Going to make some arguments against theism, inb4 endless ebin fedora maymays
What objective evidence do we have for the existence of a deity?
Objective/empirical evidence? None. The "knowledge" theists claim to have about God is not demonstrable; no prophet was ever granted serious evidence by the God/gods he spoke on behalf of, despite the reality that providing such evidence is a perfectly logical course of action for a deity/deities that desire huamn worship. The lack of objective evidence given from God to prophet is almost certainly evidence that God does not exist (I'm just going to say God now, Buddhists BTFO). The religious sometimes argue that their God will not prove its existence beyond a doubt because that would rob humans of their free will, but any God that influences human affairs is already guilty of this offense.
I will reiterate: Is there any compelling evidence for the existence of a God? Christians, when not shitposting about fedoras, might assert that the Bible, miracles, and the universe are evidence to their claim of a deity, however in reality the objectivity (truth value) of this "evidence" must be assumed on faith- faith in the religious sense which is divorced from skepticism. The Bible, for instance, we have to take on "faith" that it is the word of God- if it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt faith would not be necessary. "Faith" is an unreliable process. In no other aspect of life is faith, in the sense that is used in religion, considered a reliable method for reaching the truth.
If faith is irrational and there is no positive evidence for a God where does that leave us. A God that wants me to implement an irrational process (faith) to come to worship it is no God worth worshipping. (1/2)
The religious point to the lack of negative evidence, evidence which disproves their God. The lack of positive and negative evidence is enough that an atheist can not say "I can demonstrate that God does not exist." and Christians basically want the discussion to stop here, what people don't realize is the subtle principle that is being put forward.
If you are willing to devote your life to a system of belief with no positive evidence, but very little evidence that proves beyond a doubt that it is completely illogical you are putting forward a principle that says "Ideas with no positive evidence and little evidence to the contrary are plausible, and should be seriously considered," either they are putting this principle forward or they are acting upon an irrational preference which is founded in their desire for community/social conformity (most likely the latter).
This principle they are putting forward is completely insane. There are an endless list of ideas/world views that have no positive evidence, but almost no evidence that disprove it. Take Carl Sagan's invisible teapot, leprechauns, Odin, or unicorns for example. All of these ideas share the common factor that they have no positive evidence that is objective and little to no negative evidence to disprove them. If Christians act upon the principle that allows them to justify their religion, they must also seriously consider all the 10,000+God/gods they have previously disregarded.
Also, if you start up with consequentialist (i.e. BUT RELIGION MAKE HAPPY) bullshit you will be cordially invited to fuck off.
recreate the lady of guadalupe and I will tip my fedora
its not just a painting, looking at infrared scans of artist like van gogh and da vinci, versus guadalupe, its a bit 2spooky4me
If a God will send me to suffer for an eternity for healthy intellectual skepticism that God is not worthy of my worship. Marcus Aurelius talked about this, basically any God/gods that do harm to atheists for lacking faith is evil (A God condemns those who do not rely on an unreliable process for reaching the truth? Retarded.)
I'm not sure, I imagine an all-knowing and all-powerful being could present a compelling case, however.
>not realizing the Form of the Good
I assume you're responding about
An all-knowing being would have the knowledge of what would be convincing evidence of itself to me, I mean that's kind of axiomatic isn't it?
Also a reminder that a being that is all-knowing does not have the power to change its own actions (be all-powerful) because if you can change your actions you don't already know what you're going to do.
I am asking for evidence to set me right, anon. Instead of telling me the obvious, why don't you provide some evidence that Platonism is valid?
Holy shit, I wasn't saying "I have a lack of knowledge about Platonism, therefore it is illogical," you can't be this stupid, I am assuming you're emotionally attached to the issue or you have no idea what you're talking about.
>because if you can change your actions you don't already know what you're going to do.
But, God is like really smart, and like, he can like, do and not do; so, like, he can know everything, but sometimes, he doesn't know everything because, like, he's God and junk; and, like, I'm making objective statements without any empirical backing.
>If a God will send me to suffer for an eternity...
>that God is not worthy of my worship
Yes he is, because in fact that is a great demonstration of power. You are the worthless, defenseless one.
see pic related. I don't know what you're talking about, but if you have objective proof for God please elaborate. I'm willing to be corrected.
If a God demands that I be irrational or suffer he can go fuck himself. You're putting that ellipses in a very opportune place you fucking sophist.
Good goy, there is no god, only the material
Is this an argument as to why theism is rational?
Are you implying that the beliefs of a massive number of irrational theists do not effect me every day?
I am not making claims to objective knowledge about the origins of the universe, I am merely pointing out that the theistic perspective is irraitonal.
Is that a serious argument?
Not sure. Tell me how this objectively points to the existence of a God?
That's right bro, when ice hits steel, maximum edge.
That may be the case, but it is irrelevant. It's about you. You say 'I know!' or 'I don't know!' and you base it on some criteria of knowing. If you say you don't know what the criteria are, I'm asking how you can know or not. If YOU have some criteria, let's hear it, otherwise you are basing your argument on nothing
Well, my inability to explain the human perception of dreams and thoughts is not objective proof for a God. However, I would posit that it is most likely a subjective experience due to the complex interaction of neurons/brain whatever.
If the Big Bang Theory has objective evidence to the contrary I would suggest that you go win yourself a Nobel prize with that evidence. Also, my inability to explain something doesn't make your explanation valid.
Your post is the scientism fallacy
>The only knowledge that can be gained is from evidence
or something similar. Its self refuting as that statement isnt scientific. Its a variant on hume's fork which is also a failure. I didnt read the rest of your post because your premise is irrational.
I'm questioning your base of morality (and the phenomenology of such) through the assumption that you consider man to solely be a process and the result of natural and amoral developments i.e. natural selection.
I'm not denying the Big bang happened, I'm saying what came from it doesn't seem to be the work of random collisions. The cosmos is too ordered.
>Also, my inability to explain something doesn't make your explanation valid.
It can make us equally invalid, no?
>The only knowledge that can be gained is from evidence
That IS the only form of knowledge.
Anything else you can never know if it in fact correlates with reality or not - you have to actually look at reality.
I'm not extremely familiar with Godel's theorem, but instead of googling a counter-argument here is my response:
Philosophy is founded on certain assumptions, such as that truth is preferable to untruth. Essentially, knowledge boils down to certain assumptions within our own giant logical system. Your option is either to accept that there are some assumptions or be crippled (We still have to assume certain things about aviation, we don't have all the laws/theorems worked out yet). Sorry if I'm off-point.
Also I see a potential for a false dichotomy with the independent justification/platonic forms decision.
K, please go get a Nobel prize with your objective proof for God, mention me in your acceptance speech.
But seriously, if this is proof for God why don't you present it to the national academy of sciences?
I don't claim objective knowledge about the origins of the universe, at least I haven't in this thread.
RADICAL Theism is very irrational
RADICAL Atheism is also very irrational
We can discover every single piece of scientific evidence and combine all of our knowledge of the entire universe and STILL would not be able to prove, or disprove, God, the entire concept is a logical fallacy
If Atheists are right; then God is a product of man
If Theism is right, then God does not exist inside this universe and thus cannot adhere to this universes laws
We will ALWAYS have religion, even if we took every single religious man on Earth and went back in time to the Big Bang to show them all it happened, we'd still have religion, it is simply not possible to disprove God, this is why Atheists and Theists will always mindlessly bicker and debate about it, it goes knowhere
Agnostic Apatheist is the only rational belief system
>Also, how can we know if we are not hallucinating?
Doesn't matter - if reality is an hallucination then that would be the basis for empirical evidence.
The point is that logical deduction or philosophical arguments are completely useless at generating knowledge unless they start from empirical premises.
You can make any perfect logical argument of "If A therefore B", but unless you can show that A actually models reality you haven't said anything about reality.
>Dreaming has distinct blood flow and brain wave patterns.
Assuming you weren't testing me while I was asleep, how could you tell?
>Memories are physical configurations in the brain
Can you tap into these?
>An all-knowing being would have the knowledge of what would be convincing evidence of itself to me, I mean that's kind of axiomatic isn't it? (me)
>That may be the case, but it is irrelevant. It's about you. You say 'I know!' or 'I don't know!' and you base it on some criteria of knowing. If you say you don't know what the criteria are, I'm asking how you can know or not. If YOU have some criteria, let's hear it, otherwise you are basing your argument on nothing
Please be more specific. Too many pronouns/10 this is just confusing
Well of course theism is irrational.
