God is not dead.

that's nice but we are a bunch of apes brutalizing each other on a floating rock.

what you're saying is just logical aerobatics

>>34403212
>It would be odd to think
So, because something is odd, it is impossible?

>The universe is so fine tuned
Water in a puddle also believes it's the "perfect" shape.

Look at it this way: if the universe wasn't the way it is, there would be no one around to wonder why everything is so finely-tuned, just for them.

>>34403212
You're a fucking idiot. You can't use the physical universe as proof that a God exists, because anything could have created a universe, even RANDOM CHANCE.
Try again, though.

>>34403299
>Look at it this way: if the universe wasn't the way it is, there would be no one around to wonder why everything is so finely-tuned, just for them.

But the fact that it is causes one to wonder who did so.

>So, because something is odd, it is impossible?

You tell me do you think something an come from nothing?

>Water in a puddle also believes it's the "perfect" shape.

What do you mean? What point are you trying to make? And how does it translate to here?

>>34403347
>anything could have created a universe, even RANDOM CHANCE.

Let's say that's true but what caused it? Even if it was done by accident something must have caused it and it is foolish to say nothing made something.

File: IMG_5696.jpg (50KB, 500x441px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x441px

>>34403212
Sage Original comment sage

>>34403364
Time and space are one thing together, so space is caused by the passage of time. I dunno man, we can make up shit all day. At least God is a meme that can get you laid.

>>34403212
I'm an agnostic- it's the only rational (in the classic sense) conclusion. One cannot fully assert that God does not exist, but nor can one assert that he does.

No leaps of faith for me. The world is depressing enough as it is.

>>34403212
You assert that things are complex and fine tuned.
Even if they are, why is it not possible to get this situation on random?

>>34403398
I agree I forgot to even write it at the top but God is unfalsifiable. But I do believe that there are no evidence against his existence but there are some good evidence for his existence.

>>34403395
Kinda pointless but thanks for the rare pepe.

>>34403364
>it is foolish to say nothing made something.
what made god? if you can accept that nothing created god then it shouldn't be any more foolish to say the same for the universe itself.

>>34403423
see>>34403364

Like i said there had to be a first cause.

>>34403212
If God is real then he a massive narcissistic cunt and I'd never worship him anyway.

I'd rather deny His existence if he's gonna be this much of a shithead.

>babies from good people born with incurable cancer
Fuck off. No one deserves this.

>>34403426
None of what you said is "good evidence". There is scientific reasoning for the complexity of the universe. To ignore that is ignorant. The major unexplained thing is the big bang, which may well have been caused by a creator. Who knows.

Your second argument is fine tuning. Animals and plants are 'fine tuned' by evolution.

To take your arguments seriously, one has to completely disbelieve everything science says.

I hope you follow your logic through and never go to a doctors, never cross bridges and generally distrust all science and live in the woods, otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.

>>34403434
Good question I was waiting for this one.

What is one fundamental difference between the universe and God "God does not have a beginning" he is not a created being like you or I and so is free from the idea of creation because he didn't have a beginning? God was always there. In some Christian thought, people say it is offensive to say he exist he is beyond that he is just there. And by him not having a beginning he completes the first cause problem.

>>34403468
This "explanation" is a lot weaker than a big bang happening from "nothing", in my opinion.

>>34403441
>Like i said there had to be a first cause.
Why?

>>34403212
You can stop trying to argue your god into existence and actually demonstrate it

If god created the universe then who created god?

The universe isn't fine-tuned to us, ya big wolly.

We're fine-tuned to the universe.

>>34403461
Now, this is a question of suffering, but I will answer you question about good people first.

You say people are good but to who's standard? Remember all have sinned and come short of the glory of God so no one deserves heaven and when you say they're good you are talking about your own standards of goodness, not God.

And about suffering. Well, there was a time when things like diseases didn't exist that was before the fall of man and when Adam ate the apple death came upon the earth and with it evil. But if you want it again then give your life to Christ and go heaven.

File: disappointed kot.gif (2MB, 275x154px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 275x154px

>>34403347
Sigh, watching stereotypical mainstream atheists argue against their polar opposite counterparts is quite sad. Both are fueled primarily by their emotions. One side yet doesn't have a good understanding of the Biblical God hence comes forth much confusion, yet the other side also in most cases seems to lack in understanding of the bible. You see people, people in all types of cliques and "sides" seem to have a veil of ignorance over their eyes. So much ignorance.

Also

>be an atheist
>be quite ignorant on a lot of things pertaining to christianity
>proceed to "rational" the religion with a severe lack of knowledge
>"hey hurr durr AHAHAHAHA ;-DDDDD I found the answer guys! Religion is pure nonsense"

meanwhile be a typical Christian

>reject the big bang theory although it perfectly coincides with the bible
>go to pastors for answers even though they went to colleges and/or universities to get their "education" when the bible clearly says God gives knowledge freely to those who ask so basically not understand divine personal revelation yet chose to put your trust in people aka paid pastors who in most cases preach a watered down version of the Gospel and don't actually teach people how to live holy because "that's justification by works!," "it sure seems like legalism to carry your cross daily!!!!;" "people who live holy are actually putting themselves under the old testament law by trying to justify themselves by works" (many christians seem to severely not understand this last part because they don't understand that following Jesus as very serious Christians preach is in fact not old testament legalism).

File: 1482176024136.png (188KB, 300x396px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 300x396px

>>34403212
Cogito ergo sum. Humans are unsure of whether reality itself is an illusion or not, and so any argument using the universe must be discounted. So, you can't prove that anything exists except for yourself by explaining your thoughts.
If God is your thought, then God is a thought of yours that exists. Boom, existence PROVED.

>>34403465
>There is scientific reasoning for the complexity of the universe.
Please tell me.

>The major unexplained thing is the big bang, which may well have been caused by a creator. Who knows.
Thanks for admitting it

Your second argument is fine tuning. Animals and plants are 'fine-tuned' by evolution.
yes that's true but the universe isn't a animal the universe it the environment itself being determined to be a certain way to hold human life.

>To take your arguments seriously, one has to completely disbelieve everything science says.
How so?

>I hope you follow your logic through and never go to a doctors, never cross bridges and generally distrust all science and live in the woods, otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.
How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

>>34403441
>First cause
You're implying a god but define god first because it doesn't even have to entail a god. A first mover (since the Universe always existed first in a singularity) can be anything from a non-conscious physical process to a thinking entity (a god) but it doesn't necessarily automatically entail a god

>>34403517
You're a retard if you think that I was arguing as an atheist. I just hate faggots like you with no reading comprehension.

>>34403517
proceed to rationalize*

>>34403476
Think of it this way lets say you wanted to go into a room but before you could go in you had to ask someone can I open this door but before that person could tell you he had to ask someone else can I let him and it went on for an eternity could you ever actually open the door there had to be one uncaused thing that can act independently that does not have a beginning to cause creation. That's the short way of saying it.

>>34403527
There is no fine tuning in evolution, that's you taking a Cosmology term and flipping it to fit your 'god' worldview

>>34403473
How so. My explanation uses logic you believe nothing created something. It would make more sense for a magician to pull a rabbit out of a hat because at least there is a being cause it to come into creation not it happening by itself.

>>34403493
see>>34403468
vjkvbsdiuvbsdzfbvsdzfvbnslvbnljd

>>34403556
Semantics

Original oregano

>>34403527
Evolution for living things, movement of tectonic plates and heating and cooling for rocks and the like, asteroids hitting the earth or other things for mass extinctions.

Certain periods where a lot of geniuses got together and bounced their ideas off each other and created revolutionary things (such as ancient Greece, or Italy in the renaissance, or the Middle East pre islam, or Europe in the Enlightenment) for human innovation.

You're asking me to sum up everything about the universe?

Atmosphere can be explained as well.

I'm not a scientist who spans every single field- I don't know everything.

>>34403565
Thats some real nonsense right there, he has to have been created at some point, anything else is a logical fallacy

>>34403565
If God was never created, then God doesn't exist. See >>34403521

>>34403533
My wrong that I didn't edit out your post number, sorry as I wanted to reply to you then I decided to make a general statement.

>>34403556
Your explanation uses sort of the same logic ast the big bang, but even more far fetched.

Big bang is
>There was nothing, then there was something
This in itself is a concept that's very complicated to grasp, which is why it's still only a theory. We don't really know what happened.

