God is an inevitably.

File: Jehan Cauvin.jpg (595KB, 698x1024px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 698x1024px

>>2281032
Amen.

>>2281032
Why can't the universe be the uncaused cause?
And even if it isn't, we have no idea what the uncaused cause could possibly be so there's not much use in worrying about it

>>2281032
Turtles all the way down

>>2281041
dumb turtleposter

>>2281040
>Why can't the universe be the uncaused cause?
That would require a distinction between the Universe and the Things in it, or a rejection of Causality.

>>2281044
At the quantum level particles pop in and out of existence all the time without a cause. If some parts of the universe don't require a cause then we can't make the assumption that the universe itself requires a cause

>>2281032
What caused god then?

File: Werner Heisenberg.jpg (166KB, 1377x975px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1377x975px

>>2281083
>without an observable cause

FTFY

File: 1480204324998.jpg (108KB, 1068x712px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1068x712px

“God causes this universe to exist, but he consents not to command it, although he has the power to do so. Instead he leaves two other forces to rule in his place. On the one hand there is blind necessity attaching to matter, including the psychic matter of the soul, and on the other the autonomy essential to thinking persons”

>>2281083
Why do you think there is no cause for quantum fluctuations? Because it's convenient?

>>2281091
pray tell me what the cause is then? quantum physicist are sure there is no cause, but suppose we can't rule out the possibility of there being a cause. this still leaves us with phenomenon that we can't rule out the lack of a cause, which leaves us with the assumption of a caused universe not being a safe assumption

>>2281083
Well, if you don't believe in causality, you should probably look into Al-Ghazali, he might get you to a place where you can construct a philosophy capable of normal interactions again.

>>2281102
The standard model for particle physics contains nothing that would explain quantum fluctuations.

Now, obviously, the answer is probably more physics, but given that we do not have an answer, it's convenient indeed to just assume everything must have a cause for no reason other than to shoehorn your skydaddy into your worldview in some way.

File: 1443417274568-1.jpg (50KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 720x540px

>>2281107
God is the cause and whatever assumptions one chooses to make is ultimately an act of will not intellect.

If God exists, why does he have to be argued unto existence?

>>2281044
the universe is itself a thing

>>2281102
is it mere convenience to agree with experts in the field? I realize this is an appeal to authority, but this isn't my area of expertise. even if we can't rule out that it is caused that means we also can't rule out that it is uncaused.

>>2281088
He's the unfarted fart.

>>2281115
>but given that we do not have an answer, it's convenient indeed to just assume everything must have a cause
Uh, it's not just convenient, causality is one of the fundamental laws of the universe.

>>2281117
And what proof do you have for this without assuming that something having no cause is impossible? You can't say because something having no cause is "illogical" because you are also claiming that something is uncaused: God.

>>2281032
If god were the uncaused cause, then god's existence could causally attributed to the fact that not all causes require a cause

>>2281146
Proof? virtual particles popping in and out of existence in such a way that appears at the very least to be uncaused to experts in the field certainly puts this into doubt

>>2281130
>even if we can't rule out that it is caused that means we also can't rule out that it is uncaused
Isn't that exactly the same as the theist argument for God? If we're going to apply occams razor then we need to assume that there is a cause, because literally everything else in the universe follows the law of cause and effect.

>>2281032
Praise Him.

>>2281165
So you're saying that even if everything else in the universe works that way we can't assume that quantum fluctuations do as well. And this makes you different from a Jesusfag saying that just because we can explain physical phenomena scientifically doesn't mean we can rule out the existence of God how?

File: 1485416469973.jpg (206KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 600x600px

>>2281088
Look at it this way. No matter wich path of understanding you choose to follow. Be it Physics, Mathematics, religion, Philosophy, Logic, or any of the numerous ways of conceptualizing reality. You will INEVITABLY hit the wall of "I don't know," or "It's impossible to know. God is that underlying omnipresent thing that that is always outside of conceptual grasp, yet is also fundamentally required for reality to exist. Think of God as more of an ultimate force rather than a greybeard who sits in the clouds and watches you masterbate to little anime girls.

>>2281146
What physicists call "laws" is not a prescriptive term, but a descriptive term. These are terms applied to -apparent- universalities, and are in no way assumed to be the blanket truth in all cases. The second law of thermodynamics, for instance, we already know to be false given the fact that in an expanding universe photons lose energy, directly reducing the energy content of the <observable> universe.

Causality is in no way a "fundamental law of the universe" for the reason alone that we observe events with no observable cause. See virtual particles and nuclear fission.

Or, in short, [citation needed].

>>2281182
> And this makes you different from a Jesusfag
Jesusfag is making positive claims about things that are:
-historically ludicrous
-akin to thousands of other discredited myth
-have zero evidence

Holding out on whether quantum fluctuations are causal or not is almost nothing like this, except for the fact that both worldviews are constructed using language.