If it was rational then it would SIMPLY be a case of REASONING theists into a point where they accept the obvious tautological sets like life before death, and all the other self-refuting stuff without anything to ground it in reason.
Theism does not exist in a vacuum, but as a result of pressures of life, and the theists, though wrongly, crave a salve to balm the misery of existence.
It is improvements in living standards, not newfound rationality that has resulted in the decreasing spirituality of the world, and assuming atheism was the goal, then improving the living standards of the world would be the method best suited to implement it.
>>Agnostic Apatheist is the only rational belief system
Fuck yeah, muh nigger! Apatheism, look it up, the question "does God exist" is moot, why the fuck do we care until we are dead?
>Assuming you weren't testing me while I was asleep, how could you tell?
I don't understand your point, missing an opportunity to test an event is a completely different issue.
>Can you tap into these?
Not to extract finer details yet.
Nice bait mate.
There's two definitions of faith, the religious and secular versions. You are conflating the two.
Religious faith is specifically in the absence or in spite of evidence.
100/10 made me reply.
>I don't understand your point, missing an opportunity to test an event is a completely different issue.
If I said I had a dream last night and no one was testing my brain how could you tell if I actually had a dream or am lying?
This, retarded fucker hasn't realized all political ideology are directly related to theology
I was refuting theism, specifically Christianity.
Deism is more plausible since it does not require as many leaps of faith as theism, but there's still no objective evidence for it.
>God will send me to hell because I'm skeptical
Incorrect. You, and every other human is going to hell based on their sins. Jesus is an escape from that, but you have to accept the free gift of salvation or you're screwed.
If I live in accordance with the societal/moral bounds of the world I live in at the time and don't adopt, let's say an irrational theistic position, why would a God who provided no objective evidence for its existence be upset that I did not accept its existence?
>I literally have no idea what I'm fucking talking about-Tier
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Of course it does. Someone not being around to observe a well-documented effect explained and repeatedly demonstrated by the laws of physics doesn't make it not happen.
I don't really get your point. If you had a dream last night, then you had a dream. If you didn't, and you claim that you did, you're lying. Are you saying that our inability to prove what you said somehow disproves empirical evidence? Because that is a conceited notion.
many have pointed out that this picture is symbolic of a yoni. Note the position of her hands... But is she standing on a baby? Lol.
Are you seriously trying to label natural neural processes as metaphysical somehow? Fuckoffff
OHHH! You totally burned that person criticising your position as being full of shit there! YEEEAH! FEEL THAT SCATHE, ATHEISTS!
What a horrible thread.
>But you can't prove God DOESN'T exist.
>M-muh edgy fedoras!
Is that really supposed to be a satisfactory argument?
Your belief has no basis in our perceived reality. Before you say 'what if it exists outside our perception?', then understand that there's no way of demonstrating that one way or the other, so there is no reason to believe it.
I honestly don't understand how anyone can accept this kind of stuff any more.
I understand religion's influence on law and morals and society and family, but the first world should be at a point where we can base such things on reason and empathy, without having to rely on the mental crutch of an almighty rule-giver.
I am not the one presenting claims of objective knowledge, you are. If this painting somehow is a proof of God, I don't see why you or whoever figured it out isn't sitting on a pile of scientific awards.
But it doesn't. Because assuming that you were telling the truth about having a dream, it can be proved that you did based on evidence given by the repeatedly demonstrated (and observed) effects explained by the laws of physics.
Obviously we can't prove it NOW, because the dream is over, but our prior knowledge BASED on empirical evidence tells us what we need to know.
Are you saying that this isn't the same as empirical evidence? That observation and using knowledge gained by previous observations to support a hypothesis are different?
who said disprove theism? Theism exists in the realm of UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS.
The gods that obviously dont exist are evidence towards reasonable doubt in the next possible god.
However, if the misery of life were lessened, then the societal needs that require a 'well this world is hard but the next one will be better' (generally the underlying principles of most successful religions, providing you adhere their dictates) then overall that would be a shitty car to try and sell to the happy peon.
>it can be proved that you did based on evidence given by the repeatedly demonstrated (and observed) effects explained by the laws of physics.
But it can't, because I may or may not have had the dream and you cannot prove I did or didn't.
It is simply deduction that is used to determine that an intelligent creator created Earth.
How do you explain the universe being as stable as it is to be able to support life as we know it? In fact, the chance of the universe being the way it is is 10^15, which is really REALLY fucking unlikely.
Using occam's Razor we can establish that it is infinitely more likely that this universe was made this way on purpose than it just being that way by accident. Whether by God(s) or some nerd Cthulian programmer who's working on our universe as some science experiment.
SO you're saying a happy and luxurious society would be more inclined to atheism because of the lack of suffering theism soothes?
Although this may be true, it still does not disprove theism.
That is irrelevant. We're talking about epistemology here, as in what is the possible ways you can theoretically generate knowledge.
Whether or not you can manage to prove a particular event has no bearing on the epistemology itself, that would just be a practical or technological failure.
The book of Daniel contain prophecies(the prophecies of Alexander the Great in chapter 8 and prophecies of Antiochus' campaigns in Egypt in chapter 11) that are so accurate that naturalists have no choice but to assume the dating of the book of Daniel to after 160 B.C., after Antiochus' campaign despite it being included in the Septuagint 100 years earlier.
Daniel 8 highlights
>The goat stands for the king of Greece.
so it must be a Greek king
>The large horn between his eyes is the first king.
>20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
Alexander conquered Media and Persia
>22 Four horns took its place when it was broken off. They stand for four kingdoms that will come from his nation. But those kingdoms will not be as powerful as his.
When Alexander died, his nation split into 4 kingdoms: The Ptolemaic Kingdom, the Seleucid Empire, Kingdom of Pergamon, and Macedonia.
also the part that says
>24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power.
is referring to Alexander's father, Philip II. Alexander had everything needed for world conquest handed to him by his daddy.
>25 ...Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.
Alexander died not in combat, but from disease.
Additionally the language in the Book of Daniel has Persian influence, but very little greek influence, which would be expected in a 2nd century text. The Hebrew matches that of 6th century Hebrew(yes, languages change over time), and the Aramaic is similar to the 5th century Aramaic used in Ezra.
Because being rational is the ONLY THING that the organized religion...er I MEAN GOD
can't forgive you for!!
>the chance of the universe being the way it is is 10^15
>Using occam's Razor we can establish that it is infinitely more likely that this universe was made this way on purpose than it just being that way by accident.
>How do you explain the universe being as stable as it is to be able to support life as we know it? In fact, the chance of the universe being the way it is is 10^15, which is really REALLY fucking unlikely.
Unlike theists, I don't make claims to objective knowledge about why the universe is stable. But the theory that
>The universe can't always have been there
>But a creator CAN always have been there
>The most evolved being that never evolved
Doesn't really make sense...
underrated post :)
>OH NO, GOD OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T EXIST, BECAUSE THIS UNIVERSE DOESN'T HAVE LIFE IN IT!
Said nobody ever, for fucking obvious reasons.
See how retarded it is? Think about what you say before you say it.
>>The most evolved being that never evolved
I never claimed a creator never evolved, also, a creator would not be bound by the law's of our universe or logic since they exist outside of it.
>Claiming knowledge about a creator in a dimension you have no proof exists
What the fuck? Are you just shifting the goalpost? If God exists outside this universe then he can't have any measurable effect on it, or have created it.
If they exist outside the universe, then surely that rules out the idea of a personal god(s), like the one described by pretty much every religion ever.
Also 'outside the universe' doesn't really make sense.
Well the way the universe being the way it is at all it very, very unlikely.
One in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.
Even if life didn't exist by chance, that's more likely than all the systems of the universe being the way they are.
>BUT IF IT WASN'T THAT WAY WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OBSERVE THIS MIRACULOUS OCCURRENCE
I don't understand how that could possibly necessitate the absence of God(s). We're supposed to be open minded rational people right?
Anthropic principle, moron. If the universe didn't evolve in the manner that it did you wouldn't be around to misunderstand basic logic and spout retarded opinions on the internet.
Furthermore, you have no idea what a universe is. There could be 10, 1000, 100000000000000000, or infinite universes, all with their own properties.
