Thread 17964771

The universe cannot be the product of randomness.

Why does your deity have to be the same one the jews worship? Mankind has created countless deities. Why do you think that specific one must be the 'right' one? You are an atheist for all the other deities mankind has worshiped, but that specific one is true?

>>17964775
>Why does your deity have to be the same one the jews worship?
Because they reached monotheism, which has proven to be more powerful than polytheism.
>Mankind has created countless deities.
Mankind hasn't "created" a single deity, there is only one. The "deities" you're talking about are just figments of human imagination. But there is only one true God.

>>17964775
Well, because He is not just another idea we made up. He is the one who revealed Himself, made promises, and showed His power through history. Every other god stays silent because they are just stories. He is the one who actually showed up.

>>17964775
Because I'm special

>>17964775
Serious answer:
Because the only way to create a finite world is through the hands of an infinite being
God is infinite
And 2 infinites cannot exist as that defies the definiion of "infinity"

Therefore, there can only be 1 God

>>17964933
the universe is infinite in time and size

>>17964933
multiple infinities can exist, you don't seem very educated in math and you should shut your mouth when it comes to these sorts of things

>>17964933
>because I'm special

>>17964771 (OP)
>The universe cannot be the product of randomness.
Terrible argument for God because

1.) God is meant to be eternal
2.) God exists outside of time

This means
1.) The creation of the universe is inevitable given enough time, thus his free will is not necessary
And/or
2.) Because he exists outside of time it means we can reduce his decision to create the universe to just 2 possible outcomes; Either he creates the universe or he doesn't, and this effectively emerges out of a coinflip as we've effectively reduced his agency to random chance.

>>17964771 (OP)
>The universe cannot be the product of randomness.
The existence of God is inherently random as he is either an uncaused cause (special pleading) or nothing created him (which is just a way to move the goalpost away from "nothing needed to create the universe")

The God cannot be the product of randomness.

>>17964771 (OP)
>the universe can't be randomly created
>therefore there's a special sky daddy who speaks to me in my dreams and creates talking snakes
Theists are so retarded

>>17964775
But what if … stick with me … man is real (seems to be the case) and the divine is real (general assumption) and it is not about any one true god or god(s) being correct but the flaw lies within mans interpretation

>>17965575
What do you dream about anon?

>>17965597
Not him but I dream about Hat

>>17965618
You know what is odd I actually have had a recurring dream of teeth falling out before lmao. But mostly I dont dream at all

>>17964771 (OP)
Either all deities are real or they're all fake.

>>17965618
>>17965626
Is this just a Yuro thing? I have plenty of dreams but none about my teeth falling out. I don't know anyone who has a dream like that. My most common dreams are being with family in weird dreamlike locations (like massive houses, or public areas like Malls or Main Streets but with weird impossible layouts or geometry)
I'm an American by the way

>>17965633
I am American too I just saw teeth falling out associated with Irish and that fed my bias then I looked closer at the chart and half the countries nearly have a similar dream so idk

>>17965637
Yeah, that's just one of those things that lots of people dream about. Probably because we all lost all of our teeth at a certain point and or it signifies decay.

>>17965757
I'm almost 30 and my teeth are still in perfect health. When is the decay supposed to start?

>>17965760
I'm not sure but you did lose all of your teeth when you were a kid and it would suck to lose teeth now. I still vividly remember the sensation of pushing them out with my tongue, I'll dream that's happening again sometimes. But mostly I dream of Hat.

>>17965547
Should you run your mouth instead, Mr. Math?

>>17965760
Actually, now that I'm thinking of it. It might have more to do with the resolution of dreams. Kind of like when you try to read something in them, little fine details are difficult to render. Got a lot of teeth, teeth are small and they're connected to a region that eats up a lot of sensation real estate.

God is real. You most likely don’t believe in God because you’ve been lied to over and over about a good God, but God is in fact evil. Once you think about our God being evil He becomes way more credible.

>>17965775
That's pretty much what Gnostics think. For Jews God is a lot more personal which means he could either be merciful or kind of a dick depending on who you are and who you ask. It's only mainstream Christians that believe in Omnibenevolence. It's pretty explicit in the Old Testament that God is responsible for Evil

>>17965775
Why on earth would you quote Woody Allen on anything, let alone God?

