Why do atheists reject evidence for the existence of God but

What evidence?

>>743807023

the fine tuning of the universe for life, for example?

do you even science atheist fag?

File: 1501779736896.jpg (26KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 640x640px

>>743807023

>>743807149
Do it.

File: 1453406847110.jpg (317KB, 840x630px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 840x630px

>>743806062
Why does this thread get made every day by robots but we still don't have sex robots?

>>743807103
That's actually greater evidence of the universe being a simulation, as is all of quantum mechanics as proven so far through empirical studies.

So again, what evidence?

>>743806062
Bait.

What evidence would that be, kiddo? Intelligent design?

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

why cant i find good quality gay horse porn ?

File: hlIoB.jpg (121KB, 718x960px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 718x960px

>>743807430

>>743807103
>anthropic principle

>>743806062
Wow what a bunch of cringy religious fags fucking normys

>>743807533
What the fuck are you smiling at?

>>743807635
lyl

File: 1489331848922.jpg (12KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 225x225px

>>743807430
This simulation bullshit really needs to stop. Where is your evidence? It's as vague as the theist beliefs because it all relies on speculation.

ITT: Triggered atheists fags.

It takes a a lot of faith to believe in nothing you cunts.

>>743806062
>evidence
This word, it does not mean what you think it mean, I think.

You are clearly confusing 'belief' with 'evidence'.

>>743807865
Wait...is that Dino porn?

>>743807430
>>743807778

>atheists believe there is no god
>atheists suggest that the universe is a simulation
>atheists forget that a being of some kind must've created and ran said simulation
>atheists are retarded

Can't believe these threads still go.

Don't debate science vs religion, you'll just encourage the religifags.

>>743807781
It takes exactly zero faith to not believe something.

>>743808002
We create simulated worlds, are we god? Fucking moron.

>>743807103
And to which god do you attribute this 'evidence'?

File: copycatfaiths.jpg (430KB, 1312x858px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1312x858px

>>743806062

Ahh...You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy.

>>743806062
what's that pic actually from

>>743807103
>the vast majority of the universe is completely hostile to life as we know it
>it is fine tuned for life
bwahahahaha

>>743808357
Neverending Story.

>>743808002
>Too retarded to see the "simulated universe" response to these threads is trolling.

>>743808002
I'm not a mere 'atheist', I'm ANTI-THEIST, and would love nothing better than to be able to erase all religion from the face of the Earth, from the minds of Man, and from all of History.

Why? Because it causes nothing but PAIN and DEATH and DESTRUCTION everywhere. It is the expression of a genetic flaw in our all-too-human DNA, and other humans exploit it, to control others, make them do their bidding, and they use that power to cause pain, death, and destruction.

WE NEED TO EVOLVE PAST THIS CRIPPLING GENETIC FLAW; IT IS PREVENTING US FROM EVOLVING FURTHER.

You, OP, are BEING USED by your religious leaders, and HELD BACK by you erroneous 'beliefs'.

You must EMBRACE real truth, real facts, and the true quest thereof. None of your so-called religious 'leaders' can be trusted; to them, you are only a TOOL to be used and thrown away. CAST OFF the shackles of your naivete, REMOVE the veil of wilful ignorance from your eyes, and SEE THE UNIVERSE FOR WHAT IT IS -- AND SPEND YOU LIFE IN THE REAL PURSUIT OF THE TRUTH OF IT.

Stand on you own two feet, OP -- it's the only real way forward.

>>743806062
Because the evidence we accept has been rigorously tested and holds up to scrutiny.

>>743806062

Fine tuning of the universe?
Even if the universe would be "fine tuned", how would that be evidence for God?

>>743808622
..as opposed to the circular logic of religion and mere MEN shaking some ancient book of fiction and lies at you and screaming "BELIEVE!!!"

Anybody else here euforic at this moment?

File: IMG_4354.jpg (24KB, 254x278px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 254x278px

>>743806062
So is the choice of image for a "atheists define atheism" post purely a MFW pic that stuck? Or is there some Neverending Story reference that I'm missing ...