If I have a function called the universe that's expanding at an exponential rate for all eternity how is that not infinite?
>Claiming knowledge about a creator in a dimension you have no proof exists
>What the fuck?
>Are you just shifting the goalpost? If a creator exists outside this universe then he can't have any measurable effect on it, or have created it.
>i don't believe in god
>i must make a thread so everyone can validate me or my belief
If you're a retarded /pol/ troll maybe
He/it must've since something cannot come from nothing
Yes it does, scientists believe in the multiverse, the multiverse doesn't logically make any sense, that doesn't mean it's still not there.
OP is intelligent but is not direct enough with his argument and too acceptant of stupidity. Stick with God, and don't move onto Theists provided 'proof' (bible quoting, truths about God, how God acts, etc).
The Anthropic principle is easily refuted.
The universe being the way it is is as likely as you being thrown unprotected into the core of the sun, and there you are thinking "well, I'm still alive, that's a little weird *shrug*" instead of being "HOLY FUCKING SHIT, WHY DID THIS HAPPEN!"
There is no evidence for God.
There is no evidence to suggest God, so even as a guess, it's irrational.
Creation is not God-exclusive, it's actually okay to think about something being the cause to the big bang, such as energy, or something, but where in, during our reverse-engineering of the universe, do we reach God? We don't. It's fiction, nothing implies God, God implies itself. The worlds best forced meme.
Appreciate the compliment I suppose. How could I be more direct with my argument? (I am being serious, I am open to criticism.)
I'm responding to you after you responded to my post
Why didn't the creator have to come from something? Are you suggesting an infinite number of creators?
Except only one of those is possible.
>There could be 10, 1000, 100000000000000000, or infinite universes, all with their own properties.
But I thought that was supposed to be illogical hogwash
>le materialist smileyman faec
The universe isn't some cold mechanical machine m8, at the smallest level you will not see particles, but mathematical probabilities.
If we're to assume time is infinite, then statistics like >one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion are kind of meaningless. In whatever space the universe exists and was created in, it would be like an infinitely running random number generator--a generator which, despite inconceivable odds, would eventually result in the way our universe was developed. Time is subjective, the "odds" of something happening don't prevent it from occurring if those odds have forever to be generated.
That's like a car speeding up slowly from 20 miles per hour and at 100 miles per hour the passenger is all "whelp, I guess we're moving at infinite miles per hour" infinity is not a number, it's a concept.
>The universe being the way it is is as likely
No, you have *no idea* what the possibility space for "universe properties" are, you have no idea how many "trials" there has been, you have no idea if physical laws even have the possibility to vary.
It's a complete unknown, any number put on the chances of a universe supporting life is complete bullshit.
And the only thing you really need is a non-zero possibility, then it could have happened, no matter how small a chance.
So you had to make a thread because you want attention or you feel insecure of your "atheism". Top lel, nigger.
Guess I'll post this again since no one ever replies
The whole concept of a prime mover(which is the Aristolic term for god) is meant to answer the infinite regress of cause and effect.
The prime mover is the first cause, but is exempt from requiring a cause. Something that is not bound by time is immune to the laws of cause and effect.
Until entropy can be proven to be reversible, the universe will be suggested to have a beginning and an ending- an initial point of 0 entropy and a terminal point of maximum entropy.
But because this prime mover is not bound by time, it's impossible to find, just like dark matter is. It's a hypothesis, like ether and corpuscles once were, and like dark matter is today. We don't know, but it works with our model of science, but it's unprovable. Eventually we'll come up with something better, or maybe we'll even find a way to verify the existence of a prime mover.
Our mother, whatever guise she appears in, exists. This is proveable.
I doubt her relation to a Jew war god is debateable however, since she appears in all cultures and far before Yeshua.
Is something that expands faster and faster for all time not boundless? Any boundary is removed instantly, essentially?
Not sure which part you're responding to.
If a theist presents an argument against an atheist does that mean he is insecure in his beliefs?
Well I guess your "Argument" proves that you're insecure in your beliefs.
But does that really necessitate the absence of a creator?
Who created this generator you speak of?
>i dunno xD it can't be god though xD
>The prime mover is the first cause, but is exempt from requiring a cause. Something that is not bound by time is immune to the laws of cause and effect.
So basically a false dichotomy? The prime mover is just a special snowflake?
Also, most importantly, prime mover =! personal God. So your argument has no bearing on the validity of theism.
It's not an explanation though, it's a stopgap.
>works with out model of science
No, it doesn't work with science, it's a untestable idea that is incompatible with science. It can't be proven or disproven, so it is useless to science.
>Claiming knowledge of how things outside the universe can or have interacted with us
>Shifting the goalpost of God outside of this universe because you live in the 21st century
>We don't know, so it's gotta be God rite guise!?
Will you never learn? Every aspect of nature used to be assigned to a god, but science unveiled the bullshit, and it's only a matter of time before it happens to your god too, until it won't even have the room to be a "prime mover".
>The prime mover is the first cause, but is exempt from requiring a cause
Which is no different from "something from nothing".
And nothing seems like the simplest "thing" which can violate causality.
>The prime mover is just a special snowflake?
If the universe were eternal, it would become a special snowflake whose origins don't have to obey cause and effect. But it's not eternal.
>prime mover =! personal God. So your argument has no bearing on the validity of theism.
Correct, but it's much easier to go from deism to theism than it is to go from atheism to theism.
>If the universe were eternal, it would become a special snowflake whose origins don't have to obey cause and effect. But it's not eternal.
>It's not eternal
If something has to be eternal there's no logical/empirical reason that it has to be a conscious creator.
You could just as easily say that the universe has always existed in some form or another, "before" the big bang, meaning there is no need for something outside the universe to exist.
God is not demonstrable. You can not know God exists, or that God does not exist, but it is safe to say that there is not a compelling case for a God and that God is merely a bad guess made from today- the beginning of time.
>Correct, but it's much easier to go from deism to theism than it is to go from atheism to theism.
Not him but if it's so easy, some theologian would've done it already, and no one has even come close.
I'd rather not explain quantum physics with you, so instead I'll take this route of logic:
If you're to imply that this "generator" which created the universe (which, for one, wasn't actually a tangible subject but an attribute of the existing phase-space before "the universe," and two was completely hypothetical and invented on-the-spot by myself) needs to be created, then I argue that THAT creator needs a creator. And that creator and that creator and that creator, and it would span backwards in an infinite chain of creators creating creators creating creators. A God would not be exempt from this.
Just because it does not DISPROVE a creator doesn't mean it needs a creator in order to explain its existence. But that goes into quantum physics, which I'm not really an authority on to adequately explain.
everybody ends up saying stupid shit in these arguments
they're completely pointless and there's no winning. atheists believe they have "won" because no evidence to God was given, and theists believe they have "won" because no evidence was given that God doesn't exist.
I like theists who admit straight off the bat that it comes down to faith.
At least they don't waste your time with false science and mental masturbation.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the belief that there is no god. So yeah, atheism looks like the more reasonable position at the end of these arguments.
>If something has to be eternal there's no logical/empirical reason that it has to be a conscious creator.
Of course not, and that's why you have to use Christianity to explain why we can assume that the prime mover is conscious.
>"before" the big bang, meaning there is no need for something outside the universe to exist.
The issue is that there's no such thing as 'before', as time didn't exist until the big bang triggered t = 0.
We don't live in a spherical universe, we live in a flat one with great certainty. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html Therefore the universe cannot be cyclical.
You see what happens when you deny a creator at all cost? You start saying silly shit.
1.) The universe needs to be created by something, that's just how the universe is, it's it's very nature, it is begun, it will end
2.) There was a big bang, and there is no evidence to show this is not the case. No empirical data. Assuming otherwise is just grasping at nonsense to back up your opinion.
>Well I guess your "Argument" proves that you're insecure in your beliefs.
You present nothing, you are just another generic angry fedora weakling stuck with an obsolete positivist paradigm (which died in the 1970's). I laugh at your attention whoring and your damage control. No amount of proof of evidence will ever convince you, you already defeated yourself. Ahaha.
>but it is safe to say that there is not a compelling case for a God and that God is merely a bad guess made from today- the beginning of time.
But there is a compelling case. The universe being the way it is is 1 in 10^15. Saying the universe was shat out by some dumb multiverse machine that doesn't make any sense is sillier than just saying "god did it"
Hence the quotation marks around before mate.