File: 1415170492894.jpg (11KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 251x242px

>>2281192
>god is "I don't know"

>>2281182
only at the macro level. quantum level interactions have always been seen to go against common sense. a chair can only be in one place, right? it's safe to assume that a light particle, like everything we know would only be able to be in one place, right? yet a single photon will still manage to make a wave pattern in a double slit experiment, as though it is interfering with itself, despite logically only being able to be in one place at one time. If something this simple is put into doubt I don't find causality to be much a leap, even for the entire universe. The early universe was more than small enough to fall under what we would call quantum level

File: 1443646147465.jpg (41KB, 700x350px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 700x350px

>>2281147
It's a matter of faith and will obviously.

>>2281206
Theists had to find a way to make God real, since he doesn't really exist.

File: Jesus of Nazareth.jpg (858KB, 1280x1600px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 1280x1600px

>>2281206
God is Jesus Christ.

File: 1484364881990.jpg (65KB, 539x480px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 539x480px

>>2281206
Exactly

>>2281192
wew, God of the gaps becomes the gaps themselves

>>2281211
Who is the way, the truth and the light.

>>2281209
I agree, it is a matter of faith. Why dress it up as though it isn't then?

>>2281210
>He
Like I said. Stop thinking of "God" as a personified deity. Think of it as more of a force.

File: Kierk.jpg (30KB, 585x350px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 585x350px

>>2281218
That was never my intention and I apologize if I misled you.

>>2281192
For example. What is energy?

>>2281250
It's stuff that's needed to move shit.

>>2281032
Sure god might exist but he's probably really a subtle concept and isn't like our Judeo-Christian understanding of him.

>>2281083
>without a cause

without *apparent* cause

to you, at least

>>2281124
>argued unto existence

stupid typo

>he thinks pointing at the sun is arguing it into existence

>>2281032
The only thing I will say is that if the universe is finite and has a beginning as we now believe then it is pretty much impossible to logic God into existence. The reason for this is any existence prior to the universe doesn't fallow the rule of this universe concepts like logic and time and place might not have had any meaning in a place like this. We have no phrase of reference for a place like this. So we can make no judgements about what was or wasn't possible.

File: quote-why-is-there-anything-at-all-rather-than-nothing-whatsoever-gottfried-leibniz-126-13-33.jpg (45KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 850x400px

This honestly does activate my almonds

>>2281286
Activated.

>>2281182
>So you're saying that even if everything else in the universe works that way we can't assume that quantum fluctuations do as well.
Literally yes. Quantum particles clearly work differently from everything else in the universe.

>>2281203
>-historically ludicrous
>-akin to thousands of other discredited myth
>-have zero evidence
But if you reject causality as necessary, none of these things matter.

>Spinoza.jpeg

>>2281032
What can we know about God other than that God is an uncaused cause?

>>2281446
Not much.

>>2281446
He has a mind or at least a will, and he is loving.

Why is so hard to simply admit "I don't know" but instead say "God did it"?

Not only is it a meaningless explanation but in my opinion it is hubris to limit the mysteries of existence in an anthropomorphic manner.

>>2281422
Causality is not necessarily a binary proposition. The level randomness we're talking about in quantum mechanics is on the extreme end of the micro scale. It's irrelevant to macro objects like humans and history.

>>2281477
I can see the former, but I have no idea where you get the idea that God HAS to be "loving", other than wishful thinking.

You could as well be a lab rat and never know it.

I'm not saying it's true, but "loving" isn't a necessary property for the creator of the universe. Mind and/or a will so there can be intent sure, but "loving" is not a necessary quality.

>>2281503
>You could as well be a lab rat and never know it.
But in order for that to be true, there would have to be things beyond God's knowing. Otherwise he'd know it already and have no need for a lab rat. In fact, first he'd have to conceive of time, before he could conceive of knowledge working in a linear development.

Similarly, it's frequently proposed that God could be bored, or spiteful. But these are emotions, and emotions are things that come into being in the universe. I've also heard it proposed that God might want to prove his power etc. etc.

The commonality of these proposals though, is that God lacks for something, and he needs the Universe to give it to him. But an Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator (sorry that I snuck those in there, I'm kind of sick but I can offer a rationale for those) doesn't need for anything, especially since need has to be
invented still! Which means, as it's first, primary act, the ontologically prior act to time, the First Cause must have acted entirely selflessly, for the benefit of others.

>>2281032
All this shit where idiots try to rationally argue God into existence just misses the point entirely. Faith in God must be just that - faith, not reason. Otherwise what you're doing is philosophical wanking, not worship. The gospels stress the importance of faith repeatedly, whether it aligns with reason or not. Thomas used reason and ended up doubting the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and he was rightly rebuked for it. Stop with this "hurr cosmological argument" bullshit, not only is it bad philosophy, but it misses the point of being Christian.