>>17964771 (OP)
>The universe cannot be the product of randomness
Why not? Give a credible scientific explanation for your assertion

And nothing is more random than the mystic brainworms of millenia old goat herders in the desert

>>17966280
Are you random? Are your thoughts random?

>>17964771 (OP)
The universe isn't random and nothing truly random has ever been observed, the idea 'randomness' even exists is fanciful and athiests assume this is self-evidently tautologically a thing for some reason. The reality is the universe is highly ordered, consistent, non-random and this plus the fact that existence is like this at all and not like anything else suggests that it is far more likely that God is real than otherwise. If we actually lived in an uncreated, chaotic, meaningless universe with no driver or laws ruling it then it wouldn't look like the one we're in.
>>17965554
Terrible argument against God because

>1.) God is meant to be eternal
>1.) The creation of the universe is inevitable given enough time, thus his free will is not necessary
the creation of the universe is not inherently inevitable just because God is eternal, you have just assumed this. You are retroactively going 'well since I'm in the universe and it exists, that means it was always going to, the universe coming into existence is a set thing that happens like it's on a film reel' NO. you've just assumed this. There is nothing about God being aternal that mandates that he MUST create the universe at some point or that it was always 'supposed' to happen at some point. God can have just as easily existed for infinities and created this one universe on a whim at some point during his infinite existence.
>2.) God exists outside of time
NO since the universe comes from God and he is the ultimate source/prime mover, this means that the universe is also part of God and therefore he is as much inside time as he is outside time. In fact if you're going by the Abrahamic God, the Bible never even says God is 'outside time' rather it says that all things come from God and he is active throughout creation constantly causing all things to happen from the flow of rivers to the feeding and nesting of random birds (Psalms). Isaiah also says the Earth is his 'footstool' like he's in creation.

>>17964775
>Why does your deity have to be the same one the jews worship?

because Yahweh is the only God in history that
>has a profound meaningful name ('I am that I am'/'the becoming one'/'I am being itself' - from the hebrew verb yhw 'to be') that describes the deity as being something more cosmological
>came mysteriously out of nowhere which no obvious fixed geological/cultural ties and outlasted literally every other deity for thousands of years
>somehow appeals intuitively to any and all humans that find out about it
>the belief in which has technologically, societally and morally improved humanity on a large scale across time in ways literally no other deity has done
>has various prophecies attributed to it that actually panned out and happened in real life (messianic prophecies about Jesus, things like the destruction of Israel and the temple - twice - confirmed by things like the dates of the dead sea scrolls)
>is the only deity in history that has a physical representative who is known to objectively had existed (Jesus) who was strongly believed by many people at the time to be what he claimed
>said claims lasted THOUSANDS of years and conspicuously appealed morally and intuitively to literally any and every human that came across the claims regardless of race, culture or anything
>the only one that has a holy text comprised of disparate books written HUNDREDS OF YEARS APART from each other that somehow still has a narrative throughline, poetic and symbolic callbacks/recurring aspects and foreshadowing despite being a collection of disparate texts written independently HUNDREDS OF YEARS APART
>said biblography is also the ONLY such holy text of a deity that has survived for thousands of years unchanged and with information in it that still appeals to humans at literally any time point
>said holy text is also the ONLY holy text that has a timeline of creation/human history that roughly 1:1 matches how it actually happened

>>17965575
>the universe is clearly not randomly created, but it might be because idk
>therefore God can't act like a person, speak to people or create talking snakes despite being God who can do anything because idk authority figures in the 2000s when I was a kid told me it was silly like that's an argument in and of itself despite people believing it strongly for thousands of years before that or something
athiests are even more retarded

>>17964787
>which has proven to be more powerful than polytheism.
according to whom?

>>17966312
Maybe yes. Think about my genetics. I didn't choose them. It is sheer luck that I was born with the genes I have. Those genes enable me to type this message, and understand language generally, and speak, etc. I should count myself lucky that I was born with a semi-decent set of genes (some people are born with unhealthy genes which kill them).

>>17964771 (OP)
>the universe cannot be the product of randomness

why?
This argument is thrown so many times, and yet, no one was able to explain why it can't.