Your explanation for God would be
>There's always been something, and that something created the rest
This implies there never was a beginning, because the beginning had already begun. That's an even harder concept to accept.

>>34403496
What?

>>34403517
I believe in the big bang theory

>If God is your thought, then God is a thought of yours that exists. Boom, existence PROVED.

Disagree with the logic because I thought of a cartoon, but I it exist.

>>34403529
Since this being created the universe and so is outside of creation, he had to be timeless spaceless and important and powerfull

Hmm I came to this thread to argue with OP, to say I disagree and why his arguments are not receivable. But then I thought it was just a waste of time.

>>34403545
I know it's adaptation but you can't push that on the universe because what did it adapt to?

>>34403601
>I thought of a cartoon, but I it exist.
GOD EDITED YOUR POST
/r/ your cartoon

>>34403574
Which response are you responding to again?

>>34403601
Who says it's a being? That's a loaded statement

>Intelligent design fags btfo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN74qV7SsjY

>>34403622
>Please tell me.
Sorry. I'm tired and not thinking straight.

>>34403581
How so he existed outside of time and space. He created time why do you think he is bound to the laws of his creation?

>>34403635
Stop this stupid bullshit and draw your cartoon for us.

>>34403507
God condemns the entire human race based on the actions if two people. God creates people knowing they're going to hell. God creates sin. God punishes for sin.

God cannot possibly be considered good or just, and all you have to do to realize that is read the OT. Open your eyes.

>>34403612
It expanded from a singularity into a Universe with mass and matter.

>>34403212
Personally I prefer the concept that religion is a popularity contest and the various regions' gods just use their believers as votes to further their petty social standings. It's funner imagining higher beings being incompetent normies.

>>34403635
The idea of any being existing outside of time and space is frankly absurd and a concept more ridiculous than the notion of a big bang, besides that how can he create time, its an abstract concept and if god exists outside of time then how could he comprehend the idea of time and don't tell me that he can because hes god.

>>34403587
Already answered him.

>>34403596
This implies there never was a beginning There never was a beginning for the creation.

>the beginning had already begun
You're confused. The creator didn't have a beginning see>>34403543

>That's an even harder concept to accept.
Well, we are talking about a being that lives outside of space and time.

Tell me, as the agnostic from>>34403398
What other arguments do you have? I don't really buy the two there.

>>34403670
If god exists outside of space and time then how on earth can humans know about him, does god spend his time speaking to random people and making sure people worship him? If god is an intelligent creator then why would he want his followers to waste their time praying to a being that can't even be perceived or comprehended??

>>34403684
I've been arguing that God exists, but OP has been saying that he doesn't. This is one weird troll thread.

>>34403625
It had to be sentient for it to be able to create.

>>34403647
Bare in mind that Adam and Eve were the best human creation a represented the entire human race and the fact that they fell meant you would have done the same.

>>34403655
Why is it absurd. That just implies god's omniscience. He creates whatever he wants. And just because something has never existed doesn't mean God cannot comprehend it. Since he existed outside of time and space and created it just mean he can cause things to come into creation. Remember one of God's associations which is omnisciences.
You say I can't just say god, why. An omnipotent, omniscient omnipresent creator can't create something that has never existed?

>>34403689
>If god exists outside of space and time then how on earth can humans know about him
By what he has revealed to us, and that's all we need. Also understand there were people in the bible who wanted to see god but when they saw a glimpse and saw his power they quickly regretted it due to his awesomeness. So god reveales only some of himself.

>>34403723
That's a non-sequitur and another loaded statement. Why does anything have to be created?

>>34403723
Adam was a normie faggot who couldn't handle being a robot.

>>34403723
Also, why don't you use actual Calculus to support your argument, surely you can put forth a valid demonstration of Intelligent design

>>34403739
Enlighten me, what has god revealed to us

>>34403741
>That's a non-sequitur and another loaded statement.
Do you know what that word means. Also, how does a being create something so complex as the universe and not be sentient?

>Why does anything have to be created?
Again this implies a will by this creator since he chose the create something. As for the purpose I can only give you the Christian answer and that is that we were made to glorify god and made for his purpose.

>>34403739
Does this mean you believe the universe is only 3000 years old?

>>34403776
Who said it was a being? You're the one saying it was a being. Loaded statement again

>Again this implies a will by this creator since he chose the create something
Unknown physical process has a will, right buddy, sure.

>>34403755
There are those who do do that but I am not one of them I am just using logic. Also god is a being who exist outside of space and time and so using man made logic won't fit.

>>34403769
The bible.

>>34403781
Not necessarily.

File: 1469323729689.png (16KB, 355x295px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 355x295px

Oh nice, I found the cartoons

>>34403797
>There are those who do do that but I am not one of them I am just using logic
You can't argue your god into existence and there hasn't been anyone who has demonstrated that a god exists using Calculus or else they would win a Nobel prize, stop talking out of your ass

>>34403793
What do you suppose it was? Something created something else that is very complex. And like you said chose to do so. Why is it strange to imply it was some sort of entity since it chose to create. Even if it was a accident there is something out there that chose to create.

>>34403776
If there is a god there's no chance it's sentient, the only explanation for it is not of a being, but of a force. Others in this thread have mentioned that god is omnipresent so surely it must be everywhere at once and if it is omnipresent and omnipotent then what would the admiration of his creations bring him, god is a fundamentally illogical being and to assume it has emotions is a very odd assumption personally and one that is simply assumed by followers of christianity to remove any opportunity for doubt of god's existence

File: 1467975994577.jpg (800KB, 1200x1920px) Image search: [Google]

800KB, 1200x1920px

Some good, fun cartoons ought to liven up the mood.

>>34403797
>The bible.
Come on man thats absurd, so you're telling me that god like fucking dropped some bibles in the middle east and thats all the evidence there is for him??

>>34403350
And if god created "everything", where did god come from? From nothing? You'd probably say that god always existed, but think about what's more probable: that universe never had a begining or that god, which never had a begining, created it? Universe is more simple than "god"- god should be way more complex than the universe itself to be able to create it, and it's more probable, that the simplest explanation is correct, not the one with extra steps.

>>34403812
It was a typo man!

>>34403815
Read the rest of my comment.>>34403797
He lives outside of space and time so you can't find him using a magnifying glass. Try finding dark matter with the best telescope in the world

>>34403819
'Chose to create'

More loaded statements

I don't know what it was, but you can't conclude it's a god until you've demonstrated that a god exists

>>34403797
>Not necessarily.
Well which one is it, if god revealed the entire bible to humanity then how can you doubt his word! You can't just pick and choose parts of the bible to agree and disagree with, either you believe every one of god's words or you believe none of them

File: 1480246887766.png (689KB, 1384x684px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 1384x684px

>>34403857
"Choose to create"

>>34403848
Except they know dark matter exists because they can see dark matter's effects on the mass of the Universe

File: 1476757604915.jpg (303KB, 1906x1399px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1906x1399px

The internet is great! so much creation!

>>34403821
>A force
That is still technically a form of theism.

>if it is omnipresent and omnipotent then what would the admiration of his creations bring him
To glorify him.

>>34403212
>The universe is so complex and well designed that It could only have been created by a supreme creator

Unless it wasn't created in a short time. Maybe it took million years ?

>The universe is so fine tuned that it would be almost mathematically impossible for it to come by chance.

Not just by chance, but a lot of untuned accidents happened in the past until the nature finds its own perfect formula and equation. Pretty much "trial and error", it wasn't built in one day or one year or even a hundred years

I don't reject God. However, i reject religion. Any decent person can figure out how unfair religions are. Especially abrahamic religions. They're all so barbaric and unfair/unjust

>>34403821
If it's not sentient then it's not a god, just an unknown physical process

A god is by definition sentient and supernatural

File: 1471898576254.png (100KB, 768x480px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 768x480px

Behold the glory of creation

>>34403857
The universe is so complex and well designed that It could only have been created by a supreme creator. It would be odd to think something so complex could have come into existence itself. A better illustration of this is the watch analogy which goes as follows. Let's say you lived in a world where watches didn't exist, and as you were walking outside in your garden and you stumbled upon a watch, despite your ignorance of what it is, you would still come to the conclusion that it was created due to its complexity. Now think how even more complex the universe is would it be odd that maybe that too was created?

>>34403838
Well read it for yourself

>>34403869
Where in the bible does it say the earth is 300 years old?

>>34403880
yes but the method they used was different same with god. don't use the wrong method when trying to find god. He is outside his creation.

