>Because life took a long time to develop, God is not real!
???

Insecurity means your faith is fake.

>>17783182
>everything means your faith is fake and mine (the big bang(what came before?)) is real!
don't think so!

>>17783208
The big bang was God.
Claims that God isnt powerful enough to create an infinite universe or create a complex process like evolution is signs of a weak faith. You will never comprehend what God is capable of. Its not possible. Stop trying. Just have faith.

>>17783208
>doesn't understand what the big bang is
What do you think the big bang model is describing?

>Infinite universe created in an instant
Almost like God snapped his fingers. Whats the issue here?

>>17783220
>doesn't understand the big bang
What do you think the big bang is?

Stop believing television.

>>17783218
What caused the big bang, real simple question!

>actually it doesn't matter that everything we know about astronomy, geology, and biology completely contradicts genesis
Theist apologetics are literally just becoming newage stoner yoga chicks out of sheer desperation.

>>17783230
There's no evidence of the big bang other than the space/universe is expanding.

>>17783225
The start of the observable universe. A time of rapid expansion of all matter and space time, roughly 14 billion years ago. Its not a statement of what came before, or what caused.

>>17783230
What caused god?

>>17783230
The universe is necessarily eternal in both time directions via the quantum eternity theorem. It is not created and is not finite in time. The specific mechanism of inflation is not currently understood.

>>17783243
God was always here. There is no other explanation.
>>17783244
The universe is God's.

>>17783233
>contradicts genesis
so what? Genesis being imprecise (a text written before the existence of science) is to be expected. You are evaluating a symbolic text through literal means.
Do you want to go over how Frodo Baggins wasn't actually real now?

>>17783251
>God was always here. There is no other explanation.
Then the universe always existed with no explaination

>>17783243
God exists outside time and causation; they are things of the material world.
The reality in which God exists in unchanging and eternal while this world and all of its rules are the result of His creation.

>>17783252
So the idea that the big bang could be what genesis describes, alegorically, is possible? And that the 6000 years since creation in genesis is 14 billion is viable?

>>17783252
I'm not that anon, but I don't understand this argument. Without the fall as an explanation for death the entire Bible is no longer relevant metaphysically. I don't understand how you rectify this.

>>17783256
>Then the universe always existed with no explaination
Nope! The universe is physical, temporal, and subject to the rules of causation so by definition it has to have a cause.

>>17783260
The universe is eternal and changing.
It has no begining or end. It has always existed, without cause, and its only constant is change.

>>17783265
>The universe is subject to the rules of causation
proof?

>>17783265
Nope, doesn't work that way. Monism is necessarily true in all possible worlds thus the existence of an eternal universe is its own explanation

>>17783182
You really spend 24/7 on this board spamming the same pictures and seething and christians, don't you? What a pathetic existence.

>>17783271
I spend 24/7 on this board and have never seen that image posted. You must spend 24/7 here in the threads about is god real or fake. Have those threads benefited your life in any way. Do you think this thread is a good use of the gift of life God gave you? Serious question.

>>17783267
>>17783269
>>17783270
Are you science lovers trying to deny the Big Bang now? (a universally accepted position among physicists)
wew lad

>>17783279
The big bang is not the start of the universe. Its the start of the observable universe. Meaning its effectively a door blocking vision in to what came before. It makes no statement of what was before or what will be after.

>>17783265
No the universe is uncaused and eternal

>>17783279
>The Big Bang theory describes the universe's origin from an extremely hot, dense state, but it doesn't offer insight into what, if anything, existed before that
Just because you dont understand the big bang doesnt mean physicists claim its the start of the universe.

>>17783279
The big bang does not say the universe started from nothing or that it was the beginning of the universe. It says that inflation happens 14 billion years ago from a hot dense state.

>>17783177 (OP)
ur brown

>>17783256
The universe is not a sentient being, it is clearly designed and created. Someone has to created it, and that someone must have always existed or else nothing would exist. There's no other explanation.

>>17783252
>Do you want to go over how Frodo Baggins wasn't actually real now?
Okay, but there's not faggot retards who want to base society around Frodo Baggins, who insist on debating that he's real.

>>17783182
>If you have a reason to believe you don't believe
You sound like a crazy gf.

>>17783290
And yeah why does any of this, including evolution, constitute as nonexistence of God?

>>17783314
>Someone has to created it,
No beause it's uncaused and eternal it doesn't need creation

>>17783244
>The universe is necessarily eternal in both time directions
>the universe is fundamental because I SAID SO!

>>17783317
because while Frodo is imaginary, what he is symbolizing is not; the temptation of sin, evil, and the struggle to overcome it.
Genesis is the same. While it is not a literal account of a physical garden it is an account of the structure of creation and the folly of man in wanting to take the power of God while being unprepared to deal with the unseen reality of being like Him; that God contains all good and all evil but is powerful enough to be in a state of constant triumph over it.

>>17783270
>Monism is necessarily true in all possible worlds
Monism is obvious nonsense, since the multiplicity argument refutes it.

>>17783338
Bradley literally proved monism must be true. There is no valid multiplicity argument.

>>17783344
>appeal to authority
lol

Also, the irony is that you informing me of this further deviates from the understanding that reality is whole and one :)

>>17783332
It's fundamental because it can be proved to be. >>17783349
I didn't appeal to authority, I appealed to a formal proof.
>Also, the irony is that you informing me of this further deviates from the understanding that reality is whole and one :)
I think you misunderstand what monism is.