>but it is to complex to be random
Being complex doesn't mean it had to be designed. When the monkey types out the Hamlet, it is fully random, even if it reads as a fine complex piece od literary art.

>>17964771 (OP)
You can make the same argument about a creator

>>17965547
Infinite means BEYOND finite measures

No shape
No quantity
No time

It is always the exact same boundless, shapeless, and timeless being, regardless of when, where, and how you try to comprehend it

And the nature of infinity is Love.
Infinite love is what birthed the desire to have children with whom God would share his kingdom.

The question is whether you want to rule alongside him or not

>>17966372
>the universe cannot be the product of randomness
>why?
>This argument is thrown so many times, and yet, no one was able to explain why it can't.
because literally just look at it. The fact that the sun never stops rising every single day or that reality doesn't just suddenly shift into something completely different at any moment proves it isn't random. 'Randomness' isn't real.
>Being complex doesn't mean it had to be designed
nothing complex has ever naturally formed on its own without being designed, this has never actually been observed.
> When the monkey types out the Hamlet, it is fully random, even if it reads as a fine complex piece od literary art
this is just a stupid thought experiment that can't happen in reality. Just because your brain can think up some absurd thing doesn't mean it's possible
>hurrr durr i can imagine that a monkey could type out the whole works of shakespeare if it had enough time so therefore it must be a thing that can actually happen lol just because
no, stop being stupid. A moneky can't ever actually accidentally write out the works of shakespeare. That's so obviously not a thing that can ever happen in reality. And you need to appeal to layers and layers of other hypothetical thought scenarios to make it work e.g.
>well since I can just imagine an infinite number of universes might exist (no proof) and since I can imagine that somehow randomless like a monkey on a type writer can produce apparent order after enough time (absurd) then this must mean I know for certain our universe came into being randomly out of a string of (unproven) universes just because
it's just retarded. Your worldview is foundationally built on layers and layers of tautologically assumed imagined thought exercises, not anything in reality.

You have no idea that ANY other universes exist and a monkey could never actually write Shakespeare.

>>17964771 (OP)
The Great Pachinko: Billions of Trillions of souls fall from high above, crash against lifes obstacles, and fall into a pit, few will yield a reward.

All hail the cosmic Pachinko

>>17966372
>When the monkey types out the Hamlet, it is fully random, even if it reads as a fine complex piece od literary art.

le monkey le typewriter is a bullshit argument because it assumes that the monkey and typewriter would always act as monkey and typewriter - which defies the definition of randomness

A world made in the nature of randomness would mean that NOTHING is predictable.

The monkey can be a splat of mud one second and a door on the next
And that's assuming that time even exists in a world of actual randomness

>doesn't know what random means
>doesn't know what infinite means
>doesn't know what universe means
>doesn't know what life means
>still rattling off precooked talking points like the pseud retard he is
read another book

>>17966411
>>17966416
The thought experiment isn't about real life monkeys or typewriters
I'm sorry about the american education system tho

>>17965565
>or nothing created him (which is just a way to move the goalpost away from "nothing needed to create the universe")
I've never understood why athiests have always used this as an argument or why they think it's such a gotcha
>aha! but if God doesn't need a creator and can always just exist, then why can't the universe??
because God and the universe are not the same type of thing. Just because God can always exist doesn't mean the universe can. They are very obviously not in the same category of thing nor have the same abilities. There is no evidence the universe has always existed or that it can just create itself or that 'being able to do anything' is a property that it even has. The observed universe -space-time + the physical forces - is a very specific thing. It is not the same type of thing as God so just because God can do a thing, doesn't mean necessarily the universe can do the same thing.

God can have always existed and not need a creator because he is God. The universe however is not like this and there's no reason to think it can exist on its own.
Without God, the universe being here and apparently having come into existence is suddenly an inexplicable mystery that doesn't make any sense based on everything we know about the way the universe works, whereas the God hypothesis makes perfect sense.

>The existence of God is inherently random as he is either an uncaused cause (special pleading)
"God can't be an uncaused cause because that's le logical fallacy because I say so just because"
lolno. God can do that because he's God. That's definitionally what God means. Meanwhile 'the universe is an uncaused cause that just exists' really is special pleading (as you have no reasn or evidence to believe it's like this) and makes less sense than God being the uncaused cause since this is a property of God but not the universe, as far as we know.