File: IMG_1970.jpg (139KB, 870x575px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 870x575px

>>34403895
However, i'm still haunted by the fears of sin and hell, but at the same time, i don't want them to be real because they're so unfair

>>34403839
Shut up retard cuck you bigbangtards think that the universe came and exploded from nothing

>>34403893
>To glorify him.
Just a side point here, as an omnipotent, immaterial, omnipresent, omniscient being how can you call god a "him" implying a gender doesn't make any sense for a being without form.

Why does god desire humans to glorify him though, surely if he's omnipotent then he doesn't need the admiration of beings without any power relatively

>>34403911
>Intelligent design
kwojdeidjjiffr
>>34403916
If it's so well designed, why is it so hostile to life?

>>34403928
By your standards.

>>34403933
BTW this is not the real OP

File: 1468274083859.jpg (453KB, 784x1024px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 784x1024px

>>34403916
>Where in the bible does it say the earth is 300 years old?
Right next to the part that says that Adam is everybody's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddaddy and he was made on the same week as the earth

>>34403939
>Just a side point here, as an omnipotent, immaterial, omnipresent, omniscient being how can you call god a "him" implying a gender doesn't make any sense for a being without form.
It's just a way to identify him but you don't have to you can also just say god.

>Why does god desire humans to glorify him though, surely if he's omnipotent then he doesn't need the admiration of beings without any power relatively
God doesn't need us at all but now that we are in creation we have a duty to glorify and worship him. The only meaningful thing we will ever do in our lives are the things that please god

>>34403943
>By your standards.
Wait, so i have to force myself in not believing in my own instinct ? Like i just have to follow rules without understanding the reason ? Whose life is this ? If this isn't mine, i don't want it.

>>34403954
You're really sticking with this joke huh.

>The universe is so complex and well designed that It could only have been created by a supreme creator

You commit the logical fallacy of begging the question.

>The universe is so fine tuned that it would be almost mathematically impossible for it to come by chance

Exactly the same fallacy as above, with an added touch of pure nonsense.

There is no way to calculate what the probability of the universe coming by is, because the universe coming by doesn't actually mean anything.

>I hear it all the time when atheist mock us theist for believing in God because it sounds stupid.

Well I don't know about believing in God, but believing these were sound arguments is clear evidence for your poor reasoning capabilities.

File: 1480668254913.jpg (144KB, 860x1392px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 860x1392px

>>34403969
Well you should at least know in the Bible where it says that the earth is 300 years old

>>34403961
Why should I worship god, he hasn't done a single thing for me but create the universe and why should I be thankful for that

>>34403968
>Wait, so I have to force myself in not believing in my own instinct?
What are you talking about?

>Like I just have to follow the rules without understanding the reason?
The reason is because it brings glory to God and is the only meaningful things humans can do. Also, his standards are objective, and yours are subjective, and if you believe in subjective morality, you have no moral grounds to say Hitler or Joseph Stalin are bad people. But the fact that we have God to give us a objective morality to base our life on is why we need him.

File: 1465803925528.png (471KB, 1000x655px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 1000x655px

Thanks for the suggestion of cartoons, OP.

>>34403961
>Creates universe and populates out with life
>Leaves no valid proof of himself
>Ego is that fragile people have to do what he says otherwise they get tortured forever.
>Allows for the creation of hundreds of other gods by hundreds of other cultures.
>Expects people to only live how he tells them too.

>>34403978
>begging the question
What would be a better conclusion to a complex universe? also look at the watch analogy to see why I came to the conclusion.

>>34403994
Well, it doesn't. Don't say stuff and then not be able to back it up.

>>34403996
Well, the reason you can smile and be happy and scratch an itch and it be relieved is because of Gods mercy on this earth. People all the time are so ungrateful that out of the thousands of blessings that we have we focus on the few short comings. Be glad yu are not a starving child in Africa be glad you have all your hands and feet be glad you can see, if you can and can do all those things. But get this if you go hell none of god's mercy will be there and you will feel what it feels like to not have a single dro[ of gods mercy. because that is all hell is where god isn't and without god humans cannot survive.

File: 1461188192493.jpg (605KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 1280x1024px

>>34404063
>not be able to back it up.
see >>34403954

>>34403933

The Big Bang wasn't "from nothing". It was the earliest point of time in our Universe where all matter was concentrated at a single point. Everything was always there, it was just crammed into a very small space and then rapidly expanded. As for where the singularity "came from", I don't think there's any empirical evidence any which way on that subject so we can only speculate.

>>34404063
Your assumption is that the universe is so complex that it requires someone to create it.

So apparently if the universe was less complex you would have no trouble believing it existed without anyone creating it?

Then this tells us that you have way of deciding the level of complexity that a universe needs before it requires a creator.

Of course we both know that you don't have any such way, and you are simply repeating the flawed arguments of others.

>>34404008
Well you said "by your standards" well of course by my own standards, i can't live by other's standards because i wouldn't understand why i should do X do Y etc etc.

>The reason is because it brings glory to God and is the only meaningful things humans can do.

Why do you enjoy this kind of life ? Why do you enjoy feeding someone's arrogance ? God is arrogant. It's not a positive trait.

Well if i believe in subjective morality, i have moral grounds, because what, because then i would be like "i won't steal because i shouldn't make someone else's life difficult" and not "i won't steal because i don't want to go to hell." You have to understand the life you live, you have to have reasons behind everything, your own reason because that's how you know you understand

I, decide what i find as meaningful. I'd rather not being born than being born in a life that has no free will.

Humans have learned moral grounds and right and wrong long before Jesus and Christianity. We learn. It's all trial and error. At that time, fascism was fine. But after seeing the results etc etc, we decided that it's wrong. Not because God just told us without explanation, but because we learn.

>>34404058
>Leaves no valid proof of himself
I believe the universe is proof. Read the watch analogy I wrote above.

>>34404084
Also, that could be in refrence to the creation of man not the universe. And also the use of the term child could be metaphorical. the bible doesn't follow it every time there are gaps.

>Ego is that fragile people have to do what he says otherwise they get tortured forever.
He doesn't need us but now that we are in creation we have to follow his will. becasue if you don't follow his will it means you don't love god so why would you want to go heaven. All heaven is if church for an eternity so if you don't like god why should he let you in his house. Ald we send ourselves to hell. God gave us the choice.

>Allows for the creation of hundreds of other gods by hundreds of other cultures.
he reveals himself to who he chooses. That's why when in some churches some of the most unsuspecting people will convert and make you think what caused the change. I believe it was god.

>>34404008
If you need the concept of a God to learn what is right or wrong then you are clearly incapable of choosing the right or wrong thing. You are choosing what you think God wants you to do, so you can go to Heaven.

Atheists tend to do what is moral as they have a moral compass. Of course everyone does shitty things the difference is atheists don't use a higher being as an excuse to do things.

>>34404139
I believe that the universe is proof of an ancient construction team. As we know in today's world builders build constructs. We know that builders exist and we know that the universe is a construct. Clearly the universe is proof enough to prove that builders built it.

File: ss[HorribleSubs] Youjo Senki - 02 [720p]00_08_32.jpg (106KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1280x720px

deus lo vult

>>34404100
>So apparently if the universe was less complex you would have no trouble believing it existed without anyone creating it?

no not necessarily. the fact that it even exist implies a creator the complexity is just a added bonus.

>>34404106
To know the will of god you must ask and you will receive.

>Why do you enjoy this kind of life ?
Because god has conformed me to his will and his will has become mine. He saved me from hell so the least I could do was follow his law.

>Well if i believe in subjective morality, i have moral grounds
You do but you cannot say another persons morality is wrong because it's just your opinion.

I don't steal I don't have the desire to and Christians believe once you're saved you will definitely go heaven and so when we do our good works it is because we love god.

>Humans have learned moral grounds and right and wrong long before Jesus and Christianity

Those were barbaric ages and even then they had a form of objective morality, be it the god RA or zeus they still had it.

>>34404212
why is there a tiny fucking kid there? why does every anime has to include stupid moe shit like this.

>>34404139
If anything the universe is more proof of the big bang. Because of how the speed of light works, the further into the universe we look, the further back in time we look. From our observations we can see that there was a rapid expansion, and that the first element was hydrogen. This in no way proves God exists.

GOD ONLY CREATES AND JUDGES.


GOD DOESN'T CREATE RELIGIONS


GOD ONLY JUDGE BASED ON VIRTUE, WHICH WILL BE RELATIVE.

