostic, but most are gnostic. Some atheists are gnostic, but most are agnostic.
>>692558952 Earth was here first. Humans are born ignorant, knowing absolutely nothing which means only knowledge that could be gleamed about Earths history before humanity must be based p=on physical evidence. All religions attempt to portray knowledge of earths history using zero physical evidence, and is based on the principle that the person telling the story has this knowledge given to them by some magical deity...which is why we have 4200 religions, and only one scientific theory. Because the people who made the scientific theory based their information on reality, not abstract dreams of bronze age retards hearing voices.
>>692566213 Even if you do that, those laws are not sentient. This big group of natural laws and physics did not decide to arbitrarily create a planet and all the life on it. Calling it god doesn't help to prove your argument.
>>692558952 The people who claim that they cannot prove a god exists or doesn't exists are the real winners. Its simple scientific theory. You cannot prove or disprove a god, and you most likely never will
>>692566826 No, not quite. Atheism just involves a very simple set of beliefs: that there are no gods. That's it, there are no other beliefs required. Also, it takes more that just a set of beliefs for something to be a religion,as shown by the Merriam-Webster definition:
>: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
>: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
>: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
>>692567708 NOPE I dont need to define myself in relation to objects which have a:no bearing on my experience and b:are stupid. i've never read mein kampf and do not nod to write myself a relation to it.
>>692567708 But not a channel. Turning the TV off is actively denying the other channels. If islam is channel 1, judaism is channel 2, and hinduism is channel 3, atheism is unplugging the divice from the wall. Atheism is a state of being, sure, but not a religion.
>>692567400 How can you be so sure those laws didn't decide that? Did you ask them? Isn't because of them that we're here after all? Pushing a buttons, whether consciously or unconsciously, doesn't change the fact that the finger was the reason and the responsible one for the button being pushed and most definitely, doesn't make the finger non-existant or make it impossible to call the finger God.
You realize that religion holds the same exact basis of what you just said right? The only difference is atheists believe everything came from nothing, while you believe that there was either always a god, or that god created himself, which brings us back to the whole "came from nothing scenario". Which is just as ridiculous.
Look, I don't know how life started, I don't know why or when. That's why I don't give a fuck about whether your little fucking space fairy exists or not. I'm about as agnostic as can be. That being said, I would rather believe in the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have devoted their lives to studying everything we can about the universe, than to believe in some fucking primitive and outdated literature that shames me for being human.
>>692558952 do you honestly believe a fucking omnipotent multiverse creator gives two shits about a tiny little planet in the middle of nowhere? Think how fucking giant the universe is and then ask yourself why the fuck "God" would give a flying fuck about a single planet out of billions and billions.
I always mused that life was just an electronic simulator or an experiment like in Rick and Morty when Morty plays that Roy game in blips n chitz
The time period of evolution doesn't work from bacterium to humans, even Darwin admitted it, as it exceeds the earths life. The truth is something greater then ourselves made us, nobody knows what though
>>692568229 You can't be sure. The only thing you can be sure of is what you can observe and measure. We can observe the laws of physics in action. We can't observe why they are. So it's a non-question. If I asked you right now what is in your neighbors closet would you know? You'd have to go look. If I said you can't look you would say something like clothes probably and if I said its sports equipment and neither of us went and looked in the closet. Which one of us is right? Why?
OP your definition was written by some religious ass. "Atheism" is defined as: "the belief that anyone who follows any organized religion is a fucking moron." Got nothing to do with big bangs and such.
>>692558952 Atheism isn't an answer. It's the position that no deities exist. The atheist position to questions about life and existence is that we don't know all the answers, but we're working on it, and seeing where the evidence leads. Claiming that everything around us was brought forth by some magical being or force when there's no evidence to suggest there is would be dishonest.
>>692558952 if you consider god omnipotent and omnipresent, then you must understand, god is not a creator, but instead everything, for everything to exist, there must also be nothingness, and so, logic dictates, God is everything and nothing.
>>692568203 Watching atheists try to disprove theists is just sad, while not believing in God may make them feel smart, like they're superior and intelligent, not believing is simply ignorant and condemning. Atheists always try to make theists look dumb just so they can think they'be advanced themselves beyond the "foolish" Era of theism. Coming from a former pathetic atheist faggot.
>>692568721 We've shown with countless examples that evolution can happen much faster than we thought it could in Darwin's day. Darwin admitted there were a lot of things he couldn't explain yet about his theory, many that have since been explained and some that we have still yet to understand. That doesn't mean it's wrong.
>>692561339 That's just stupid too. If God or Allah or what have you existed, from where did they come from? What caused them to exist to create this reality. What are their origins? God itself is also an uncaused cause.