>have to use Christianity
Or you could use a different brand of bullshit. Just saying. "We don't know" is the only honest answer. An explanation that relies on a faith is not an explanation.
>The universe needs to be created by something
According to what exactly? Creation implies intent. You have no reason to believe that.
And this implies God why? A creator is not God-exclusive. We took the concept of creation AND THEN applied it to God. We can rationally reach the conclusion, "the big bang needs a cause", but by no means does this imply God. A negro seems like a white man, but the two are different. God seems like what happened before the universe, but that's truly, "what happened before the universe".
>Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the belief that there is no god. So yeah, atheism looks like the more reasonable position at the end of these arguments.
It must be a belief since atheists are so fucking terrified of being labeled as believing in something.
>If a God will send me to suffer for an eternity for healthy intellectual skepticism that God is not worthy of my worship.
I don't think you understand the doctrine of heaven and hell. Heaven is spending eternity with God, while hell is spending eternity without God. If you don't love God, why would you want to go to heaven? It'd be an eternal torture for you, like being forced into a marriage with someone you don't love. Likewise, if you love God, you wouldn't want to go to hell, because it'd be eternal torture to spending eternity without the one you love.
sheol = hades = hell by translation. All of the bible verses involving Jesus talking about burning in hell in the KJV is really talking about Gehenna, which they decided to also translate to the word 'hell.' Gehenna was a place where the worshippers of baal and moloch performed child sacrifice by fire, and they use it to describe how miserable hell is to believers.
>Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. - Ecclesiastes 9:10
Hell is eternal nothingness without God. It's oblivion.
>Or you could use a different brand of bullshit.
Okay now we can go somewhere from here
What makes you think Christianity is bullshit? "We don't know" is only an honest answer out of ignorance.
>It must be a belief since atheists are so fucking terrified of being labeled as believing in something.
Not him but, I'm an atheist. And I have alot of beliefs. I'm a classical liberal for example, which implies certain beliefs about humanity.
But atheism is not a belief. It is the rejection of belief in deities.
>it's only a matter of time before it happens to your god too, until it won't even have the room to be a "prime mover".
Attempting to provide evidence of what happened before the fact, after the fact.
I spilled a soda on the table before you walked into the room. I clearly saw myself spill this soda, yet you're attempting to state that this soda spilled itself.
God caused all reality. God sees and saw Himself cause and sustain reality. You're attempting to disprove what He has experience and evidence of while in what He has caused.
>>The universe needs to be created by something
>According to what exactly? Creation implies intent. You have no reason to believe that.
Because our universe is bound by it's own laws of physics. Again, more silly shit. The universe being constructed the way it is, is less likely than you winning the jackpot every single time for a quadrillion millenniums.
Saying an unintelligent process without intent did it is infinitely more retarded than believing a creator with intent did it.
>God caused all reality. God sees and saw Himself cause and sustain reality. You're attempting to disprove what He has experience and evidence of while in what He has caused.
Please provide evidence of this, assertions=/= fact
>What objective evidence do we have for the existence of a deity?
The universe you self righteous fuck. You have no knowledge of the unseen (what happened before the big bang and what happens after death), yet you still claim intellectual superiority. This is how deluded people like you are.
The universe as a primary example. You can certainly believe that all of it, with its laws and functions, just randomly happened to come existence from absolutely nothing just for the sake of it, but I won't because that's fucking retarded.
>no prophet was ever granted serious evidence by the God/gods he spoke on behalf of
You mean like Musa who split the sea and Mohammed who ascended to the heavens?
>The religious sometimes argue that their God will not prove its existence beyond a doubt because that would rob humans of their free will
But he has - countless times in the past through the miracle of the Prophets. But you don't need miracles (even though the Quran is one in of itself) to come to believe in God - science will do that for you. The more scientific evidence of the universe we've uncovered, the more faithful I've grown. Because to believe such a beautifully complex universe just popped up out of nothing just because is illogical. And you won't convince me with your pseudo
>less likely than you winning the jackpot every single time for a quadrillion millenniums.
I asked last time, but you ignored me. Source/calculations on those numbers please.
What set of universes are you basing these statistics on?
>But atheism is not a belief. It is the rejection of belief in deities.
Holy shit, these niggas are serious!
>My entire first two posts were arguments you fucking troll.
You have nothing, fedoro. Absolutely nothing. A positivist, narrow and closed minded view of things. Just like the "religious" people you despise. You are every fedora ever, nothing new, just parroting what you heard in school.
>The universe as a primary example. You can certainly believe that all of it, with its laws and functions, just randomly happened to come existence from absolutely nothing just for the sake of it, but I won't because that's fucking retarded.
I refuse to believe people still seriously use that piss-poor argument.
>A God would not be exempt from this.
That's false. It is entirely coherent that in that example, God can cause the entire chain to form wherein He proceeds from it.
Example. A -> B ->Z, Z is God and A only exists because God caused it to happen when He emerged as Z.
Atheists are only religious with one of the less common definitions: devotion to a particular cause. Beliefs are real, we have belief and we use it, usually, if we're intelligent, for rational reasons.
Do you believe God doesn't exist?
I'm the only Atheist in this thread who can prove God is stupidity. No disproof needed, just rationality.
>The universe you self righteous fuck. You have no knowledge of the unseen (what happened before the big bang and what happens after death), yet you still claim intellectual superiority. This is how deluded people like you are.
You're deluded, I don't claim to know what or how it happened, you do.
>The universe as a primary example. You can certainly believe that all of it, with its laws and functions, just randomly happened to come existence from absolutely nothing just for the sake of it, but I won't because that's fucking retarded.
There was a peer reviewed study that proves if the constants were a roll of the dice it isn't all that unlikely the universe could support life. Lurk more.
>You mean like Musa who split the sea and Mohammed who ascended to the heavens?
You have to take on faith that that shit actually happened you retard, saying miracles happened isn't proof they happened.
>But he has - countless times in the past through the miracle of the Prophets
Which I have to trust aren't lies/delusions/fantasies
> evidence of the universe we've uncovered, the more faithful I've grown.
Take your anecdotal evidence and shove it up your ass
> Because to believe such a beautifully complex universe just popped up out of nothing just because is illogical. And you won't convince me with your pseudo intellect
Psuedo-intellect is better than a complete absence of it. I am not claiming (believing) knowledge on the origins of the universe, I AM NOT making claims, I am merely saying yours (as a theist) are not proven or logical
The universe began to exist.
Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Since we are "internal" to the universe and did not proceed it, that cause could not have been any one of us or any life that has ever existed within the universe.
The cause of the universe was not anything of matter, energy, space or time as these came into existence at the point of the Big Bang.
Therefore, the cause of the universe transcends the universe.
Why are you so mad, brah?
It's Ok for some people to believe differently than you.
Someone accusing you of living in sin is offensive, but it does you no actual harm. Unless you believe the SJW shtick that words are as harmful as physical violence. I've had fools tell me I'm going to burn in hell, I laughed at them. It was funny. I don't even remember their name anymore, it had no bearing on my life after that brief moment.
All the religious impact on modern science amounts to nothing. All the objections to using aborted fetuses for genetic research was circumvented almost immediately, as will the next round of objections.
>When will retards finally realize that there will never be evidence for God?
>And I'm not even an atheist.
The prophets and their prophecies which came true.
Christ and His miracles.
>The prophets and their prophecies which came true.
>Christ and His miracles.
But the proof that these actually happened has to be accepted on faith in the religious sense of the term which is in spite or in absence of proof/evidence.
Instead of providing a counter argument you're basically rolling your eyes which is supposed to compel the masses into thinking you're so beyond my facile/childish capacity. Protip: you're not
>what are you basing this on?
I can very well say that you never had a 5th birthday. As in you didn't go past the age of 5.
And that would be as false in your case as it would be to assert that God didn't create and sustain existence.
The simple fact is that there's something here, a reality.
The simple fact that there is a reality is evidence of God.
>Atheists still falling for the same old tricks.
The fedora thing must really get to them.
Nobody is actually properly religious here. Most claim they are because 'muh heritage' without acknowledging that Christianity has a heritage of sand-niggers and Jews.
Pretty much everyone is retarded in these threads.
>But the proof that these actually happened has to be accepted on faith in the religious sense of the term which is in spite or in absence of proof/evidence.
And the same can be said for all history. People weren't there to personally witness the events of the past. If you say there are historical records, I'll bring up the Bible.