>>34404223
> the fact that it even exist implies a creator

Why is the creator exempt from the requirement of creation that you place on the universe?

You cannot just say because I define the creator as being exempt from this rule, because you can define the universe exactly the same way.

>>34404166
>If you need the concept of a God to learn what is right or wrong then you are clearly incapable of choosing the right or wrong thing
I knew you were gonna say that. But what im saying is that it gives us moral grounds. A atheist and theist can both have morality but one has grounds and the other is subjective

>You are choosing what you think God wants you to do, so you can go to Heaven

I don't steal I don't have the desire to and Christians believe once you're saved you will definitely go heaven and so when we do our good works it is because we love god.

>I believe that the universe is proof of an ancient construction team. As we know in today's world builders build constructs. We know that builders exist and we know that the universe is a construct. Clearly the universe is proof enough to prove that builders built it.
Yeah but you just said it in a dumb way and there isn't a team there is only one god.

>>34403212
Take a look at the anthropic principle OP.

>>34404223
>Be me
>Ask God if I should go on a mass shooting at a church to honour him.
>Voice in my head says "yes"
>Go on mass shooting.

>>34404223
More non-sequiturs. You have to demonstrate your god exists before you can say he did anything. The universe existing doesn't imply a creator, you're presupposing the creator then putting him in place of things we don't know or things you think are too complicated for people to understand

File: ss[HorribleSubs] Youjo Senki - 02 [720p]00_17_57.jpg (82KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1280x720px

>>34404224
the anime basically has a so-bad-it's-good premise where a 30-something salaryman from Japan is murdered and god gives him a second chance/curses him to be resurrected as a young girl with magical powers in an alternate early 20th century europe. the main character even spouts off about how the country he was reborn in seems 'exactly like that one from his world's past.' anyway it's stupid and fun and has a little girl in an imperial german uniform yelling deus vult and killing frenchmen.

>>34404237
I think it does because it implies that someone had to cause that big bang and whatever method god used I don't think would not still fit science understanding of the big bag.

>>34404245
>Why is the creator exempt from the requirement of creation that you place on the universe?
see>>34403468

>>34404223
>To know the will of god you must ask and you will receive
Omg.. magic doesn't exist, ok, no miracle will come to me. It just doesn't work that way. I've never seen ghosts, i've never experienced such stuffs, like astral communications.

>You do but you cannot say another persons morality is wrong because it's just your opinion.
Look, when i say subjective, i mean morals that change through time. Something was perceived as so wrong in the past but now it's not wrong anymore. It's like, not my own, but the morals that grow in the civilization.

If you find religion sensical, that's good. But i don't. I don't how it's fair to kill gays when they didn't choose to be gay. Etc etc

>>34404297
I told you already.

You cannot just say because I define the creator as being exempt from this rule, because you can define the universe exactly the same way.

Just look:

The universe has always existed and will always exist.

>>34404223
A solid idea of God(s) only to people with the advent of civilisation. A good way to enforce rules is to say that if you don't follow them you will be tortured forever. Leaders claimed to be a mouth peice for God, but in reality God was just a mouthpiece for them.

God was used to explain things we didn't understand, as we started to understand things we knew they were not create by God, but then found more shit we didn't understand and we simply readoned God created them. This has been perpetually happening since the dawn of civilisation.

>>34404257
Sure

>>34404261
It says that you should look at the fruits. A good way to see if God is talking to you is to see if it is a good thing first and if it really is from God. Even Paul after being visited by angel didn' believe immidiately but rather asked the brother of Jesus and the disciples if what he saw was god.

>>34403212

>I can't imagine the universe existing as it is unless it was created by God.
>Therefore it was created by God

maybe a bit late to weigh in but thinking of a religious style 'God' is a bit wrong i think

There may well be a creator. The Big Bang isnt the only unexplained thing - we dont really know how rock became cells in the first place. inb4 protein gradients

A creator could have had a role at either of those points, and no further role. Or they could have guided and engineered evolution.

To think that the creator equates to a God is also wrong. If the creators are aliens working with genetics, theyre not Gods. If the creators are the people running the simulation we apparently live in, they may be to us, but in their universe they arent Gods either.

Creators exist. Gods dont.

>>34404253
I feel like a team of builders is better than one builder, this is construction 101

>>34404275
>More non-sequiturs. You have to demonstrate your god exists before you can say he did anything
Do you know what that word means? Also to come to conclusions you can work backwards and what I did here was first was use real world examples then used logic to relate them and come to a conclusion. If it is a no sequitur what does a complex universe imply then? The atheist doesn;t have an answer.

>>34404237
>Because of how the speed of light works, the further into the universe we look

but the universe expanded (and is expanding?) at faster than the rate of the speed of light?

>>34404063
>Gods mercy on this earth
Don't make me laugh, SO MANY people on this planet live agonisingly poor lives, living in starvation and war for their entire lives, how can a loving god allow his creations to undergo such suffering!

>>34404356
A complex universe implies nothing, it doesn't have to imply anything, it's a non-thinking, non-feeling entity and nothing more

>>34404324
>The universe has always existed and will always exist.
Do you have evidence that the universe didn't have a beginning?

Im defining the creator using logic.

>>34404358
Yes but to observe the expansion of the universe we have to observe light and light is still limited by the speed of light

>>34404381
You can't argue your god into existence

>>34403212
1: Complexity isn't an argument since complexity is very relative. And some of the complex parts of the universe such as living beings are a result of the evolution of simple mechanisms over millions of years.
2: If it is so finely tuned it is because among of the unthinkable possibilities there is for our universe (no atoms, no molecules, the only force that exist is gravity...) this one is the only one that is possible: Einstein thought the universe could be described as a single equation, any change to that equation would fuck up everything else, there is thus only one possibility and there is no reason to say that it is more fine tuned than another.

>>34404381
>Do you have evidence that the universe didn't have a beginning?

Do you have any evidence that the universe had a beginning?

>Im defining the creator using logic.

flawed logic I might add.

>>34404253
Morality has and always will be subjective, although we have always known the usual shit like don't steal, morality even in religion has changed through reformations. Thus implying God changed his mind about his religion. Why would an all knowing being not just make his religion the way it will be before he has to change it?

>>34404279
Good has always been used as a tool to understand what we do not know. As we learn stuff we learn that God did not create said stuff.

Are you arguing about the God of the Bible?

If he exists then why is evil prevalent in the world? even evil under his name?

All of his commandments are thrown away in favor for the opposite. And the people who adhere to wickedness and evil is rewarded. What kind of God is that? If he allows such a thing to happen isn't evil the "right" way.

He says he had the ultimate triumph on the cross and that Satan was defeated ultimately then. Why is it Satan seems to have the upper hand in modern times fostering hate, degeneracy and inequality?

Why bother following a God with no regard of his loyal followers and just throws them to the wolves?

>>34404410

>we have always known the usual shit like don't steal

We spent most of our history stealing, raping and murdering anyone we thought we could who wasn't a member of our tribe.

>>34404326
Sure people have abused the idea of God but that doesn't deny his existence

>>34404335
Not an argument. How do you imply the universe came into creation then?

>>34404322
>Omg.. magic doesn't exist, ok, no miracle will come to me. It just doesn't work that way. I've never seen ghosts, I've never experienced such stuff, like astral communications.
Just because you haven't seen, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>Look, when I say subjective, I mean morals that change through time.

But is this really the case? The fact that we have an objective moral standard means that we can objectively say one thing is wrong. But about killing gays well, God has the standards but the wages of sin are death, and we all have sinned, and although we should kill gays it would be hypocritical, and we would also need to be killed because we have sinned and deserved death.

>>34404365
It is much worse in hell. Trust me god is looking out for you.

>>34404380
But how did it come into creation?

>>34404482

>Not an argument. How do you imply the universe came into creation then?

That's not how the burden of proof works. You need to prove your position, it's not incumbent upon me to disprove it.

>>34404492
The Big Bang. Why do you keep using the word creation?

>>34403212
Both those arguments have been made and argued against millions of times. It's basically the first week of philosophy class.

Anyway, the complexity argument is usually countered by "what are you comparing the watch to?" To which you have to respond the natural world, since you've already admitted that in comparison, you see the watch as man-made because it sticks out among the forest for that unique quality. Just look up complexity argument debunked on google. No arguments are compelling enough to change someone's mind (imo), but then again neither is the complexity argument.