God gave us science to better understand his creation. No need to fight over science and religion, they both make equally valid philosophical points.

>>743806062
There is no evidence that god exists.

>>743808952
What valid philosophical points does religion make?

>>743808328
Hey, I'm an atheist too and not OP, but for you to say that, you must not be a just or merciful person. Are you not part of the universe?

And yes, I am aware that this is a Terry Pratchett quote.

>>743808256
Yes, we literally are the God of those simulations because we created them, we control them and we maintain them.

>>743808579
Lol u gay

>>743809141
>Lol u gay
Wow what a scathing, insightful retort, I'm just so completely destroyed by that, I'll never be the same again!

>>743809141
It seems you don't know what the definition of god is. Move along, bucko.

>>743806062
Dude, i don't remember ordering a thread with extra faggot.

>>743809568
Man makes God in his own image. Can't you tell by how completely fucked up everything is?

>>743809568
To be fair, there is no one definition of god. That's part of the problem.

>>743806062
holy shit how are these threads still a thing? bumping because I'm an asshole.

File: eSCALATED_1487040000699_8508527_ver1.0.jpg (46KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x360px

>>743807182

File: 1528137_torinsangel_duc.png (1MB, 3000x2300px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2300px

>>743809894

>>743806062

Look, I'm a Christian guy here on 4chan, and I believe there is enough evidence to prove the Bible is true.... but seriously, I'm tired of seeing this woman's face on 4chan every time I log in. Why.... let me ask you.... WHY do I have to see this woman every time I'm here?

>>743810230

nice try atheist fag. but too fucking obvious.

>>743810230
>there is enough evidence to prove the Bible is true
What evidence is there to prove that the Bible is true when it says there is a god?

>>743806062
Fuck off Childlike Empress. I've had about enough of your trolling.

>>743807103
It took nature millions of years of evolution to create life as we now it today little dumdum

>>743808387
This

>>743810729

yes, but the universe is made for life. even if not in abundance. its fucking obvious.

>>743810942
"its fucking obvious" is not an argument.

>>743810942
>universe is made for life
>vast majority of the universe is inhabitable
>think "its obvious" is not just an argument but a good argument
>still believing this crap in 2017
ishygddt

>>743811186
>vast majority of the universe is inhabitable

really? how many times have you left this planet anon?

tell u about your inter-galactic travels. tell us how much life there isnt.

>>743807533
>What are you looking at, smoothskin?

>>743811069

you are right, thats why i said its just fucking obvious.

its weird because its almost as if you hate God, even though you dont think he exists....

>>743811384
sure, right after you tell me about a single place where there is life outside our planet, or are you saying our planet is all there is?

thats really like saying "prove there is no god", just goes to show how stupid you religifags are.

>>743808387
The fine tuning he was referring to was the fact that the strength of the higgs field, the strength of dark energy and the weakness of gravity in comparison to the other fundamental forces is very precisely tuned and if any of these factors were even slightly different stars and heavy elements could never form

That fine tuning. There is no actual reason for it and the anthropic principle while valid (no one would ask the question why if there was no one), still leaves the question why unanswered

>>743811453
>thats why i said its just fucking obvious
It isn't though.
>its weird because its almost as if you hate God
Nope.
>even though you dont think he exists
I hate various god concepts in the same way that I hate, say, Voldemort.

>>743806062
You're autistic.

File: 1496351874181.jpg (60KB, 584x600px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 584x600px

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma Sambuddhasa.

>>743811643
>very precisely tuned
Is it though? What is the possible range the values could take? Are some values more likely than others?
>That fine tuning.
I know, but it's a garbage argument for a god on multiple levels.

>>743811643
It would be very weird to find ourselves in a universe where we cant be, wouldnt it?

File: MK (14).jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

all the "evidence" dosent prove god's existence it proves that there is something we can observe tell me where god is and how to talk to him and I will belive that god does exist.
picture not relevent.