>>17966430
yes, the thought experiment is supposed to tautologically demonstrate that apparent order can arise out of unintentional randomness given enough time using an absurd analogy to make the point, I know, but it's still retarded. Because nothing like that in reality has ever been observed.
>buh the universe is like that tho
see? It's circular and just tautologically presupposes it's own conclusion. Like many athiest thought experiements, it's just the athiest view of the universe being described and then this description being called a logical thought experiment that somehow proves itself, simply by being stated.

The universe is not like Hamlet being written by a monkey on a typewriter and nothing like this in nature has ever been observed occurring over any time frame.

>>17966411
>because literally just look at it. The fact that the sun never stops rising every single day or that reality doesn't just suddenly shift into something completely different at any moment proves it isn't random. 'Randomness' isn't real.
There are physical phenomena within the universe which cause that regularity. Gravity is one such phenomena. That's why the sun rises every day.

But why gravity exists, we don't know. Maybe some God created gravity, or maybe not. Who knows. I think if we want to investigate these questions then we need to study the universe more with science. Then we might learn more about how and why the universe turned out the way it did.

>>17966411
>>17966441
>Gravity is one such phenomena
I mean "one such phenomenon" because it's a singular. My mistake.

>>17966441
the fact that gravity keeps working means the universe isn't random

>>17966438
>athiest
>thought experiment that somehow proves itself, simply by being stated
>The universe is not like [simplified analogy]
look I already said I'm sorry about the american education system, what else are you trying to achieve?

>>17966434
>That's definitionally what God means
It's a dumb definition, completely useless for anything other than you feeling superior

>>17966447
Maybe gravity is the result of randomness. Maybe the starting conditions of the universe (which now persist) were arrived at through random selection.

>>17966477
I didn't say it was the only thing that God is. Being uncaused is one aspect of God that has more explanatory power than 'an unsentient unintentional inanimate cluster of space-time was just there just because and/or created itself somehow' does. It's useful as part of a definition of God because it works and God works better as an explanation than 'inanimate thing somehow did something for no reason' 'inanimate unintentional thing just existed'
nothing about the observed universe and it's coherence, mechanistic nature, consistency, lifespan and how it developed lends itself to these absurd non-explanations

>>17966503
>maybe maybe maybe
no proof
whereas the fact that gravity is consistent and keeps working and the whole universe is lock-step with predictable processes and physical forces that remain constant suggests it is not random
>but but what if maybe just what if we're just in one of many universes we just so happen to be observing the one that randomly arrived at being so ordered and consistent throughout its whole lifespan with no deviations
literally no proof

>>17966538
>explanatory power
the Demiurge and Zeus also have explanatory power, it's just as worthwhile
come back when you have predictive power (the thing that actually matters about any theory)
>>17966546
you don't know what random or proof means

>>17966411
>throws 7 dices
>the throw result in their birth date
>wowser, isn't it my date of birth? what are the chances? this can't be random, it just can't, it is to beautiful, surely some omnipotent entity must had put those dices on such numbers

anon, don't act silly, you are only doing disservice to good folks around here

>>17966654
>the Demiurge and Zeus also have explanatory power
the demiurge and Zeus aren't uncaused prime mover type deities so have less explanatory power than Capital G God and thus would be an unnecessary superfluous middle-man of an explanation for a universe that is evidently designed with a beginning, unlike THE God
treating random other mythological deities as being the same type of thing as Capital G God, the LORD (uncreated, eternal, prime mover) is a false equivalence

>come back when you have predictive power
explain to me what you think a God-created intelligently designed universe with God-mad constants and laws with predictive results that indicate it is God-made would look like and how it would be different to our own. What would you need to see in the universe to make you think it is God-made that you haven't seen in ours. Atheists can never seem to answer this.

>>17966714
like I said before about the monkey on typewriter analogy; you are just tautology describing your presupposed 'universe can from randomness and only appears designed by accident' view of the universe in a presupposed manner.
By saying
>throws 7 dices etc
you are already stating from the premise that you just assume 'the dice were thrown randomly.'

How do you know this? You don't. You've just tautologically assumed it came about randomly like dice being thrown. How do you know that it came about randomly? You don't.