>>692558952 That's not atheism. Atheism is just the lack of religious beliefs. What you replace things like the origin if the universe with is not part of the definition of atheism. They are usually replaced by the current scientifically accepted theory, which isn't that either. But replace "nothing" with "unknown as if yet" and you'll get a bit closer. It's basically knowing that you don't know anything and maybe never will, instead of believing something because a book said so once. There this is the last time I answer to one of this shitty threads my, you people should know better.
>>692558952 Atheism doesn't claim to know what caused "nothing" to "explode" they just claim that there is no evidence of a higher deity that caused it. >they don't say "nothing caused nothing to explode which created everything" >they say "something unknown to us right now (probably not a deity) caused hypercondensed hydrogen atoms to expand in all directions and forces like gravity and electromagnetism (not random chance or a higher deity) brought the stars together, which created giant bodies of superheated gas which conducted nuclear fission and fusion to create elements which came together on smaller scales than the stars and made planets such as earth. The beginning of life on earth is a mystery but can be traced back to a few billion years ago through fossil records which indicate that there were living things before humans and species developed adaptations over time through natural selection and became modern animals and humans" >simple
I mean, not to sound like a fedora tipper in a bait thread, but it makes more sense than a magic man proofing two people into a garden that he created from nothing and making them inbreed for thousands of generations.
>>692568552 He thinks there has to be a creator for something that happens in nature. For example multiverse theory, there are infinite amount of different places with infinite amount of different laws of physics. There's a golden zone in physics where planets form etc, which enables planets, Suns etc. if there is an infinite amount of them, and were in one of them that supports life, isn't it natural rather than an act of God? it means that we exist because we can. We can put it to luck but it's not right as we would not exist anywhere else because those places don't support life. It's not an omnipotent deity as its random. We are here because we can be here. There is not big plan.
>>692568229 That's the same logic as putting a trillion monkeys on typewriters for thousands of years and calling the one that recreates Shakespeare a genius. There seems to be a misconception that everything was chosen and only had one chance to get things right or it'd never work. What do you say to the other 99.99(repeating)% of the universe? Do you just ignore how there is only life here? There have been innumerable chances at creating what we have in the universe, and so it working once out of as many chances as it has had isn't some miraculous creation; the laws of nature just happened to find one place in which they work.
>>692568229 My issue with this argument is that you consistently fall back on the "god did it" argument. You assume there was a button that had to be pressed to make everything work, and that another, higher being of some sort pressed the button. No, I cannot disprove the existence of god's finger, but there is no evidence for it, either. To refer back to the connecting the dots argument, I believe in the big bang theory because the dots science has connected so far seem to be leading in that direction. I cannot confirm it, but there are more dots to be connected, so the hunt continues. Whereas you seem to have connected 3 dots into a triangle and shout "Holy shit, it's the father, son, and holy ghost!"
>>692569323 If we only consider evolution as the force that develops organisms, as I'm sure you'd be willing to, it would be astounding that a lineage of biological changed organisms acting on instinct led to a human, an organism who can look beyond the chain of being and wonder about the world. One who can turn around and look at all that evolution and make judgements on it. One who develops art, laws, science, discoveries, JUST for the sake of doing so. For evolution to lead to that, would be amazing.
So, going by only evolution being the developmental force, then yeah, humans are fucking amazing and there's almost certainly nothing like them
it's times like this I am not confused why people are agnostic. how does anybody know if there is a big bearded ghost in the sky, or if we are all the way we are and only right here, nowhere else purely of science and chance. so OP, nobody in this thread will be able to provide you with an answer because there is no answer. there you go. keep your money
Because theists ARE dumb, in general, or they would not hold such ridiculous beliefs. That or they are too scared to admit that their lives mean nothing and never meant anything. There is no heaven or hell. When you die, you die. That's it.
What is so wrong with the fact that we are here by chance? Life is a giant mystery, there's no invisible sky daddy making it all happen and who punishes you for doing bad shit.
Your religion and others like it are holding us back from advancing as a global society. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all one in the same, and they are plagues upon this world to be eradicated.
>>692570198 Monkeys are shit compared to humans don't be silly. They don't stand up and ponder the universe, and their descendants never will. How can evolution, which is based on developing survival, lead to something that's entirely out of that frame? If it did do that, it would rare and probably never happen again
>>692569889 right but you still have a inclination one way or the other. One must seem more probable than the other. Nobody's saying you have to be 100% sure to be considered an atheist. How can sit there and say that you think they are exactly equiprobable?
>>692568854 What if it's clothes AND sports equipment? What if the inside of the box is in a state of being where it is simultaneously dead and alive? What if I'm in a state of being where I'm simultaneously dead and alive? what if there is an alternate reality where I have real friends and I'm not suicidal? >the world is full of so many questions yet unanswered.