The same can also be said for *every* single scientific theory that you yourself did not test.
You accept them on the basis of faith that the person who conducted those experiments are telling the truth.
Reminder how Christianity dragged the white race out of the bog and took us to the moon.
Reminder how societies with strong Christian beliefs are too hard for 'joos' mudslimes, commies, nazis" to control.
Reminder that Jesus hated the Jews and the Jews hated Jesus.
Reminder the more whites become less Christian the more they are controlled by shitskins, jews, fags and commies etc etc etc.
> White atheist why do you hate the one and only thing that has been beneficial to the white race and always kept it free.
You think God is real and stuff, but why is your only support for God, religion, if God was real, or useful, surely we could support it with science?
If you know God, why can you not write the bible yourself (obviously without copying it word for word). The writers of the bible, to create such a, celebrated as, 'work of perfection', must have known God to some extent to write his word, perfectly. If the bible is the word of God, where did it come from, and why can we not record this word ourselves (without the bible).
>You accept them on the basis of faith that the person who conducted those experiments are telling the truth.
The difference is the scientific method puts "repeated demonstrations" at the height of crediblty. If OTHERS can't recreate your experiment results, it won't become a theory.
Unless you thought everyone just took your word for it before approving these things?
>No it's not
>faith in a cause is a rational belief,
Faith before it's answered is what you would consider to be an irrational belief. Clarify what you say here.
>by no means does this have to be God.
"The simple fact that there is a reality is evidence of God."
And what would you say is the alternative? And by what evidence? I can point to scripture.
Alright, I'm a lazy ass motherfucker.
It's in one of these videos.
You can peruse through them if you care. And don't be repulsed and annoying because he's a christfaggot, you're a rational human being, there should be no objections to unorthodox statements when you back them up with sound arguments.
Good luck my nigga!
Well we all know either Jesus feigned death after being flogged, beaten, and having his heart rupture, or the apostles stole the body despite none of them expecting the resurrection to even happen. :^)
>But the proof that these actually happened has to be accepted on faith in the religious sense of the term which is in spite or in absence of proof/evidence.
Why must it be accepted on faith? A prophecy is either true, false, too vague to mean anything, a "lucky guess" or written after the fact.
Didn't they find a bible that was made 3000 years ago in ancient Egypt? Supposedly it refutes most of the current bible's claims about jesus and god. Current Christians are following a lie.
They are accepted on faith because you don't have a reliable source that says these miracles occurred. Even if 1,000 jews 1000 years ago said something happened that isn't really admissible in court today.
I'll do it after I've taken a shit.
I just want to ask. Let's say that these dodgy sounding numbers are right, and lets say the universe was created by some intelligent being.
Why and how did you decide that the Christan one was the correct one? Not counting your place of birth/family upbringing of course.
>you don't have a reliable source that says these miracles occurred.
So Alexander the Great did NOT conquer the known world, die, and have his empire split into four kingdoms inherited by his generals?
>The difference is the scientific method puts "repeated demonstrations" at the height of crediblty. If OTHERS can't recreate your experiment results, it won't become a theory.
Well now this can go two ways. I can point out that you yourself have not personally repeatedly demonstrated a majority of the scientific knowledge you pass off as truth, rather have faith in the words of scientists that they're telling the truth.
But, I'll take this in the direction of repeated demonstrations. It's quite simple that many people fail at the methodology that's in the Bible.
>Unless you thought everyone just took your word for it before approving these things?
There are many that have had their faith rewarded. Then you have the fact that the prophecies came true.
This is what I meant by >>34105782.
I don't think anyone, barring the tripfaggot, actually believes that the universe was spoken into existence and created in the was described by Genesis, and all that shit.
Unless /pol/ is more moronic than I thought.
>Well we all know either Jesus feigned death after being flogged, beaten, and having his heart rupture, or the apostles stole the body despite none of them expecting the resurrection to even happen. :^)
Furthermore, many people witnessed the miracles He performed.
If He was truly a liar in every case, Christianity would not have had the foothold it did in its early days.
You really find it hard to follow simple concepts huh?
Every prophet has miracles nigga. Jesus' weren't all that. It's how they sell the bullshit to uneducated niggers.
>"Close-minded" is not an argument, it's an adjective you idiot.
So a bunch of nothing, eh fedoro? Nothing new to add? who takes you seriously? no one. You are insecure of your narrow view of things because you actually doubt your programming, so you had to create a thread seeking attention so other close minded monkeys validate your ideas. Wow. A thread of nothing.
Strong evidence for a Designer comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system, e.g.
The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it was larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms.
Ratio of electron to proton mass (1:1836). Again, if this was larger or smaller, molecules could not form.
Carbon and oxygen nuclei have finely tuned energy levels.
Electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned, so the right kind of star can be stable.
Our sun is the right colour. If it was redder or bluer, photosynthetic response would be weaker.
Our sun is also the right mass. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be too much high energy radiation. If it was smaller, the range of planetary distances able to support life would be too narrow; the right distance would be so close to the star that tidal forces would disrupt the planet’s rotational period. UV radiation would also be inadequate for photosynthesis.
The earth’s distance from the sun is crucial for a stable water cycle. Too far away, and most water would freeze; too close and most water would boil.
The earth’s gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone levels are just right.
>If the bible is the word of God, where did it come from
men divinely inspired by God
>why can we not record this word ourselves (without the bible).
Because the books of the Bible only needed to be written once.
I'm sorry I guess you couldn't notice my sarcasm.
It's silly to insist someone who had their heart rupture "feigned death" and it's silly to think the disciples elaborately planned to steal the body and start a cult that would get them tortured and killed.
>Every prophet has miracles nigga.
And all of those prophets pointed towards only One God.
>Jesus' weren't all that.
>It's how they sell the bullshit to uneducated niggers.
Again, a liar.
>Implying people can't lie and delude themselves
>Doubting human stupidity
Okay, sure, I'm sure people 2,000 years ago were rational enough to face claims of miracles with serious skepticism.
I hope these are copy pastas.
>A bunch of assertions and insults
The adults are talking, honey, go to bed.
>You're deluded, I don't claim to know what or how it happened, you do.
So if you dont, how can you still proclaim the absence of God? Please start making sense.
>There was a peer reviewed study that proves if the constants were a roll of the dice it isn't all that unlikely the universe could support life. Lurk more.
What constants? What roll of the dice. Nothing existed before the Big Bang you fucking retard. Time didn't exist, matter didn't exist - nothing existed. In one single moment, the universe just stretched into existence, but before that, nothing was there. Take your pandering nonsense elsewhere, you aren't going to fool me.
>You have to take on faith that that shit actually happened you retard, saying miracles happened isn't proof they happened.
And I do have faith retard, so I also have the evidence.
>Which I have to trust aren't lies/delusions/fantasies
If you saw a miracle, you'd tell your child right? And he'll tell his child and so on and so forth. This would go from generation to generation (as it has). But out of all those people, who saw the miracle? Only you. And the rest heard a story. So you can see how in thousands of years time, how someone might believe less in the story than the other who heard it much earlier. Doesn't make it any less true though.
>Take your anecdotal evidence and shove it up your ass
>I am merely saying yours (as a theist) are not proven or logical
It is though, and I just demonstrated how and why.
>Because the books of the Bible only needed to be written once.
Talk a deep breath, think.
What. The. Fuck. is the point you're making? You have no point. You fucking deluded piece of shit.
You mean strong inference. No doubt all of these points requires an explanation, but just saying it's God doesn't answer the question.
Furthermore, you say Earth is such a special place, and this proves anything? Well, what about the millions, in fact, billions of other planets with zero possibility of any life? It's called confirmation bias when you only see the positives and none of the negatives.
>And all of those prophets pointed towards only One God.
That's wrong though. Get educated. Pretty much every religion has its own prophets, and they all do fancy shit.
It's how they impress the plebs. It's like getting kids' attention with a dog that can do better tricks than the other dog.
>I'm sorry I guess you couldn't notice my sarcasm.
Sarcasm is only for people that are too afraid to speak the truth plainly.
>It's silly to insist someone who had their heart rupture "feigned death" and it's silly to think the disciples elaborately planned to steal the body and start a cult that would get them tortured and killed.
It's further foolish to "sarcastically" say as such in a serious conversation.