>>17966714
>7 dices
notice how you had to slide in the subtle idea there were multiple possible options for our universe and it just fell onto our version in there? There is literally no evidence of any other universe except our own, there is literally no evidence that the universe could have been any other way than the way that it is. The idea that a multiverse is a thing, that the universe 'could' have been some other variation is literally a taken for granted belief with no evidence for it baked into your premise. Your view of the universe relies on layers and layers of presupposed imaginary possibilities that there is no evidence for at all. Muh multiverse, muh different variants of universes adjusted by random laws of physics like nobs being fiddled with etc is literally just science fiction. There is no evidence for it. All we know is that this this one universe exists, seems finely tuned and with consistent rigid unchanging laws/constants and mathematical principles and that it came into being at some point.

To be an atheist and to try to make it make sense, is to have to assume more than just a God to explain it.

>>17966749
I don't assume anything. The universe's existence is self-evident, ergo whatever event occurred to produce it must have happened. The question is just figuring out what.

You religious imbeciles are the ones trying to graft your personal mythology onto the universe no matter how utterly nonsensical and contrived it is.

>>17966749
>There is literally no evidence of any other universe except our own
From what I've heard there arguably is evidence of a multiverse, and it isn't just a million rabbits pulled out of a hat because there are theories of physics that predict it (and make other predictions, which, when found to be accurate, might be counted as evidence). So it could be sort of like how there are a countless other solar systems and galaxies out in space like ours with variations, which someone might've said was absurd a long time ago (and flat earthers might still not believe) but which are now generally accepted. Idk, the details on these topics are beyond me, but there have been a few recent videos on the topic like this one https://youtu.be/Ivye51d5Vis

>>17966752
the observed consistent, finely tuned, ordered nature of the universe suggests that it is designed and this is furthermore even more striking when there is literally ZERO evidence for any other universe than this one existing.
Therefore, to be an athiest, you have to believe:
out of nothing, for no reason, with no intention, spontaneously, at random, when it could have been anything at all or nothing, out of purely inanimate somethingness, a highly ordered, finely tuned, rigidily structured, consistent universe came into being and it is the only one that exists and just happens to be like this just because, in a flash in the pan of astronomically low chances it just happened to spring into being like this, only this and just this one time.

That is simply more miraculous and absurd than if it had been created by God.

>>17966769
>there is evidence of a universe
>theories of physics (not conclusive or agreed on as THE theory) that predict it
so in other words there is no observed evidence of a multiverse.
>but muh other solar systems and galaxies
we know they exist because we can see them and detect their effects on our location. There is nothing like this for a multiverse.

>which someone might've said was absurd a long time ago
they would have been correct to say this to someone back then stumbling onto the idea and asserting it without evidence based on nothing. If, in Ancient Sumeria when it was commonly accepted that the cosmos was a geocentric disc surrounded by a firmanent and abyssal waters, some random Sumerian said to Gilgamesh's astrologers "I think Shamash is actually in the centre of the firmanent and we circle around him and there are no waters beyond the sky and there are billions of other firmanents circling sun gods out there" they would have rightfully dismissed him as a fool for saying such things with no evidence, even if he was accidentally correct.

>>17966798
>not conclusive or agreed on as THE theory
This is a very strange thing to point out. It sounds almost like you're suggesting that we should have a THE theory as a prerequisite(?) for believing anything predicted by any theory, which might never be the case so long as more than one theory is consistent with the evidence.

The idea is just that there are relatively simple theories of physics that lead to multiverses (as in the theories don't take multiverses as an axiom; they're a consquence of the theory). And those theories do make predictions about what we're liable to observe. And, according to the video I shared, by reasoning from a multiverse-producing theory and the assumption that we're more likely to be a "typical example" universe capable of producing intelligent life than a truly abnormal example, at least one decently successful prediction has been made, getting within a fair range of the observed cosmological constant without taking it as an axiom as it normally would be in our best non-multiverse theories.

So in that sense some multiverse-predicting theories might be thought of as simpler than our main non-multiverse theories, because they predict details about our universe that would otherwise have to be assumed.