>>743811594

>claims the universe is not made for life.
>says we are all there is.
>cant prove it.

stay mad atheist fag.

>>743811814
Sure but the idea that empty space is inhospitable is not a counter argument for the fine tuning of the universe. I was only correcting that guy. Not a theist

>>743807778
so at some point we can make a computer simulation of a universe, then they make a simulation insede that simulation. you get the idea. what are the odds we are on the top of that chain?

>>743812021

fuck off Ted Talks.

>>743807149
Now I really, really have seen everything.

File: 293.jpg (315KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1500x1000px

>>743812091

>>743807373
THAT is the real question here actually

>>743807373
asking the real questions...

>>743811888
When did i say we are all there is? you religitards sure love your strawmans and shifting of the burden of proof.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.

1. The universe has a cause;
2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
3. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

>>743806062
oh look its this thread fuckiing again,whoever started this should kill themselves

>>743807373
Feminists are working 'round the clock to stop the sex robot revolution. Act now or be forever cucked by them.

>>743811814
>Is it though? What is the possible range the values could take? Are some values more likely than others?

Oh it is. Very finely tuned. No values are more likely than others. If that was the case then that would be the reason why life can possibly exist. But these are fundamental properties of this universe and there is really no reason why they should be as they are and the fact that the range within which life could exist is very narrow for each factor and all of it combined makes the fact that life can exist the greatest coincidence ever - by far

>>743812335
Himself/herself

>>743806062
It's time to stop. You call shit being complicated evidence while it's just to complicated for you because you're just to damn dumb to understand. You seriously can't tell the difference between real evidence made out of scientific observations/ logical thinking and some 2000 year old scrap book of a hobo riding on donkey, letting people drink his blood and telling it is wine but they're just to pore to know the difference because they never have dronken wine before.

>>743812369
replace "life" with "life as we know it" and that sentence will make more sense.

>>743812305
Premise 1 is not justified and there is a fallacy of composition and special pleading going on.

Even if there is a god. There is no way there is such thing as heaven or an afterlife. So why does it matter?

>>743812510
>I don't respond to any arguments with actual evidence even when the opponent presents valid evidence and reasoning.
>I literally only look at one argument presented .

>>743812369
>No values are more likely than others.
>But these are fundamental properties of this universe and there is really no reason why they should be as they are
How do you know?
>the range within which life could exist is very narrow
How do you know what the possible range is?

Remember that we've only ever observed one universe, ours.

>>743812305
i would not accept any of those premises.
>Whatever begins to exist INSIDE THE UNIVERSE has a cause;
>The universe has a cause.
yes the big bang
> then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists
thats quite the assumption there, does not follow whatsoever.
>An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists
and next you will say he wrote the bible? get real please.

>>743812689

atheists are more fundamentalists than religious people. its impossible to get through to them.

>>743807103
Brilliant, only a religious could be this dumb

>>743812659
>doesn't explain his refutation.

>>743812531
Life is just fine here. The fine tuning is what allows elements to exist. Unless you are suggesting life could form in an isotropic soup of quarks and electrons that would never even interact with one another in an accelerating universe or inside a universe that collapsed into a singularity

Life is just fine

File: reason.jpg (48KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 800x600px

>>743812893

>>743806062
Why does her crying turn me on so much?

there is no evidence for the existence of god. And no, Bible or any other religious fanfiction doesn't count
sage and hide

>>743812814
>How do you know what the possible range is?
Physics...

We don't have to see other universes to know what they would be like if the fundamental forces of this universe were changed

If gravity was weaker you can still work out how high a ball would go if threw it up. Don't have to go to that different universe to work it out

>>743812888
You do realize leading scientists no longer believe in the big bang....and in a good 100 years they will believe something else started life....and another 100 something else so on so forth..

>>743813094
There is no evidence he does not exist. Much like your open mindedness.