>>A bunch of assertions and insults
You have nothing, fedora. You are nothing new. As I wrote before, you are every atheist ever. Close minded, positivist zombie. You can't prove or disprove God because you already chose not to accept any sort of evidence. You already defeated yourself, that is why no one takes you seriously.
>I just want to ask. Let's say that these dodgy sounding numbers are right, and lets say the universe was created by some intelligent being.
Actually a better explanation would be, that our universe is one out of a literal infinity of multiverses.
>Why and how did you decide that the Christan one was the correct one? Not counting your place of birth/family upbringing of course.
Because out of all the religions ever Christianity not only discourages barbarism and leads to happy fulfilled people (unlike Islam, the Aztec mythology with strict moral codes and ritual sacrifice) It's also been able to maintain powerful traditional and coherent/stable institutions of over two thousand years.
That's pretty goddamn impressive, I'm not saying that's definitive proof, but it's worth checking out. I'm reading all I can about the subject.
I think I won the thread for us Atheists...
I sense the end of the thread.
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
>What. The. Fuck. is the point you're making?
Your argument: Because people who claim to know god can't recreate the Bible without looking at it, God doesn't exist.
Why would the books of the Bible need to be written more than once?
>That's wrong though. Get educated. Pretty much every religion has its own prophets, and they all do fancy shit.
You're ignoring the context of what was said.
The prophets referred to are the prophets whose prophecies came to pass. The likes of Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel, Elijah. Christ.
Their prophecies came to pass.
>It's how they impress the plebs. It's like getting kids' attention with a dog that can do better tricks than the other dog.
Comic books, movies, fiction all utilizing "scientific" terms.
>So if you dont, how can you still proclaim the absence of God? Please start making sense.
I did not claim that I could demonstrate the knowledge that God does not exist, merely that it is logically contradictory and unreasonable.
>What constants? What roll of the dice. Nothing existed before the Big Bang you fucking retard. Time didn't exist, matter didn't exist - nothing existed. In one single moment, the universe just stretched into existence, but before that, nothing was there. Take your pandering nonsense elsewhere, you aren't going to fool me.
Actually, the definition of "nothing" is very complex in regards to quantum physics, so much so that I don't nearly understand it. Suffice to say that "nothing" is very unstable for the universe.
>And I do have faith retard, so I also have the evidence.
Faith and objective evidence are mutually exclusive
>If you saw a miracle, you'd tell your child right? And he'll tell his child and so on and so forth. This would go from generation to generation (as it has). But out of all those people, who saw the miracle? Only you. And the rest heard a story. So you can see how in thousands of years time, how someone might believe less in the story than the other who heard it much earlier. Doesn't make it any less true though.
Yeah, and I'm sure there's no incentive for people to lie about this or fudge the truth?
>It is though, and I just demonstrated how and why.
Okay, take that to the National Academy of Sciences, tell them anon-kun sent you.
>I am choosing not to accept evidence
>Implying that claims such as the Bible are actually proof and not just evidence
>God is real. The Bible is the word of God, how do I know? Because the Bible said so!
>Le circular reasoning faec
Not him, but I want to know more. Not even in this argument or whatever, just more about faith and how you gain it in general.
Been lost in the agnostic quagmire for a long while.
>I'm not saying that's definitive proof
Damn right it's not. The Roman Empire was a powerful institution for around 500 years. Does that add validity to their pantheon of gods? No.
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
>How do I gain reliance on this unreliable reasoning process?
>I feel like I'm not being unreasonable enough. I wish I could just believe in things totally absent of evidence!
Are you retarded?
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
This does no prove whatever "transcends" the Universe is anything like the deity describes by any religion, so it doesn't prove neither deism or theism.
For all we know, Mr.Joe Montana farted in another dimension, and we are the result.
So you're saying the Universe didn't begin to exist huh
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
And yet they fell.
Also, the Roman Empire wasn't a religious institution, and even if it was like Islam is was just conversion through force, "Be Roman, or die a savage".
While Christianity was more of a sociological movement that swept across the Rome and the ancient world.
As I said, it's not definitive proof by any means but it's worth checking out at least.
The Catholic church for instance survived the plague, the Renaissance, The Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, Two World Wars, and the 1960s flower child generation.
And the old gal is still kicking, the Christians I know are rational people, they aren't insecure cultists or anything. That's why Christianity if the first place I'm going to. If I want to be intellectually honest I need to investigate what seems to be pretty absurd shit right?
I'm just excited to see where this trail leads more than anything.
Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant (also known as "dark energy"). This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe.2 However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.3
The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which is reproduced here:
One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037. (p. 115)
Wait, before I go, a nice thing to say, about humans in general. We are very loyal creatures, like dogs in some respects, when we have a belief it's in our hearts to stick it out to the end... Some theists may be intelligent but they've got themselves caught up in a particular side of a argument and, being loyal, they will likely stick it out to the end. Plus, all that work defending your points goes to waste if you just give up, right?
If I were you, take an agnostic position, until you can provide evidence for God, then as you grow wiser (which you will), you can phase out into Atheism.
The ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas - no planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be possible in such a universe.
Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8% (Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers).
>Not even in this argument or whatever, just more about faith and how you gain it in general.
>Been lost in the agnostic quagmire for a long while.
I'll address this as scientifically as possible.
Acknowledge and respect God. Follow His commandments. Research what He values and what He wants done and do them.
As He has said, He will not forsake anyone who loves and cherishes Him.
The faith portion comes in when every worldly man would tell you to do something contrary to God's Will, that the ways of the world and of man are the only "intelligent" and "right" way.
As in, they say to harden your heart, to ignore those in need of help, to turn the other cheek during in times of great duress when doing these things seem like the very things that end in your death.
It is in times like that when faith turns into fact, and you see that everything that has been written has been for a reason, and things turn out to be the best that they can be.
You used Kalam's cosmological argument in favor of religion, to which service it cannot be used, because even if the argument is logically sound and valid, it doesn't prove the validity of theism or deism.
>If I were you, take an agnostic position, until you can provide evidence for God, then as you grow wiser (which you will), you can phase out into Atheism.
I tried that, and I ended up back as a Christian
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)
>Actually, the definition of "nothing" is very complex in regards to quantum physics
Your hopeful definitions are amusing. There's a difference between something being unstable because of nothing, and nothing existing all together. If nothing exist, how can anything be unstable? This is what has tripped atheists for so long, because it's an impossible to answer not only in of itself, but also with evidence.
>Faith and objective evidence are mutually exclusive
>Yeah, and I'm sure there's no incentive for people to lie about this or fudge the truth?
...how has the truth been lied about or fudged? There's a reason the story of Musa splitting the sea water is still around and not Musa splitting the mountain, or splitting whatever else. Just because you didn't see it doesnt mean it didnt happen buddy boy.
>Okay, take that to the National Academy of Sciences, tell them anon-kun sent you.
Yeah yeah, I'm sure science is infallible and can prove everything :^)
Then what do you mean when you say God? To say the word implies you know something, words are ways be express our knowledge, what knowledge is expressed with God, and what led to this conclusion?
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of ChristianityThe Physics of Christianity.
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)
It takes two seconds to do a bit of research to find that the fine tuning argument is a load of horseshit.
Of course, seeking out knowledge is antithetical to the religious way of thinking. I can't expect too much.
Gotta love the good old fashioned quote mining.
>to which service it cannot be used
>even if the argument is logically sound and valid,
>it doesn't prove the validity of theism or deism.
It would be nice if you explained why
You cannot have physical evidence of God. It defies the "faith" part of every religion.
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)
>.how has the truth been lied about or fudged? There's a reason the story of Musa splitting the sea water is still around and not Musa splitting the mountain, or splitting whatever else. Just because you didn't see it doesnt mean it didnt happen buddy boy.
Can you prove that it happened beyond a reasonable doubt? No? Then you're taking it on faith, buddy boy
>Yeah yeah, I'm sure science is infallible and can prove everything :^)
You're conflating accepted science of today and the scientific method, one is a lot more fallible then the other (that's your homework, figuring out which)
>Your hopeful definitions are amusing. There's a difference between something being unstable because of nothing, and nothing existing all together. If nothing exist, how can anything be unstable? This is what has tripped atheists for so long, because it's an impossible to answer not only in of itself, but also with evidence.
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)
There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)
Faith in God since, oh I don't know, there is no physical evidence of him? If there was physical evidence of him, almost everyone would believe in him which would directly violate the reason God created us, i.e for us to worship him and be rewarded for having faith.