>>2281514
>But in order for that to be true, there would have to be things beyond God's knowing.
Like whether or not a worthless servile is christfag is deserving of heaven or hell without creating an earth for him to toil in?

>>2281083
>without a cause

Without deterministic cause is not that same as being without cause at all. Even in this case the particles still have a formal and an efficient cause. Actual material things by definition must have a cause, since they are always potentially another actuality (e.g. an acorn is potentially a fully grown tree, but that acorn was actualised by another tree, etc.). Ultimately (and even if the universe were infinitely old, or if there were multiple universes) there must be an immaterial cause, and this cause must only be actual.

>>2281517
Reason can incline someone towards faith. Faith and reason are not opposed.

But what if you don't consider it an "uncaused cause", but an "unknown cause?"

>>2281282
But you can see the sun, and you can feel the suns heat. You cannot "see" a God, nor can you physically "feel" a God.

The universe came into being.
Came into being != created.

>>2281032
Nope. There is no evidence for the existence of a creator; and no "we don't know what happened before the big bang" does not count as evidence.

>>2283103

>there is no evidence for the existence of a creator

says the guy who exists

>>2281493
Well, since causality isn't assumed, what evidence do you have about causality existing on a macro scale?

>>2281032
>sophistry
>...therefor my specific religion and mythology
>obey or I think you are evil

religitards

>>2283105
My existence is only proof that two people had sex at some point and didn't either prevent or terminate the pregnancy. That has no relevance to what happened before the big bang because physics and everything else we know about the physical universe does not apply before said big bang.

"I don't know" is not the same thing as "A deity or group of deities exist".

File: IMG_0278.jpg (172KB, 1500x829px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1500x829px

Your body may be gone, I'm gonna carry you in.
In my head, in my heart, in my soul.
And maybe we'll get lucky and we'll both live again.
Well I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Don't think so.

Well that is that and this is this.
You tell me what you want and I'll tell you what you get.
You get away from me. You get away from me.
Collected my belongings and I left the jail.
Well thanks for the time, I needed to think a spell.
I had to think awhile. I had to think awhile.

The ocean breathes salty, won't you carry it in?
In your head, in your mouth, in your soul.
And maybe we'll get lucky and we'll both grow old.
Well I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I hope so.

Well that is that and this is this.
You tell me what you want and I'll tell you what you get.
You get away from me. (You get away from me) You get away from me.
Collected my belongings and I left the jail.
Well thanks for the time, I needed to think a spell.
I had to think awhile. (I had to think awhile) I had to think awhile.

Well that is that and this is this.
Will you tell me what you saw and I'll tell you what you missed,
when the ocean met the sky. (You missed, you missed)
You missed when time and life shook hands and said goodbye. (You missed)
When the earth folded in on itself. (You missed)
And said "Good luck, for your sake I hope heaven and hell (You missed, you missed)
are really there, but I wouldn't hold my breath." (You missed, you missed)
You wasted life, why wouldn't you waste death? (You missed, you missed)
You wasted life, why wouldn't you waste death?

The ocean breathes salty, won't you carry it in?
In your head, in your mouth, in your soul.
The more we move ahead the more we're stuck in rewind.
Well I don't mind. I don't mind. How the hell could I mind?

>>2283107
Predictable behavioral patterns of stuff. Many many kinds of stuff. I can predict a lot of stuff. I'm like a smart person.

On a more serious note, fuzzy objects (which is what, under quantum mechanics, literally everything is) are objects nonetheless and can be modeled as such. We're simply talking in terms of probabilities as opposed to certainties.

>>2281034
>actually believing this argument
>assuming it's your religion specifically

keep it in church and kill yourself

>>2281032
> can't explain something
> my imaginary friend did it
Religious belief is a mental disorder.

File: IMG_0231.jpg (18KB, 261x382px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 261x382px

Well Jesus Christ was an only child
He went down to the river
And he drank and smiled

And his dad was oh-so-mad
Should have insured that planet
Before it crashed

Working real hard to make internet cash
Work your fingers to the bone sitting on your ass

I know now what I knew then
But I didn't know then what I know now

Penny found out as her hair was styled
Well you should hide you kids
While the dogs run wild

Jesus Christ was an only child
He went down to the river
And he drank and smiled
And his dad was oh-so-mad
Should have killed that little fucker
Before he even had

Well Jesus Christ was an only child
He went down to the river
And he drank and smiled

And his dad was oh-so-mad
Should have insured that planet
Before it crashed

Working real hard to make internet cash
Work your fingers to the bone sitting on your ass

Penny found out as her hair was styled
Well you should hide you kids
While the dogs run wild

I know now what I knew then
But I didn't know then what I know now

Well I know now what I knew then, yeah
I know now what I knew then, yeah
I know now what I knew then
But I didn't know then what I know now

File: potato.jpg (13KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x360px

>>2281032
>an inevitably