Came for the bait, came during the comic

>>743813216
troll harder

>>743813347
Google harder

>>743812914
Okay.
Premise 1 states that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." This premise is merely asserted and I do not accept it.
When theists attempt to justify premise 1 applying to the universe, they invariable commit the fallacy of composition (everything within the universe has a cause, therefore the universe has a cause as well)
Also, if the set of "things that do not begin to exist" only contains God, the premise can be rewritten as "Everything except God has a cause"

>>743813411
██████████████████████████████████████
█░░░█░█░█░█░░███░█░░███░░▀█▀░▀█░█░░░██
██░██░▀░█░█░▀███░█░▀███░▀▄█░▀░█░██░███
██░██░▄░█░█▄░███░█▄░███░▄▀█░▄░█░██░███
██░██░█░█░█░░███░█░░███░░▄█░█░█░██░█░█
██████████████████████████████████████
███████▀▀░░░▄███████████▀▀▀▀░░░░░░░▀▀▀
█████▀░░░░▄██████▀▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄▄█████▄▄▄▄
███▀░░▄█▄████▀▀░░░▄▄▄█████████████████
███░░█████▀▀░░▄▄██████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀░
███▄░░░▀▀░░▄▄████████▀▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░
██████▄▄▄▄██████▀▀░░░░░░░▄▄░░░░░░░░░░░
██████████████████▄▄▄░░░▀██▀░░░░░░░░░░
████████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
█████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
███████████████████▄▄▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
██████████████████████████▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░

>>743813208
>We don't have to see other universes to know what they would be like if the fundamental forces of this universe were changed
What you need to know is if the fundamental forces of this universe COULD be changed, and, if so, how much. Does physics actually tell us this?

>>743812888
>>Whatever begins to exist INSIDE THE UNIVERSE has a cause;
Explain to me the difference.
>yes the big bang
Again, explain how this is different from a creator. What caused the big bang?
>thats quite the assumption there, does not follow whatsoever
Yes it does. In an environment of nothingness, the only cause of something must have been uncaused. A first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it can be accounted for only in terms of a personal explanation. Second, the personhood of the cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality, since the only entities we know of which can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects, and abstract objects do not stand in causal relations. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be of the order of mind.

>>743808579
This is pasta, right?

>>743813461
That's not how you Google dude.

>>743808622
The fact that we CAN test and scrutinize it speaks volumes. Faith exists so you can't question your indoctrination or you're blasphemous or intolerant of religious beliefs. I bet if someone suggested praying to Poseidon for a naval victory that guy would be stripped of command and commited to therapy.

>>743813573
The fundamental forces cannot be changed, they are what they are. The question isn't if we can change them, its why are they the way they are.

Electromagnetism for example is 10^36 times stronger than gravity. If that difference was greater or smaller, atoms wouldn't form.

The strong nuclear force is stronger than electromagnetism, if it wasn't atoms wouldn't form. So on and so forth.

The relative strength of these fundamental forces is very finely tuned for atoms and stars and crap to exist

>>743813612
Quantum fluctuations are uncaused, yet they happen

>>743814171
>Electromagnetism for example is 10^36 times stronger than gravity. If that difference was greater or smaller, atoms wouldn't form.
>The strong nuclear force is stronger than electromagnetism, if it wasn't atoms wouldn't form. So on and so forth.
I get that.
>its why are they the way they are.
>The relative strength of these fundamental forces is very finely tuned for atoms and stars and crap to exist
And I'm asking: why do you think they could be any other way? Why do you think there's a substantial range that's even possible? Our sample size of universes is one.

I think we need to figure out what "God" is or what it's made of before piecing together it's existence..if that makes any sense.

>>743813612
>Explain to me the difference.
its called the law of causality and we do not know if it applies with no spacetime and as far as science knows, there was not spacetime "before" the big bang because time started at the big bang.

>What caused the big bang?
idk and i find it preposterous that you claim you do know.