>It would be nice if you explained why
I tried to, but you didn't understand apparently. The only thing the cosmological argument proves, is that the Universe had a cause that was beyond the Universe.
How do you get from that point, to the Bible and Jesus dying on the Cross etc? How do you square a simple logical illustration of causation, with fairy tales in the Middle-East 2000 years ago?
I'll sum it up in 3 things.
1) Read the Bible.
2) Believe it.
3) Do the things it says to do.
You'll see as I see that the majority of the things people complain about today, especially /pol/ come as a result of people not following the commandments written. Just as examples:
>Oppressing fair wages of labor (that is, deliberately paying less than what the labor is worth, think of monopolies)
>Injustice in any form
>Politicians who lie
>I tried to
Not really, you just flatly said it without any argument.
>The only thing the cosmological argument proves, is that the Universe had a cause that was beyond the Universe.
How does it not correlate with the belief of a deist?
Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
This cause is what we call God.
Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist and are all finite. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
This being is whom we call God.
>i.e for us to worship him and be rewarded for having faith.
We aren't rewarded for having faith. By loving God, God's love comes to us.
If you don't love God you wouldn't want to go to heaven, and would prefer hell.
I don't have one. I'll have to buy one.
I'm guessing just like saying out loud "I believe in God" or something doesn't count for much?
I do actually WANT to believe, here. I just want it to be right, and not just be wanting it that way.
Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.
These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
Therefore, perfection must have a pinnacle.
This pinnacle is whom we call God.
All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
Acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
This being is whom we call God.
>an infinite regress of causation is impossible
Because you say so, right?
>Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
So, once again, God is a special snowflake.
>These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
This is probably the biggest load of shit in this thread.
>All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
>These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
>Acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
No, that tops it.
All natural bodies follow laws of conduct.
These objects are themselves unintelligent.
Laws of conduct are characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that created the laws for all natural bodies.
This being is whom we call God.
by which you mean a significance-laden-but-open-to-personal-interpretation-representation-of-spiritual-feminine?
sure, whatever. If you're going to grant that however then you may have to grant that animals with a concept of 'other' probably have something as uncomplicated as that too.
>What a great way to live. Don't bother with that thinking malarkey. That's for stupid people.
>Be in grade school
>Presented with science textbook.
>told to believe it.
>then do as it says.
If people are able to hold the beliefs of Christianity after investigation, what does that say about you, you who did nothing to investigate it if you're that intent on thinking?
>How does it not correlate with the belief of a deist?
Because, for all we know, like I said, that cause could be the fart of an alien in another dimension. How the hell could you know? Why do you assume, and believe shit that is impossible to prove? Because it makes you feel good?
Fine. But you haven't proven anything.
>thinking laws of physics actually means actual laws
Holy shit you people are dumb. The laws of physics are man-made constructs that describe what we observe to the best of our ability.
Science books use data from repeatable experiments though. You can actually determine the truth of the claims through observation.
Maybe you take everything on face value, but not everyone is so simple.
You are not a logician, your attempt at proving the quinque viae is a laughable at best. No quantity of evidence will ever convince you (causality, logic, math, the laws of thermodynamics), you already defeated yourself and you prove my point, you are every fedora ever. Ignorant, narrow minded, angry, pathetic.
Oh, I didn't disagree about the worshiping part, just the faith part.
I think God can be believed in without faith, but with proof. I don't know if you're Christian, but that was one of the points of the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man.
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
>Science books use data from repeatable experiments though. You can actually determine the truth of the claims through observation.
Already addressed. See>>34105834
"Well now this can go two ways. I can point out that you yourself have not personally repeatedly demonstrated a majority of the scientific knowledge you pass off as truth, rather have faith in the words of scientists that they're telling the truth.
But, I'll take this in the direction of repeated demonstrations. It's quite simple that many people fail at the methodology that's in the Bible."
>Faith in God? What is God? I thought you didn't know God. How can you have faith in something you don't know?
>What is God?
The creator of the Universe.
>I thought you didn't know God
Nobody does, no
>How can you have faith in something you don't know?
Having faith is having complete confidence on something. The "something" doesn't have to be something you know.
>like I said
I'm not even going into that.
The Universe has to be created by an intelligent being, that being is God.
Isn't it a more beautiful thought that death is the end? Doesn't it grant value to life? An animal doesn't contemplate heaven, be more like the animal. If heaven's out there, adjusting to the common attitude is probably a good idea, and no matter what, your death will be the end of you on Earth, believing in heaven as a ultimate goal is not the ideal objective. You would make your mark on Earth, so that after you die, the people who are still alive on Earth live in good memory of you.
Check my, more complex, concept of morality. Does it beat yours? Am I more of a lovable person? Am I good-er? You decide.
(a) in one sense, that as the result of whose presence something comes into being—e.g., the bronze of a statue and the silver of a cup, and the classes which contain these [i.e., the material cause];
(b) in another sense, the form or pattern; that is, the essential formula and the classes which contain it—e.g. the ratio 2:1 and number in general is the cause of the octave—and the parts of the formula [i.e., the formal cause].
(c) The source of the first beginning of change or rest; e.g. the man who plans is a cause, and the father is the cause of the child, and in general that which produces is the cause of that which is produced, and that which changes of that which is changed [i.e., the efficient cause].
(d) The same as "end"; i.e. the final cause; e.g., as the "end" of walking is health. For why does a man walk? "To be healthy", we say, and by saying this we consider that we have supplied the cause [the final cause].
(e) All those means towards the end which arise at the instigation of something else, as, e.g., fat-reducing, purging, drugs and instruments are causes of health; for they all have the end as their object, although they differ from each other as being some instruments, others actions [i.e., necessary conditions].
There is no methodology in the bible, only interpretation. Science gets results, and is constantly adjusting itself to be more inline with reality.
If you think science is based on faith alone, then you're in denial. It's not like you're reaping the fruits of experiment and observation by typing at me presumably from some other corner of the planet.
You have listened to far too many people speaking on the subject instead of reading it.
If you can scientifically ascertain bias within an experiment, then you should certainly see that approaching the Bible with ideas of "literally or metaphorically" instead of accepting it without wordly ideas taints your final understanding of it.
Asking questions such as that before reading it is pointless.
>Can you prove that it happened beyond a reasonable doubt? No? Then you're taking it on faith, buddy boy
Can you prove that it didn't happen beyond a reasonable doubt? No? Then you're taking it on faith, buddy boy
Was this suppose to prove anything? It's just a whole bunch of people going on about a lot of ifs.
>You're conflating accepted science of today and the scientific method, one is a lot more fallible then the other (that's your homework, figuring out which)
And accepted science has nothing to say in concrete about what happens before the big bang. Because it's an impossibility.
Do you really think the religious would commit suicide en masse if they didn't consider suicide a sin that would keep them out of heaven?
If you believed in God and did not seek the most out of your life, it would be like spitting in the face of God. You were given an opportunity to experience and affect this world. Why wouldn't you live it to the fullest?
Saying with any degree of confidence the likelyhood of ANY past event becomes more 'improbable' the further you go back.
The likelyhood of a centurion eating a meal made from a ground slab of beef pressed between two pieces of a substance made from ground wheat and protien baked until brown, with a little greenery for the flavor is (mathematically unlikely).
Claiming the universe being the way it is as evidence for another proposition is comparable to a puddle being pleased at how well suited it is to this hole... see, it fits it perfectly!
Pointing out that we haven't been destroyed by meteors in no rational way justifies an absurd assertion like divine protection.
Faith for faith only... okey dokey.
ITT: Trolls trolling trolls.
>>But a god existing for all eternity makes sense
>Well, you're a logician, so I'll take your word for it
He is the singularity. The first mover. The first cause. The creator. There is no clock without a clock maker.
>This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" ??????????? [pantokrat?r], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect - Isaac Newton
>Can you prove that it didn't happen beyond a reasonable doubt? No? Then you're taking it on faith, buddy boy
You're making the claim that god exists. If your position is that the default position is Christian then obviously children don't need to hear about it.
>And accepted science has nothing to say in concrete about what happens before the big bang. Because it's an impossibility.
Okay, well present your theory of God is eternal to any recognized scientific community and I'm sure they'll recognize your rational, proven, and objective theory for the origins of the universe and you will be awarded suitably!