>>17783355
the universal is causal and temporal: it is constantly changing and suffering from entropy. Because entropy hasn't been fully undergone, the universe by definition cannot be eternal as it would have ended.

>>17783355
>I didn't appeal to authority, I appealed to a formal proof.
There is no such thing as a formal proof for monism because the entire argument is tautological to begin with. Monists literally have to reject pluralism on the grounds it has to fit into a monistic conception of reality, therefore monism is correct. Against, tautological.
>I think you misunderstand what monism is.
Monism is a rejection of otherhood.

>>17783325
and you sound like a midwit deflecting because the razor hit too close. calling it “crazy” doesn’t make it wrong — it just shows you’re scared of what it reveals about your own belief.

>>17783367
Entropy is a meme and 2nd law of thermodynamics (incorrectly) applied to an infinite cosmos.

>>17783278
Christcucks always do this when they have no argument.
>omg you made this thread 400 times already today!

>>17783368
That's not what Bradley's regression is. He assumes pluralism and shows it implies a contradiction.
Monism just means that there's one substance that is fundamental, and while emergeng patterns can be different, they are still of the same substance. A good analogy is go imagine a piece of wood carved into either a triangle or a square. A triangle and square are different patterns,but the substance is the same. Now of course wood is itself emergent and not fundamental but this analogy can help one conceptualize how monism works.

>>17783372
that's two proven laws of physics you have denied to uphold your eternalism, on what grounds at this point can you deny God? Because evidence has gone out the window

>>17783384
There is literally a mathematical theorem that shows the universe is necessarily eternal in both time directions. Thermodynamics doesn't contradict the theorem.

>>17783333
You don't do this though with any other myth or folk tale despite literally every single one being a morality lesson. You would scoff at the idea or, worse, entirely dismiss people as disingenous LARPers for it.

>>17783388
This is something I find disingenuous about the Christians who make those arguments as well. The Bible isn't any better than any other work of literature and is in fact worse than many other works. Aesops fables, for example, are better than anything I've read in the Bible.

>>17783387
Math is an abstraction; it shows possibilities not realities. Experiments prove thermodynamics

>see new religion thread
>quickly get a few inane posts playing both sides in 60s apart
>watch as retards spend the next 3 days replying to your shit flinging as if you care
This thread will get me 5 days or red text in my thread watcher (that i wont even read lolol)

>>17783367
NTA but entropy is a statistical law. It's more likely that when you roll 5 dice they are an even distribution between 1 and 6 but it isn't impossible to roll 5 6's just less likely. Similarly if you have an apple in a box and it decays given enough time it will rearranging itself back into an apple because it's possible to do so.

>>17783409
>everything is le conspiracy

>>17783413
Ironically you disbelieving me is a conspiracy.

>>17783420
kek I like u

>>17783370
Anon. I have faith in my dad as a good father and friend because of instances I can point to where he was a good father and friend to me. If my dad was awful I would feel differently. It doesn't mean I don't have "true" faith. It means simply that I have evidence to back up my faith.

You can have faith in God with less evidence than others, but faith is still faith regardless if you have evidence to prove it or not.

>>17783745
your dad is known — physical, visible, tangible. you can evaluate him, recall moments, weigh actions. belief in god isn’t like that — it’s belief in the unknowable, the infinite, the absolute mystery. the second you start reaching for “evidence,” you’ve dragged god down to something less than divine — something that can be analyzed, proven, verified. but that’s not god — that’s an idol shaped to comfort you.

real faith begins where knowledge ends. it’s a plunge into the unknown, a surrender to what can’t be grasped. the moment you say “i believe because,” you’re no longer trusting — you’re negotiating. and that’s the core of christcuck’s razor: if your faith depends on reasons, signs, or personal anecdotes, you’re not believing in god — you’re believing in your own narrative to protect you from uncertainty.

god doesn’t need your reasons. your ego does.

>>17783177 (OP)
Why is washing dirty jewish perineums with your tongue so important to you?

>>17783230
Do you seriously believe the answer to that is a "jewish wizard with multiple personality disorder"?

>>17783177 (OP)
>Because life took a long time to develop, God is not real!
This is the part where you pretend you feign ignorance about being some flavor of semitic sophist so you can attack this argument from behind smoke and mirrors of deism.
RE:
it's a perfectly consistent argument against religions that claim living things were spawned into existence by a creator.

>>17783759
I like how the LLM is excluding capitalization to try and look more genuine kek

>>17783770
>Jewishness existed before the universe
holy rent free

>>17783879
You're less intelligent than an LLM

>>17783882
Keep working on it sar!

>>17783905
He's right, you have nothing.

>>17783881
Bingo. It's obvious to anyone with a working brain that the god of Christianity has nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

>>17783177 (OP)
>>Because life took a long time to develop, God is not real!
Nobody says this in earnest. What people mean when they say this is because life took a long time to develop it likely means the Abrahamic God specifically isn't real, since it contradicts the Biblical narrarative of how the Earth and life came to be. This in and of itself does not actually disprove other gods or the possibility of other gods, just the Sky-Jew-Kaiju specifically

>>17783177 (OP)
Well you have to admit it's a bit weird that if God wanted to create humanity and had the power to just poof it into existence (like what the Bible describes basically) that he instead decided to create it through what looks for all the world like a random, natural process of billions of years of evolution.