And the fine-tuning argument is just statistics. It's like shuffling a deck and saying there's such a small (one in 52!) chance of that arrangement of cards occurring, therefore it can't be chance, and must've had a creator that arranged them.

>>34404530
Because he wants you to agree with him that the universe was created, because creation necessitates a creator.

As I said before he is simply begging the question.

>>34404395
>Complexity isn't an argument since complexity is very relative.

Ok but the fact that it even is here implies that someone created it.

> And some of the complex parts of the universe such as living beings are a result of the evolution of simple mechanisms over millions of years.
So the universe is alive and can adapt?

>>34404410
That is not what the Reformation was but rather a better understanding of the scripture not changing.

>>34404438
Those were small stuff but in this case we are talking about the universe and the being who created this has to be outside of time and space. This isn't a question of where does lightning come from but where does the universe come from.

>>34404442
>If he exists then why is evil prevalent in the world? even evil under his name?
Adam and eve ate the apple and death came upon the earth if you want to not have sadness then give your life to christ and you will receive it in the next life.

File: 1484247160634.jpg (56KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 645x773px

The trouble in these threads is that the OP has so many people responding to him, he just avoids responding to people proving him wrong.

And then the discussion continues even though he has been called out a least a dozen times already.

>>34404576
The Bible never says anything about an Apple, it says fruit of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil

>>34404576

>someone created it.

Why does it need to be someone?

>>34404510
>That's not how the burden of proof works. You need to prove your position, it's not incumbent upon me to disprove it.

What I was asking you a question not saying disprove my argument. Please learn to actually refrence fallacies it's so cringy!

>>34404530
Call it what you will but it still sparked a time when somthing came into creation.

>>34404554
>Just look up complexity argument debunked on google.

That is not how we debate sir.

>what are you comparing the watch to?
The universe and im pointing out due to its complexity you would never consider it came into creation by itself.

>>34404635
You mean it came about?

And yes I know what non-sequitur means, do you?

>>34404595
Could you point to the ones that I might be ignoring so I can prove you wrong

>>34404615
Fair enough

>>34404620
For it to create something implies a will call it a force, entity or being it chose even if it created everything by accident it still existed.

What do you think about racism ? Do you think God would support it ? Like there are more racist christians that atheists, why is that ?

>>34404662
>Could you point to the ones that I might be ignoring so I can prove you wrong

I can just repeat what I said in the post you didn't respond to.

Do you have any evidence that the universe was created?

Note that the existence of something isn't evidence that it was created.

>>34404655
What response are you talking about. I'm talking to so many people its hard to keep up.

>>34404675
I'm against racism in fact in the bible moses married a cushite woman who were in fact black people. And of course there are going to be racist Christians who twist the bible to support their agenda but always look at the intention are they seeking god or reaffirm their already set beliefs.

>>34404695
>Note that the existence of something isn't evidence that it was created.
What does it imply then. Answer that.

>Do you have any evidence that the universe was created?

It had a beginning.

>>34404356
>More non-sequiturs. You have to demonstrate your god exists before you can say he did anything
>Do you know what that word means?
>>34404718
That post and another one. Do you know what a non-sequitur is?

>>34404730
It 'implies' just that it exist.

>It had a beginning.

No it did not.

>>34404576
>Adam and eve ate the apple and death came upon the earth if you want to not have sadness then give your life to christ and you will receive it in the next life.

why make this current world some sort of twisted miserable audition? how is that fair? he doesn't even make himself apparent in any way aside from something that happened 2000 years ago. a truly omnipotent God could make a good world and free will in tandem. he's not limited by such concepts.

>>34404797

Not to mention God gave them no knowledge of good and evil and threw a persuasive snake in to tempt them.

My gawd's not dead, he's shirley alive
He's livin' on the inside, roarin' like a lion

>>34404747
>Do you know what that word means?
When the conclusion of your statement doesn't necessarily follow the premise.
>eg dogs exist cats exist so, therefore, dog-cats exits

Sorry for bad example

>You have to demonstrate your god exists before you can say he did anything
I can by looking at the observable universe.

>34404764
>No it did not.
Why do you think this?

>It 'implies' just that it exist.
Is that supposed to be an argument or what? what are you trying to prove?

>>34404797
>how is that fair
When we were in heaven, we had a close relation ship with God, but due to our naiveness we sinned and were cast out. When they at it they adopted sin nature, which is the reason why humans constantly sin even if you don't notice it and because of this their children bore the sin aswell

>he doesn't even make himself apparent in any way aside from something that happened 2000 years ago. A truly omnipotent God could make a good world and free will in tandem. He's not limited by such concepts.

Look at the universe my friend its looking at you right in the face!

>>34404764
>No it did not.
Why do you think this?

>It 'implies' just that it exist.
Is that supposed to be an argument or what? what are you trying to prove?

>>34404873
No, that's circular reasoning, non-sequitur is when the premise doesn't follow all the way to the conclusion
Instead of saying...
>The logic doesn't follow...
You say
>Non-sequitur

>>34404917
>when the premise doesn't follow all the way to the conclusion

That's exactly what I said. I just gave a bad example which i am sorry for, i made it on the spot.

>>34404892
>Why do you think this?

I do not believe such a thing as a beginning is possible. If something was to begin, something was to have caused it to begin, and if something was to have caused it to begin, then there would already be something.

And the definition of the universe encompasses all that exist, so it naturally also would encompass this something.

>Is that supposed to be an argument or what?

If you find a rock on the beach it doesn't mean that someone created this rock.

File: yuri.jpg (450KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 1920x1200px

>>34404873
>children born with sin

I didn't have a say during adam and eve's decision. why am I being punished. this is incredibly unjust.

the universe is a silent expanse. it has nothing to say to me about a deity.

>>34404955
>I do not believe such a thing as a beginning is possible. If something was to begin, something was to have caused it to begin, and if something was to have caused it to begin, then there would already be something.
I think what you said is stupid but ill try to answer.
Yes, there was already something and that was God, which was the uncaused causes, who created the universe.

>And the definition of the universe encompasses all that exist
No, God exists outside of his creation also therefore beyond it.

>If you find a rock on the beach it doesn't mean that someone created this rock.
But the rock didn't create itself out of nothing but just another part of the universe that god created.

>>34404963
>I didn't have a say during adam and eve's decision. why am I being punished. this is incredibly unjust.

If you have ever sinned in your life you have already eaten the apple. Adam and eve were perfect and if they fell then you certainly will. It took a devil to come to them to convince them to sin otherwise they wouldn't of have done so. But you sin every day like it's sport. But that's not me insulting you i myself struggle with sin too and need christ to wash me of my sin.

File: 1485317366224.jpg (24KB, 381x396px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 381x396px

Brain washed christ fag throws strawman after strawman to make himself feel superior and different /thread

>>34405058
>Yes, there was already something and that was God

No, there is no God and there was no beginning. The universe, the sum of all causes, is uncaused in itself.

>No, God exists outside of his creation also therefore beyond it.

No, God doesn't exist.

>But the rock didn't create itself out of nothing but just another part of the universe that god created.

No one created the rock, the rock was formed on its own over time. The matter of the rock having always existed.

>>34405106
>No, there is no God and there was no beginning. The universe, the sum of all causes, is uncaused in itself.
see>>34403543

>No one created the rock, the rock was formed on its own over time. The matter of the rock having always existed.
How do you suppose the universe came into creation?

>>34405144
>see>>34403543

see >>34405106

>How do you suppose the universe came into creation?

I already explained to you that creation is not possible since the universe has always existed and emcompasses all ever existed and ever will exist.

How to not be homosexual ?

>>34405081
Butthurt atheist makes irrelevant point and doesn't try to critique argument

>>34403212

I haven't been in these threads for a while. This is what I remember in 2013 - mid 2015 4chan about this topic.

>some angry Christian makes a claim
>atheist guy disagrees
>Christian replies back with "TIPS FEDORA!" and spams numerous fedora meme images and cannot stop talking about fedoras for some reason
>other people join in on the circlejerk
>atheist guy wonders why people have no argument and are autistically obsessed with hats
>thread dies after more people spamming fedora memes

Wash, rinse, repeat. Have things changed since then?

>>34405166
>I already explained to you that creation is not possible since the universe has always existed and emcompasses all ever existed and ever will exist.
Now you need to show evidence for this claim. The burden of proof is on you now.

File: L.jpg (12KB, 480x269px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x269px

>An explanation is yet absent therefor gawwwdd

literally every reply, stop it now

>>34405194
No I do not need to show evidence, I have proven it with logic.