>the only cause of something must have been uncaused.
why not just say the big bang was uncaused? you do NOT have justification to go assuming it was any one thing and certainly cant just assume it was a being of some sort and then begin listing properties of such being.

>Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be of the order of mind.
we dont have evidence of minds without brains, so we have just as many reasons to believe it was a mind as we have to believe it was an abstract object, which is none and no amount of assumptions or logical fallacies will ever change that.

>>743814413
Christ how many of these do you have?

File: 373.jpg (328KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1500x1000px

>>743814492

>>743814528
Screencap of folder plz

File: 375.jpg (361KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1500x1000px

>>743814587

>>743813431
>I reject the idea that whatever BEGAN to exist has a cause."
Wow. You're literally the only person I know who rejects this. Consider this: You began to exist; therefore;something caused you to exist. Explain to me why you believe nothing caused you to exist.

>Fallacy of composition
Here are my reasons for my conclusion:
1. Something cannot come from nothing
2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing.
3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm premise number 1. This is also an appeal to inductive reasoning, not the composition reasoning you claim.

Thus, your objection is but a straw man.

>>743814403
>And I'm asking: why do you think they could be any other way?

There is nothing restraining fundamental forces to be stronger or weaker. If there was a constraint we wouldn't ask why are they so fine tuned and that constraint would be the reason why life can exist. Where physics stand today there is nothing compelling these forces to have the relative strength that they do so yes, they could have very well been any other way.

>>743812091
this 100%

>>743814459
Truth.

>>743814862
I think this ones my favorite. Lots of passion, I can see actual love in their eyes.

File: 1503009046303.jpg (21KB, 480x447px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x447px

>>743814862
Honestly im actually impressed anon. Keep up the good work.

File: 385.jpg (311KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1500x1000px

>>743814998

File: 391.jpg (353KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 1500x1000px

>>743815031

>>743814651
>Something cannot come from nothing
and we know this because...? oh right we dont, you just assume that, we dont have a nothing to test on, so you have to claim your "god" always existed to get around this, well tell me this, what if the multiverse theory is correct did god create the multiverse then?

>Common experience and scientific evidence confirm premise number 1.
sure, inside the universe, we are talking about outside or before it.

>>743814651
>You're literally the only person I know who rejects this
You don't know a lot of atheists familiar with this argument then.
>Explain to me why you believe nothing caused you to exist.
We aren't talking about me though, now are we? We are talking about the universe.
>1. Something cannot come from nothing
Give me an example of nothing.
>3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm premise number 1.
Appeal to common sense is a fallacy.
I am not aware of scientific evidence of nothing.
>not the composition reasoning you claim.
Actually it still is. You're applying observations you think you've made within the universe to the universe itself.
>Thus, your objection is but a straw man.
Thus, my objections stand.

>>743807103
Seems more fine tuned to kill imo

>>743814703
>There is nothing restraining fundamental forces to be stronger or weaker.
That we are currently aware of. In any case, that does not imply that they could be any other way.

Atheists can't explain shit so they stomp their feet like a bunch of lil bitches until someone listens or they run out of air from holding their breath too long.

>>743815141
>Give me an example of nothing.
oh that smells like Tracie Harris, well i dont know what she smells like, but you know what i mean.

>>743815462
I do know what you mean.

>>743814459
>its called the law of causality and we do not know if it applies with no spacetime and as far as science knows, there was not spacetime "before" the big bang because time started at the big bang.
In other words: "I have no evidence."
>idk and i find it preposterous that you claim you do know.
In other words: "I have no argument."
>we dont have evidence of minds without brains
You could quote Stephan Molyneux at me, or you could explain what else but a mind can exist as a immaterial and timeless being. So in other words: you have no logical reasoning.

>>743815302
Try to follow this time

We have no evidence of anything constraining/compelling fundamental forces to have the relative strength that they do. Which of course implies they could be another way but we just happen to find them this way.

The anthropic principle states that an observer is bound to only find the conditions that support the observer to exist.