>>692570343 Well then what led to the multiverse? It was just that way? The basic idea in deism is that causality is something inherent in our universe. Hence, the only way for it all to exist (hence the uncaused cause) is for something to be outside of that universe. Otherwise it's just what led to the laws of physics? The universe. What led to that? The multiverse. Etc. This is the foundation of that notion of a being above nature. You can't have something bound by the laws of nature create itself. That's a system that created itself- which is ridiculous. Hence it's entirely logical to think something outside that system created it. Moreover, that something is the very definition of something that is beyond all systems.
>>692570465 Oh boy. Why do you think humans are the dominant life form? Intelligence. How do you think evolution works? By experimenting. The strong survive and the weak perish. You need abstract thinking an many areas of life , not just art. Check the newest findings in brain science. When the brain has been mapped fully, we can figure out everything.
>>692569459 God is a concept, nothing more, to idolize or not thats up to each one, i dont, if we are made up of the same stuff as everything and by consequence of the nothingness, there is nothing to idolize, but instead everything to contemplate.
>>692570679 That's just one theory true. However if that theory is not true then there will be another one and in the end one of them will be true. I'm not cocky enough to say we know anything yet, but in the end we will understand how this whole universe came to be. Maybe we are an experiment in a fancy computer, who knows, are the makers of the program our gods? Do they hold magical powers? No.
>>692570935 That's what I'm saying. Look at your own existence, how you "experience" things. It's like your something that exists. What is that feeling? If your body is just a super complex machine, how the hell could something like that feeling of being you have come about? What is it?
Imagine trying to write a program that has that ability- the being. You never will be able to. The best you can do is make a machine that LOOKS and ACTS like a human, but that's it. The Turing test. You can't create one that has a consciousness the way you do. How would evolution even lead to that? If anything, evolution would just lead to an extremely complex machine which can solve problems etc. But humans are much more than that, and proof of that is that very consciousness you have, that sense of "you."
My point went WAAAAY over your head, didn't it. Where did you think God we're talking about in this thread came from? Christianity, which is, guess what, A RELIGION. Believing in a god is a RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, the three Abrahamic religions, all believe in a variation of the same God, which we are apparently discussing.
>>692570854 What led to multiverse? You are asking a question what will take probably the whole human future to understand. Let me ask you this: what makes you believe there is no spaghetti god that makes bolognese taste good for the blessed ones? Prove it. You can't. I can always come back with another question. It's the same with every belief. However describing an event like why does one flower grow where it grows right now is chance, and because it can. There doesn't need to be human present to plant it there (God) it exists because the necessities of its survival were there.
>>692571033 I would call him reasonable because why would he have to worship the god? Assuming he did exist, I would doubt anything would be created so he could be worshipped. Why would an all-powerful omnipresent deity give a shit about someone kneeling down to thank him every day? He'd probably have other creations to work on, or maybe he'd see Earth as a 'Planet Tycoon" game and enjoy fucking with us.
>>692571693 None of us brought christianity etc. in here. When I argue in favor of a God here, I'm not even arguing about any of those religions. I'm arguing over the very basic part- whether a God exists or not. Those religions have rituals and ceremonies-- no one is discussing that. Save that for another post
>>692571507 How? Both are assumptions beyond our knowledge. One is "beyond what we know a higher power did it" the other is "beyond what we know is something other than a higher power" neither can be proven or disproven at this time.
Lol, no we aren't. We are just machines. The "Sense of you" (ego) that we have is a function of our brains processing an absurd amount of information. We differ in personality on an individual level because, by the laws of physics, no two people would be able to perceive the same information the same way at the same time. Your ego is nothing more than the sum total of your life experiences.
1. Explain why you don't believe in Islam/Hinduism/Any religion that's not yours. 2. Apply that reasoning to your own religion.
Anybody can make any claim they want about the nature of reality. It makes more sense to observe the universe and try to figure out why things are the way they are than it does to pick one particular religion out of hundreds and work backwards to explain why that particular asspull is correct.
All the forces in the universe equal zero. It's all still nothing. Nothing and something are obviously interdependent states of Reality. It's always been here, just the form has changed in a way consistent with entropy, because it's the only way to be observed.
>>692571467 What makes you say we can't? We will be able to. We earn more about our brains every day, when we understand more, we will be able to be gods ourselves. Or creators of intelligence. That's why it's artificial. The process is not so different from evolution. Learn, adapt, try again. With enough time we can do anything.
>>692572062 I didn't say either could be proven I'm just saying that to assume that a supernatural being exists outside of the natural laws of the universe, is a bigger leap than assuming that he doesn't if you can't agree with that statement then you're just dim
>>692571792 No the flower grows there because the wind etc. blew it there, and yes, that it's conditions for survival were there. But where did all those laws etc. that lead to it come from? It's simple to just say oh so and so question isn't answered yet so we can't argue about it.
But if the question is "answered" it's going to be an in universe question. Hence, the question of how that answer is so comes up. And so on. All the answers are NECESSARILY in universe.