Since creation is impossible, the universe can not have been created, and so the universe must always have existed.

QED.

How to stop being homosexual ?

>>34405205
It is the best answer we can give.

>>34405209
>No I do not need to show evidence
Here we go!

>I have proven it with logic.
What logic

>Since creation is impossible, the universe can not have been created,
Says who. Now you're just begging the question.

>and so the universe must always have existed.

Still waiting on that evidence

>>34405255
You can try asking god but don't think just because you are gay you won't go heaven. All sins are worthy of hell but if you have faith in christ that he died for you on the cross you have nothing to fear.

>>34403212
Did not read ops bullshit. Hebalready made a misstake in the title. Something that doesnt exist can not be dead or alive..

>>34405297
>Says who. Now you're just begging the question.

You have already demonstrated that there is no such thing as begging the question.

>What logic

The universe = all that exist, ever has existed and ever will exist.

If something is to cause something else it must already exist. If it already exists, it is part of the universe, therefore the universe cannot having been caused.

QED.

>>34405317
If you were smart it was a response to Friedrich Nietzsche statement which was "God is dead".

>>34405341
>You have already demonstrated that there is no such thing as begging the question.
Not a argument

>The universe = all that exist, ever has existed and ever will exist.
You do know that isn't the definition of the universe right. Also if the multiverse theory is proven true that this would be just one other universe out of a finity.

>If something is to cause something else it must already exist. If it already exists, it is part of the universe, therefore the universe cannot having been caused.
This comes from the wrong understanding of the definition of the universe.

>>34403723
The fact that adam and eve fell is entirely gods fault for creating them that way, knowing they would sin before he even created them.

>>34405393
>You do know that isn't the definition of the universe right.

It is the definition of universe that I use.

>This comes from the wrong understanding of the definition of the universe.

I insist, I use the correct definition of universe.

>>34405420
>gods fault for creating them that way
No it's not they chose to sin, god made them perfect.

>It is the definition of universe that I use.

Mate, you can't take a word and make it your own just to suit your argument.

>>34405456
forgot to include you in this>>34405434

>>34405456
Also, you can't just group together the two we must create distinctions so people know what we are talking about otherwise your are being unfair and untruthful.

>>34405456
>Mate, you can't take a word and make it your own just to suit your argument.

A word can have different definitions. It simply refers to multiple concepts. The concept I refer to is:

"the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things," from Old French univers (12c.), from Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one,"

>>34405494
Damnit keep on fogetting! see>>34405434

>>34405521
>"the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things

That is still not what you were saying. But even this definition fits because even God is outside of even this and in some Christian though it is offensive to say God exist he's just there. Also, even the people who wrote that definition of the universe don't mean what you mean. When we say God is outside of the universe he is literally so separate that you cannot conceive it.

>>34405582
If your God exists then he is included in the totality of existence.

If your God is not included in the totality of existence he does not exist.

>>34405598
Yes god does exist outside of existence in the sense that he exist outside of time space and logic. When those people were talking about definition of universe they meant existence as in everything in the known universe but still exists but on another playing field. I'll go along with your definition of universe and let's say they're two universes who created this one since the place where god is there is not such thing as space and time still who created this one?

>>34405651
>Yes god does exist outside of existence

No. If God exists the he is a part of the totality of existence, because totality means all.

Existence is not a place. You cannot exist outside of existence. Existence is a characteristic of existing things.

Why do Christians try to rationalize their belief in god? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point in Christianity to have faith? And that God would never prove his existence because doing so would allow people to believe in him without faith? Also, if somehow in this argument someone were to convince OP for a rational argument against God's existence, I think OP, if he's a normal christian, would simply state that he has faith in God. So there's no real point to the argument. Also, earlier I saw OP arguing that the universe couldn't have come from nothing, but God doesn't need to have a beginning. To me, it seems like an unfair argument where the Christian side can claim any properties of God they need to make their argument, while the atheist side already has the fundamentals of science and the scientific process to obey. So it really is just a pointless argument.

>>34403739
Laughing my fucking ass off right now, gj OP 10/10 baits

>>34405664
>but isn't the point in Christianity to have faith?
Yes but within reason

>come now let us reason says the LORD:
Isaiah 1:18

>>34405664
But now what we're doing is saying there are two universes one where God exists, where space and time are nothing, and one where we humans exist. But who created this specific universe which, did, in fact, have a beginning.

>>34405747
see>>34405680
forgot to link again!!! baka

>>34405723
Why so?

>>34405747
No there is only one totality. There can't be anything else, because it is included already.

So in order for God to be uncaused, he must be the Universe, and if he is the universe he is not personal, and we can do away with the word God.

>>34405783
That argument doesn't disprove god at all it casues it to do is redefine certain words. Let's say god in in the totality of existence but now let's split it one part where we live and a part where he is. This specific part of the totality of creation had a beginning and so anything with a beginning had to had a creator.

>>34405829
If God is not the totality of existence then he must have been caused.

>>34405840
No, he is the creation of the rest of the totality of creation. God cannot be caused.

>>34405853
>God cannot be caused.

You have not demonstrated this. I have demonstrated exactly why the universe(the totality) could not have been caused.

>>34405341

>>34405900
>You have not demonstrated this. I have demonstrated exactly why the universe(the totality) could not have been caused.
See>>34403543
He was the uncaused cause that could spark the rest of creation. Also the universe means the totality of creation but God is not a created being as demonstrated above but rather one who exist out site of the totality of creation.

>>34405936
In the post you asked me to look at you are simply posing a question.

Could you ever follow the chain of cause and effect to its beginning. The answer to this question is no.

Any cause necessitates another cause to have caused it.

The only thing exempt from this is the sum of all causes, which is the universe.

>>34405853
>>34405829
not him, but as an Atheist I fully acknowledge that we can't disprove god. The same way you cant disprove Hinduism, or Disprove Buddhism, or Disprove the Islamic Faith, or the Jewish Faith, or Norse Pagan Religions.

Choosing a religion arbitrarily because you were told its the truth by someone close to you growing up feels so silly to me.

Saying that it's proof that god exists because the world is so "perfect" or "fine tuned" is stupid. We only acknowledge it as finely tuned because we have never known anything else. I'd argue biology is so inconsistent and open to disease and cancer, it would be impossible to accept that a god designed it in a way that babies are born with tumors, mental retardation, and cancer, and then die, then being sent to purgatory.

>>34405456

>No it's not they chose to sin, god made them perfect.

A perfect person would not have chosen to sin, now would they have?

"Free will" in a libertarian sense is incoherent (and also incompatible with omniscience), and "free will" in a compatibilist sense doesn't get God off the hook for creating "free" beings that would want to sin.

Compatibilist "free will" is just "freedom to do what you want" without (rather arbitrarily defined) "external coercion".

So in a compatibilist sense, God could have created Adam and Eve of such natures that they would not have even been tempted to listen to the serpent, while preserving 100% of their so-called "free will".

>>34406027

>I fully acknowledge that we can't disprove god

By "disprove", do you mean find empirical evidence against God's existence, or craft logical arguments against God's existence?

"Prove", "disprove", and "proof" are really more terms of philosophy and math, not empirical sciences.

>>34405783

>if he is the universe he is not personal

The universe has personal aspects, and it is conscious.

>>34406027
>Choosing a religion arbitrarily because you were told its the truth by someone close to you growing up feels so silly to me.
I chose Christianity. Parents hater Christianity in fact.

>>34406029
They were fooled into sinning otherwise they would have never done it but you and i sin all the time and each time we sin it is equivalent to eating the apple.

>>34403212
>mathematically impossible for it to come by chance

we are talking about something that is supposedly infinite, so chance is also infinite.
consciousness and human existence isnt so much chance as it is a waiting game

>>34406089
No. Humans have personal aspects and are conscious, other lifeforms also has to a degree, but these are parts of the universe, that is the totality, they are not the universe.

>>34406098

>They were fooled into sinning

Perfect people could not be fooled. Ergo Adam and Eve were not created perfect.

>>34405987
Could you ever follow the chain of cause and effect to its beginning. The answer to this question is no.
Yes, you can. You even said it
>In the post you asked me to look at you are simply posing a question.

>Any cause necessitates another cause to have caused it.
Only if it had a beginning wich god did not. It's one of his defining features.