Theists instead say that God is the constraint that makes the universe this way.

If you still don't understand then go be stupid somewhere else. Regardless, I am done here

>>743815684
You are the one making claims. You have the burden of proof to support them.

>>743814171
>finely tuned
it just is the way it is.
the odds of you existing exactly the way you are now after everything that happened to you and the universe are far far slimmer. yet it did. shit just is the way it is no matter how unlikely a certain thing is, if it wouldn't be, something else would. that's how shit is.

File: 7021435.gif (502KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 500x333px

>>743815141
lol this guy wants an exapme of nothing.

"We arent talking about me are we?"
- this kiddos is an example of ssomene who refuses to give evidence to support what he is saying and dismisses criticisms of his claims entirely!

>>743815684
im not claiming to have evidence and my only argument is that your argument is super invalid.

>explain what else but a mind can exist as a immaterial and timeless being.
thats your job, im not claiming there is an immaterial or timeless anything, you are and you cant justify it and it looks like you've given up and are attacking me instead as if that could somehow prove there is a god, you will never prove there is a god, but that doesnt stop you from believing in one, which is the problem here

>you have no logical reasoning.
you cant handle my logical reasoning and this is obvious to anyone not blinded by religion.

>>743812929
No, you buffoon. What I am suggesting is the things you listed are not the only possible alternate universes. There's nothing to say that life couldn't arise in a universe with fundamentally different laws/constants, and in all of those universes there will be pricks like you who think the universe was made just for them, because they haven't bothered to do the equivalent of googling the anthropic principle.

>>743816123
what claims did he make exactly? because i dont see any.

>>743815867
>We have no evidence of anything constraining/compelling fundamental forces to have the relative strength that they do.
Correct.
>Which of course implies they could be another way but we just happen to find them this way.
Incorrect. All it implies is that we have no evidence of anything constraining/compelling fundamental forces to have the relative strength that they do.
>The anthropic principle states that an observer is bound to only find the conditions that support the observer to exist.
Correct.
>Theists instead say that God is the constraint that makes the universe this way.
Some theists say this, yes.
>If you still don't understand
I've understood everything that you're saying, but you've made an unjustified leap.

>>743814651
>something can't come from nothing
good. then you reject religion and believe in the rapid expansion of the universe known as the big bang

>>743816123
The guy I responded to said that something cannot come from nothing, so yes, I want an example of nothing so I can determine whether or not something can come from it.
>claims
The only claims I've made are that the poster I'm responding to isn't making valid arguments with justified premises.

File: IMG_3187.jpg (79KB, 498x456px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 498x456px

>>743810923
Love it! Saved!

>>743816065
>that's how shit is
Asking why has led us to understand as much as we do. Idiots who are satisfied with 'that's how shit is' is why we can't have good things.

>>743816405
>tfw there is no "nothing". it literally doesn't exist and can't
>tfw people don't understand that concept
good luck getting an answer out of him

>>743810942
Its not made for life. Life is purely coincidential. It just happens that life is the most efficient way for anything to exist, so here we are. With nothing to do but to die.

>>743816452
asking why and proposing religion as a palpable explanation are two entirely different things but it's a nice strawman you built.

File: 1425201201463.png (212KB, 367x506px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 367x506px

>>743816126
llol look at this nigga
he says aint got no evidence for his argument so why should anyone take you seriously? you dont even got logical reasononing

"My only argument is yours is super invalid"
- so basicall you cant even make a second comeback argument after yours is responded to once. OK

>>743816175
Life can't arise in a universe that doesn't have atoms. Our universe is that one universe in which the forces are balanced just right to allows atoms.

>>743816662
this is what it looks like when you try to attack an argument that isnt there, it looks stupid.

>>743816267
nigga its atheists who say the universe came frm nothing! religion says God which is a something made the world

>>743816682
>I couldn't exist if my mother wouldn't
>she was perfectly fine tuned to give birth to me
>the odds of me existing as I am now are nigh to zero
>therefore god
nice