The only way for them all to be so, is for something extra- universe to exist. Otherwise, it's ad infinitum. (I'm using universe loosely here. I mean it as our reality- the very thing the multiverse and whatever makes up)
>>692572336 Just because something is a bigger leap doesn't mean it is any less good of a belief lol. Saying rocks fall because they like to fall is a whole lot simpler than Einstein's theory of relativity and much less of a "leap."
If the big crunch theory is true then the big bang is just the universe resetting. The theory is based on the universe expanding for a time then rapidly collapsing over and over again the universe always was and always will be.
>>692558952 I don't think most atheists believe nothing created the universe. If they do, they're misinformed. Then again.. If virtual particles, by my knowledge, are fields that come into existence out of nowhere, but disappear just as soon as they appear. This is explained through QTF, do in fact exist, we can make proper assumptions, till then it's all a question. You can't see past the veil that is the cosmic microwave background, so any knowledge "before" the universe is only questions that can't be answered. another note, I don't think atheist claim how the universe was form, most of them just disbelieve in the presence of a common description of god (the one that that big 3 claim exists, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and some others)
>>692572590 Yes of course they are in this universe. For us to ponder this universe we must first exist. Existence alone doesn't mean anything. The laws of this universe doesn't mean anyone created them. We may exist in this universe just because no other one was possible. Or we exist in infinite amount of universes and in the other one you're a nigger and I'm a Jew.
>>692572268 The idea of a cyclical universe that goes through infinite bangs and crunches is an elegant and attractive model, but it was disproven long ago. The universe will continue to expand until everything fizzles out. We are headed for a big freeze not a big crunch.
>>692572816 you mean Newton's Law of Gravitational Force? not in light of the evidence it isn't since we know rocks can't think and that there is an unseen attraction between all objects with mass your argument is very flawed, sir
>>692573243 That's in retrospect. In the past, if you told a person a rock falls because matter curves time and space versus a rock falls because it naturally moves to the thing of its origin, the latter is much less of a leap. Our situation is similar. We're in a place where we don't have knowledge either way. We can't say that the less complicated model of explanation is therefore more plausible. The truth is, in that perspective, that neither one nor the other is better.
No I mean Einstein's theory, which Newton's Law is basically a part of
>>692572816 Not true. There is evidence that point to the theory of relativity (which is moot, as rocks falling has to do with gravity and not relativity). Saying that rocks fall because they like to implies that rocks are sentient, and also have a spectrum of likes/dislikes. So it is infact more of a leap to say rocks have a consciousness than it is to say they fall because mass attracts mass.
>>692573622 Yes, in retrospect. In the past they wouldn't know that. In future, we may find etc. etc. law that points one way or another. Hence, we can't say one belief/option/idea/notion is better than the other because it's simpler
>>692573850 way to ignore my point. Even if they didn't think that, I could just go further in the past or make up some other theory of why rocks fall that isn't Einstein's Theory that would be more fitting to the time period.
>>692573207 No. It exists because it can. Nothing less nothing more. The only reason you are here to ponder of God is because it exists. If you were not here it would still exist. Nothing less, nothing more.
Look OP, the biggest problem is that being a theist requires you to have a huge ego. Even though your book tells you to live a humble life, you are still told that you are special. Atheists simply understand that NONE of us are special. It's a kick in the humility-zone when you realize it, but that's the truth of it all.
>>692574201 Of course there is something more. There are explanations for everything. All of science is explaining how things are. You start with a cell. You don't say it's like that because it is. You say it's like that because evolution led to it forming or because etc. structure provides etc. function so evolution favored it. Then you get into how evolution came about. Etc. The root of all this then becomes because physics is like that. Then you get to how is physics like that, and you may say some multiverse theory and so on. There has never been a case where it's "it's just like that." That doesn't even make sense. Something is caused by something.
>>692558952 This is simply taking something that is speculative and incomplete (yet with an overwhelming amount of collected observational evidence) and turning it into complete nonsense by either a troll or someone with less than half a brain.
Shit gets derailed right from the start by "there was nothing", when the theory quite explicitly says that there was literally everything.
>>692574089 the only other theory they could have come up with is "because God wills it" which was their theory for everything that could not be explained. And in every single case, it turned out to not be true. And that's why it's silly that you still accept it as an explanation for ANYTHING
As an agnostic, I'm willing to say God is real if what we are living in now is a simulation (and we all know that logically we probably are) so sure, let's call whoever is running the simulation "God".
>>692574576 You confuse the beginning of something with laws in the something. There's causality in the universe just because it's possible in this one. The point is that this universe would exist even without you. Does that mean there is no God? Or does it mean it exists because it can? I believe in evolution, I don't believe in god. For God to exist there needs to be a person to think of him as a God. For universe to exist there doesn't need to be anybody. It exists because it can. There is a flaw in that.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.