>The only thing exempt from this is the sum of all causes, which is the universe.
The totality of all creation (Universe) does not apply to god since he was always there and lack a beginning

>>34406108

That's like saying "The cake isn't sweet. The sugar in the cake is sweet, other chemicals in the cake are also sweet to a degree, but these are parts of the cake, that is the totality of cake. The sugar is not the cake. Therefore the cake is not sweet".

>>34406053
I fully accept there could be a god, I just find it incredibly unlikely to the point that I'm willing to just call myself an atheist.

There could be a god

There could also be little people inside of the core of the earth within the molten center made of out of some unknown elements that are resistant the magma levels of heat.

Arbitrarily following any religion is pointless, and worshipping any god would be silly because it's impossible to ever claim your god is any better than anyone elses god, when both of you have no physical evidence of anything, besides your respective teachings.

>>34403212
>The universe is so fine tuned that it would be almost mathematically impossible for it to come by chance

This is stupid.

How you know our universe didn't just happen to be find-tuned enough to turn out the way it did? How do you know that for every one "successful" universe like ours, there isn't a googolplex other universes out there that utterly failed? After all, ours is the one and only universe you've ever known.

Who is even to say that a universe turning out the way ours did isn't completely normal and totally within the average (assuming there is one)

>>34406114
>Perfect people could not be fooled
Ok, let me better answer. When they were first created they were without sin and didn't even know what sin was. Now although this is true they were still nieve so it was quite easy for them to be fooled by the devil. They were perfect as in they have never sinned but still lacked since they were so easily fooled.

>>34406145
>Yes, you can. You even said it

No, you cannot. I have explained why several times.

>Only if it had a beginning wich god did not. It's one of his defining features.

There is no such thing a beginning. I have also explained this earlier.

>The totality of all creation (Universe) does not apply to god since he was always there and lack a beginning

It is the totality of all existence. It being the totality of all existence is NECESSARY FOR THE ARGUMENT of being exempt from causes.

If God is not the totality of all existence, in which case he cannot be personal, then he is NOT EXEMPT from having been caused.

>>34406146
Poor analogy. A cake that is sweet is always sweet and never not sweet, whereas for instance a rock isn't conscious, but still a part of the universe.

>>34406210
>There is no such thing a beginning. I have also explained this earlier.
Oh yeah you were talking about the totality of creation, but I said>>34405829
Also maybe not all things have a beginning, but some things do like this specific part of the totality of creation.

>If God is not the totality of all existence, in which case he cannot be personal, then he is NOT EXEMPT from having been caused.
Again let's split up the totality of creation and say some parts have a beginning like this part of the totality of creation, but some others don't like gods part of the totality of creation and since this part of the totality of creation had a beginning then someone must have caused it. Also, god did not have a beginning making him uncaused. The reason you have a tough understanding of what that means is that of your answered definition of universe, but understand God is separate from his creation and if you go with your definition he is separate from this part of the totality of creation which had a beginning.

>>34406382
>Again let's split up the totality of creation

Why?

It is already very clear. If God is to be exempt from causes then he is the totality of existence and if he is the totality of existence then he is not personal, he is you and me and everyone and everything.

Then since God is simply the universe, we can stop using the word God which only confuses and instead use the word Universe.

>>34405185
Implying im athiest
Why would i fight back knowing he'll just ignorw it

>>34406448
>If God is to be exempt from causes then he is the totality of existence
Non-sequitur.

>if he is the totality of existence then he is not personal, he is you and me and everyone and everything.
Based on a false precept

>Why?
Because god lives in a completely different realm than us and follows different laws as in where he is there is no space-time, which are all things created by him.

Also he is uncasued becasue he was in the beggining, meaning in eternities past, existed alone and created all else. Also he must have been uncasued due to reasons stated in>>34403543

>>34406234

>A cake that is sweet is always sweet and never not sweet, whereas for instance a rock isn't conscious, but still a part of the universe.

The rocks of salt in the cake aren't sweet, but they're still part of the cake.

>>34407082
>Non-sequitur.

No.

>Based on a false precept

no

>Because god lives in a completely different realm than us and follows different laws

translation: it doesn't have to make sense because I say so

>>34407140

>>34407140
Then you could say that the universe is conscious and unconscious, it is sharp and dull, big and small, cold and warm, ect. ect. ,but these are all qualities belonging to the different parts, the only quality of the universe the the quality of having no distinct qualities.

> complexity argument

isn't a god more complex than no god?

> fine tuning

It's more likely that a god came by chance?

>>34407771
>isn't a god more complex than no god?
see>>34403468

>>34407541
>No.
Just because god is exempt from the totality of creation does not make him the totality of creation but rather the creator of it.

>no
The false precept is that "If God is to be exempt from causes then he is the totality of existence"

>translation: it doesn't have to make sense because I say so

not a argument.

>>34407985
>Just because god is exempt from the totality of creation does not make him the totality of creation but rather the creator of it.

You have no demonstrated that God is exempt from having been caused.

>If God is to be exempt from causes then he is the totality of existence

It is not false. I proven it in this thread.

>not a argument.

It is a paraphrasing of your non-argument. If you wanna believe in a magical being that defies logic, then that is your business, just don't call it a logical argument.

Way I see it is, demons are very real. If demons are real than by proxy so are angels and therefore so is God.

On a side note never try to contact a demon or make any kind of deal with them. You never get what you are promised and once the deal is made your life gets irrevocably worse

>>34408027
>You have no demonstrated that God is exempt from having been caused.
I have demonstrated it so many times see>>34403543

>It is not false. I proved it in this thread.
No, you haven't you have just been begging the question and building your argument based on an assumption which you have not proved. If I missed it, please reinstate it for me.

>It is a paraphrasing of your non-argument. If you wanna believe in a magical being that defies logic, then that is your business, just don't call it a logical argument.
A belief in God may not be the right answer since God in unfalsifiable, but it is the best. Better than saying it came from nothing.

>>34403212
You can still be mocked even with these arguments. Most judeochristian theists go beyond this argument for a potential god, and begin drawing arbitrary lines, making rules, books, fundamental life choices, etc all around this belief.

The only thing presented here that you can honestly take away without making HUGE jumps in logic is deism. You've presented an ok case for a deistic god, but not a theistic god who intervenes, meddles, and cares for every single man's actions.

Complexity and fine tuning make the case for a higher being, but no case for the average christian, muslim, or jew and their specific beliefs.

We know God doesn't hold the stars together, gravity does. We know God doesn't hold atoms together, electricity does. We don't know what made the universe exist, but if I had to guess I would say it wasn't God but just some force we don't know about.

>>34408115
>I have demonstrated it so many times see

I have already responded that here:

>>34405987

>based on an assumption which you have not proved.

Which assumption is that?

>Better than saying it came from nothing.

It didn't come from anywhere. It was always there and will always be there.

>>34407985
good thread op. im a theologian intraining myself. i think one of the best arguments for gods existence is the argument from causation. basically, 1. its been scientifically proven that the universe is expanding; 2. that which is expanding had to have a starting point; 3. if something had a starting point, it is finite and had to come into existence at some point; 4. something cannot come from nothing, so it had to have a creator.

also, are you familiar with van til? he is known for presuppisitional apologetics. theres a lot of very good books regarding his arguments for gods existence

>>34408118
>The only thing presented here that you can honestly take away without making HUGE jumps in logic is deism. You've presented an ok case for a deistic god, but not a theistic god who intervenes, meddles, and cares for every single man's actions.
Yes, i know but i do believe you can give evidence for a theistic god if you use the bible.

>>34408130
I believe all those things had a beginning and that was when god created them. Also you have just proved the universe is complex that has complex workings and therefore implies a creator.

>>34403212
But those arguments are nothing but the fallacy of complexity.

>>34408167
>complex workings and therefore implies a creator.
complex workings doesn't imply a creator

File: 1476658110326.jpg (9KB, 221x228px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 221x228px

>christcucks cannot wrap their minds around the concept of physical forces interacting with each other to slowly create the universe as we know it
>need to project the existence of a sky fairy nobody has ever seen, that coincidentally looks just like them, into everything in order to explain phenomenons
>muh 3000 year old fantasy book written by a goat fucker of the time explains literally everything!

It's honestly pathetic

>>34408154
>I have already responded that here:
And I responded to it here.>>34406145
>Which assumption is that?
If God is to be exempt from causes, then he is the totality of existence

>It didn't come from anywhere. It was always there and will always be there.
Prove that the universe was always there. The burden of proof lies on you.
I just realised were going in circles.