>He is the singularity. The first mover. The first cause. The creator. There is no clock without a clock maker.
>God existing forever makes sense
>But the universe existing forever makes no sense
Le false dichotomy ex dee :D
>There is no methodology in the bible, only interpretation.
" Know therefore that the Lord thy God, He is God, the faithful God, who keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations,"
There are many more verses reflecting that those who follow God's commandments shall reap rewards.
>constantly adjusting itself to be more inline with reality.
And the implication of that is not everything found by science is inline with reality if adjustment needs to be made.
>If you think science is based on faith alone, then you're in denial.
That's false. There's an inherent element of faith that everything researched prior is 100% accurate and correct.
There's also the most inherent element of faith that the laws of physics themselves will forever remain constant the way they are.
You also have responsibilities, living your life to the fullest doesn't make your son or daughter make it to reproductive age themselves, and generally being destructive to the world doesn't grant them the same freedom as you had on Earth. A healthy planet. You could do what thou wilt for years of your life, and end up doing more damage to the Earth than sensible. In 1000 years, children will suffer because of you. Is it really 'good' to live to the fullest?
Just remember that the Bible is a library of books, including saga, history, law, poetry, prophecy, biographies, and letters. You won't treat each book the same, and you have to understand the historical context of when each book was written.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htxOjJHB5-8 is a good video about this
Well we can't disprove the existence of (Non-Specified god), but we can, without any difficulty prove the non-existence of the God According To The Bible.
Such an entity is self refuting, and the events described are, to certain extents, demonstrably impossible.
Global floods and talking asses. Riiiiiiight.
If you ever wish to analyze the bible within its original languages, see http://www.scripture4all.org/
It has every book with word for word translations from the original languages into english along with the commonly accepted meaning.
>There's also the most inherent element of faith that the laws of physics themselves will forever remain constant the way they are.
There's an assumption that billions of years of consistency will not suddenly change for no reason. That's faith in the secular sense, not in the religious sense. As I have said earlier, retard theists don't know that there's a secular + religious definition of faith.
>Le false dichotomy ex dee :D
It is not, that is why the quinque viae stood the test of time.
>the universe existing forever
Not the universe. God is eternal, the universe was created.
>But the universe existing forever makes no sense
>Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.
the universe is flat. It has a finite age. It is not eternal. This is coming from NASA, not the bible.
>"They are not necessarily meant to be self-sufficient “proofs” of God’s existence; as worded, they propose only to explain what it is “all men mean” when they speak of “God”. Many scholars point out that St. Thomas’s actual arguments regarding the existence and nature of God are to be found liberally scattered throughout his major treatises, and that the five ways are little more than an introductory sketch of how the word “God” can be defined without reference to special revelation"
>His understanding of what mean by God has stood the test of time
>Therefore God exists
Therefore personal god? Try again.
To be honest Atheists, look how much I fucking tare up. Most Atheists are stupid anyway, they accept too much bullshit and get themselves deeper in stupid shit. They need to be more direct (as said prior), and they are stupid in some other cases, such as when a Theist calls them religious. The correct answer is, yes, I'm religious if the definition is "devotion to a particular cause". Or thinking things like creation and morality is God-exclusive, that there can't be a rational good or rational creation. Society is very very confused because of God.
I am not appealing to authority. I am stating that you can not prove what you claim to know objectively.
It is not provable in a scientific or legal sense.
I am not saying you are wrong because scientists do not agree with you.
You keep using that word I don't think you know what it means.
When you say "something" you imply knowledge of the particular word you used. It's meant to make sense in our minds, but you have no knowledge of "something", so it's a fallacy using the word. Again, it's the same as me saying "I believe in geadoihi", it's a statement that refers to nothing, a meaningless stupidity.
>There's an assumption that billions of years of consistency will not suddenly change for no reason.
Entropy certainly changes things.
In any case, any scientific findings for man has only occurred on planet Earth. Gravity, atomic interactions can certainly be different under much different conditions, conditions that completely nullify any of the current findings.
>That's faith in the secular sense, not in the religious sense. As I have said earlier, retard theists don't know that there's a secular + religious definition of faith.
No, both operate under faith. You're simply applying the idea of whether the faith belongs to religious or secular ideals.
The faith is the same, the subject of the faith is what you're semantically arguing.
It's still faith.
YOU STUUUUPID motherfucker.
EVIDENCE means that it CANNOT be used to support a competing theory.
"Popped up out of nothing" is bullshit too, and not what the scientific consensus concludes either. Merely that 'time' as we know it cannot be measured in any meaningful way before the universe's singularity.
No one ever claimed something from nothing was possible, unless they claim a self-made creator of universes.
Calling the Quran a miracle reduces the word miracle to shit-tier. If a book can be a miracle so can muh-dick. Make way for nigga-jesus!
>Well we can't disprove the existence of (Non-Specified god)
here let me summarize it for you:
>No credible evidence for Buddah's divinity, disregard claim.
Buddha never claimed to be god. And Buddha is a title, not a person. Technically speaking, you can reach Buddhist enlightenment without even being a Buddhist.
>No credible evidence for Thor's divinity, disregard claim.
>No credible evidence for Zeus' divinity, disregard claim.
>No credible evidence for Ra's divinity, disregard claim.
>No credible evidence for Odin's divinity, disregard claim.
Any religion that suggests nature is arbitrary is false, and can be dismissed by the very existence of science.
>No credible evidence for Shiva's divinity, disregard claim.
Hinduism states in a very literal meaning that the universe is 155 trillion years old.
If you knew anything about Hebrew idioms you would know that it's not a global flood. Otherwise the verse would also imply that Noah left the ark after the oceans dried up. The flood was the expansion of the black sea.
If you believe someone resurrected from the dead and fed +5,000 with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, it's not much of a stretch of belief.
>>"They are not necessarily meant
>>Therefore God exists
He does exist and Aquinas meant to prove the existence of God with logic alone as he stated in the summa, being a superb logician. As I wrote before, no amount of proof will ever convince you, since you already chose to be a close minded mental midget and you are in denial. You are a waste of time.
>When you say "something" you imply knowledge of the particular word you used.
Do you actually interpret my saying of "Nobody knows God" as literal? Nobody knows God as in nobody knows what he is like and how he looks like (though I'm not sure if he has a physical form).
Everyone knows that God is the creator of the Universe. He could very well exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If you believe in something that you sincerely believe it exists, even if there is no material evidence of it existing, then you have faith it exists.
"Quick, I've just wrote the bible and it doesn't make sense".
"Give it a definition... It's nothing, so I'll say it's everything, it's stupid and irrational, so I'll say it knows all... Any more ideas?"
Way to apply the universe to fiction.
>Implying the definition for 1. doesn't adequately describe the definition for 2.
>Implying that the only difference between 1 and 2 ISN'T the subject of that "trust or confidence")
Well you have to remember that most people believe/don't believe in God based on logical fallacies and emotional feelings.
Some people want that cozy feeling of having a Godfather (lel) exist. Others don't like the idea of an allpowerful being watching their every action and judging them for it.
Are you vapid? Have you come to a point where you will keep repeating your self-evident maxim as if I somehow didn't catch it?
Nobody personally knows God you dunce. Every deist and theist agrees that God(s) created the Universe and there may be additional stories/informations.
A tunnel to the tomb is an easy and natural explanation for a missing body.
Without emperical, its impossible to rule out a staged execution either.
We DO know that, historically OTHER executions/vanishing bodies HAVE occurred through this tunnel trick.
Bloody good for impressing peasants, bloody stupid that we still have idiots thinking it was some kind of genuine. Just how stupid ARE you fuckers?
You're a liar.
You're also failing to address
>The people that saw Christ after He had risen
>The supernatural events that occurred while Christ was on the Cross.
>The numerous other miracles that Christ completed.
and if the makeup of the earths crust was just a LITTLE bit different it would be stable and we wouldn't have earthquakes or tidal waves!!!
Who the fuck would the priests look to for evidence of 'gods anger' then, eh?
If there was a tunnel in the tomb they would've found evidence of one inside of it and squashed Christianity at the start.
And it's a lot of effort to dig a tomb with 1st century technology in a span of 2 days, not to mention close it back up without any evidence of it ever being there. The resurrection story has far too many ducks in a row.
>Why wait so long for the finishing blow if you can beat me here, beat me.