>>34408166
Are you talking about this causation argument >>34403543 and no I haven't heard of Van
til, and I haven't heard of presuppositional apologetics sounds interesting i might want to check it out.

>>34408237
What does it imply then?

>>34408167
>give evidence for a theistic god if you use the bible

Too bad you can do that with any holy book. And they sure can't all be right. Theism falls apart because the evidence starts to pull from ancient books written, re written, edited, translated, and started by word of mouth from MAN. It cannot fall back on more solid arguments like fine tuning and complexity.

Its easy to argue an existence like >>34408166
here, but intellectually dishonest to now start boasting that not only does this all powerful entity exist, but whatever faith camp your in, is exactly right about his intentions and instructions.

Again, you cannot make a jump from deism to theism.

>>34408322
>What does it imply then?
Nothing. Things are complex based on human knowledge and that's where complexity stems from. It's only our organizational perception of things. Period.

>>34408354
Ok, I think the word complex is what ti confusing you but the fact that there was a time that it didn't exist and now came into creation implies a being created it that is outside space and time.

>>34406145
>Only if it had a beginning wich god did not. It's one of his defining features.
If god's existence doesn't necessitates a beginning why the universe's should?

>>34408322
>And I responded to it here

You didn't respond you just contradicted me.

"yes you can" doesn't answer the reasoning I laid out in my post.

>If God is to be exempt from causes, then he is the totality of existence

That is not an assumption that is what I conceptually proved.

The premise of an argument is an assumption The conclusion(what you prove) is necessarily true if the premises lead to it.

So you will have to specify what premise in my argument you disagree with.

Okay?

>Prove that the universe was always there. The burden of proof lies on you.

I have already proven it. Do you accept that everything must have a cause? The logical conclusion to this is a never-ending chain of causes, which we call the universe.

I realized that God exsists while eating an apple. Are you telling me a sweet and nutritious apple was evolved out of stardust and compacted meteorites?

>>34408400
Because we know it had a beginning most scientists believe the universe was created 13-14 billion years ago.

>>34408393
There's no proof of that. We don't know what was before the bing bang. And if there was a time the universe was created or where it's existence begun and that implies a timeless god then this argument implies too the possibility of a previous timeless universe that put itself into motion, making the argument for the existence of a god weak.

I have a question.

>God created all things
>Ergo God created evil

But my Christian friend tells me

>God created all things
>Man created evil by choice which was given to us by god

But doesn't it follow that if God created all things, he also created choice and all consequences of all choices? Therefore he still created evil?

I'm just confused. I'd like to believe in a god but have struggled my whole life with things like this.

File: HQTx0i8[1].jpg (520KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 1920x1080px

I had my fill of shit, even though I was a "turn the other cheek" christian and been an altar boy for 5 years, prayed every morning and evening, watched mostly religious cartoons etc.

Finally lost my faith at 14, after having been bullied since I entered primary school.

>>34408454
No. They believe that the bing bang happened that time ago but they are not sure of what the universe was before that. The bing bang is merely the expansion of all matter that was located in a single point. Not a "creation".

>>34408393
By the way, your view of a timeless "being" falls apart because it implies something that was previous to creation but something existing previously depends on time. It's contradictory implications should be enough proof that god never existed and that it's more likely that what emcompass all things be it called universe of anything is something that is eternal and only exists because it was never created.

>>34408458
i guess it depends on how you look at it. parents had jeffrey dahmer. jefrey dahmer because a serial killer. did his parents create a serial killer? id say no. God gave us free will. and we chose to do evil.

>>34408690
But I mean, doesn't that conflict with "God created all things"?

Is evil not among all things?

>the universe is so fine tuned that it would be almost mathematically impossible for it to come by chance
This makes no sense. In what way is the universe "fine tuned" and what is it tuned to? What about the universe couldn't have been done by chance?

>>34403212
Argument one actually works against itself. Its more probable for a complex structure to come about without intention, than to have been designed. For if you propose it was designed, then you must posit a much more complex entity to have had to design it.

Its the idea of ontological parsimony: by adding a creator into an ontology, you are complicating the ontology without real reason. All known existences can be explained without appeal to a creator or even prime mover. God as a final cause doesnt really act to explain anything.

Do you ever notice how the scope of the Bible never goes beyond a tiny patch of land in the fucking desert despite being supposedly influenced by God himself, the creator of the entire universe? It never speaks of atoms, outer space, the cataclysm that created our moon, other galaxies, etc.

Instead, it focuses only on some infertile shithole in the Middle East and only mentions apples, floods, goats, fire, sand, shit that every peasant of the time knew about and also pretty much the ONLY things they knew about. The entire thing feels extremely primitive if you're not reading it as an indoctrinated child. It reeks of the simplistic mindset of a man of that era, who clearly made it all up using only the unsophisticated concepts he knew about at that time. Yet here we are, several millennia later and people are somehow still reading it like it will save them, doing elaborate mental gymnastics to defend it and praying to some ancient peasant's Original Character Do Not Copy Pls (TM)

Explain this retardation, please

>>34408667
>existing previously depends on time
It doesnt; thats only a limited use of the word previous. God is prior to time and space, as in time and space rely on God but God does not rely on either. God is primary, or "previous" to all else in the same way matter is primary to toughts or experience is primary to knowledge; one causes the other.

That said, God is not needed to find the causes of things like space and time, nor of the the universe in general. We have much better hypotheses now.

File: willsmif.jpg (47KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 300x300px

>>34404381
>Do you have evidence that the universe didn't have a beginning?

No no no no and NO!

I fucking hate when creationist do that shit. You were the one who stated earlier "I accept that the burden of proof lies on me" ? And yet here you are shifting the burden of proof. The one making the claim has the burden of proof to provide evidence for their claim. If I claim there's a pink unicorn masturbating on the moon right as we speak, the default position is to disbelieve until evidence is given. The question isn't "Do you have evidence that there ISN'T a pink unicorn masturbating on the moon as we speak", it's "what evidence do I have to believe said claim IS true".

So don't go around asking him if he has evidence that the universe didn't have a beginning. Where's your evidence that it did? Then we can take it from there and analyze said evidence to see if it logical.

In your case,

>>34403212
Trash thread, not sure if bait
>design argument
"it luk liek it designed so iz designed XD". Debunked for centuries.
>Fine tuning argument
literally the same as design argument

Also, nothing IS something, quantum fluctuations can occur where energy and matter briefly appears from nothing and disappears. The Universe was just created by an anomalous quantum fluctuation, that is all.

Even if there is a God OP, you keep talking of objective morals. How can you prove that God even gives a shit about morals? That is entirely based in belief.

I don't doubt the value of religion and unified morals, but you seem certain that God is an objectively moral being. I'm an agnostic theist and believe in a higher power, but I admit I have no idea what that higher power is like.

>>34409204
>God is prior to time and space
But if it was prior than it relays on time even if said time is prior to universe. Something that is not restrained by time and space simply doesn't exist and what doesn't exist cannot create thus the universe is eternal.

File: smh.gif (1010KB, 500x248px) Image search: [Google]

1010KB, 500x248px

>>34405297
>It's the best answer we can give

No OP, actually it's not the best answer, it's the best answer that's satisfactory for YOU. I never could understand what it was with Christians, more specifically creationist, with this obsessive desire to know everything. Let me explain something to you. You are not obligated to know ANYTHING. Your obligations and your wants/desires are two separate things. You want to know what the best answer is in this situation? I don't know. Literally the words "I DON'T KNOW". I don't know, in most situations is the best answer, allow me to explain why.

I don't know is sometimes the best answer and sometimes the correct answer, because pretending that you do know (like you've done throughout this entire thread) when in fact you don't stops you stops you from finding the right answer. And you know what? I'd rather remove the road blocks, because if it turns out that a god exists, there's nothing preventing us from finding out...for GOOD REASONS, and up to this point you've provided anything but good reasons. All you've provided is "The universe is far too complex for me, therefore I chose a belief that's easier to understand, and satisfies my desire to know all things." All that tells me is you don't care about what's actually true, you care about what you WANT to be true. With that method of thinking, you really have no pathway to truth.

>>34403212
Physicists have long been developing physical theories in which no fine-tuning is required (string theory for particle physics, inflation in cosmology)... And the complexity argument falls flat when you realize that the universe is so mind-boggligly enormous that no matter how small the probability of, say, life popping up is, it HAD to happen eventually, much like if you keep rolling a million dice you're eventually going to get all sixes.