And simplicity is important! For example although we do observe galaxies, there's nothing stopping a flat earther or modern geocentrist from adding arbitrarily many epicycles to explain what we now believe are huge galaxies filled with other solar systems like ours out there. "Nope," the geocentrist could say, "those 'solar systems' are just lights in the celestial sphere, not too big or far away, and they happen to wiggle in complicated ways, just like the planets in our solar system do. You assuming that there must be an absolutely insane volume of space out there isn't justified until you've personally occupied it to confirm that it's really a huge amount of space rather than the appearance of a huge amount of space."

>>17966870 (cont.)
Maybe the type of evidence described, because it involves an anthropic argument, isn't quite the visible evidence that would be hoped for (which might be something like "marks" in our universe that indicate a past collision with another universe? Idk if that's a thing). But I think it's more scientific than God as "theory" to explain anything, since God is very fuzzy, and many of the intuitive assumptions that people have historically come to assuming God are wrong (Like the idea that the universe should be filled to the brim with intelligent life, which I remember reading from Philo of Alexandria, when in fact it seems to be overwhelmingly hostile to life, or the idea that life itself would be created along with the universe like in Genesis rather than slowly evolving over billions of years.)

>>17965540
No real evidence of this.

>>17966503
>gravity exists due to randomness
This is the level of argumentation /his/ atheists are on now lol

>>17966769
>From what I've heard there arguably is evidence of a multiverse
No there isn't. Nice pop-sci video btw

>>17966917
Quantum theory (multiversal) is the evidence.

>>17966917
>No there isn't
Well I guess that settles it.
>Nice pop-sci video btw
Thanks, those of us who are too stupid to into modern physics have to use something as a starting point for thinking about these sorts of things.

>>17966918
>>17966923
>quantum theory being so retarded that it needs to suggest a multiverse *must* exist to justify its asinine premises is proof of a multiverse
Literal knuckle-dragging retards.

>>17966912
I had this idea a long time ago that, since gravity is so weak compared to electromagnetism, it might secretly only be an illusion of a force, somehow arising from the statistics involved in random fluctuations over enough time and space. Probably totally wrong, but weird non-obvious "rules" do sometimes seem to arise without a top-down force imposing them in the context of real world random selection, like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law

>>17966918
Sorry what is the evidence that the quantum theory is true? Have we got messages from alternate universes that I didn't hear about?

>>17964787
>which has proven to be more powerful
Wtf does this even mean, you stupid mexican? Like a DBZ power level?

>>17966424
>still obfuscating every thought he has because he thinks he can make truths vanish if he pretends to dismantle them mentally
Retarded bugman. Go smoke some opium.

>>17965627
/thread

>>17966901
God as a "theory" just sits in the audience of physics and takes credit for whatever actual theories happen to be currently on top. Its capacity for prediction is garbage, but its capacity for explaining things is infinite, because theists will bend God's supposed motives to fit whatever is observed.

Things that atheists literally cannot explain
>beauty
>sense of wonder
>self-awareness
>consciousness
>desire to worship
>sense of gratitude towards something abstract/the world itself
>selfless love/compassion for total strangers
>moral goodness feeling
>why do shapes exist
>why does color need to exist
>why things move of their own accord
>how inanimate objects come alive
>what is the distinction between something that is alive and something that isn't and what causes it

>>17967104
>beauty
subjective experience

>sense of wonder
a squirrel will do this over a nut

>self-awareness
highly intelligent brain matter

>consciousness
unknown

>desire to worship
only for cucks

>sense of gratitude towards something abstract/the world itself
what

>selfless love/compassion for total strangers
evolutionary trait for better social cohesion

>moral goodness feeling
evolutionary trait for better social cohesion

>why do shapes exist
to make the star of david

>why does color need to exist
they don't, your brain produces them when receiving light wavelengths

>why things move of their own accord
God's puppets

>how inanimate objects come alive
God made them out of clay and breathed into their nostrils

>what is the distinction between something that is alive and something that isn't and what causes it
God

>>17967104
> Water, fire, air and dirt
> Fucking magnets, how do they work?
> And I don't wanna talk to a scientist
> Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed

>>17966737
okay, let me rephrase it for you
>seven dices that base their result on atoms decay which is trully random are thrown
> the rest
the point stands


>>17966749
I didn't slide idea of multiverse, as my idea would work with cyclical universe as well. Actually, it would also work with just one universe, without cycles.
The universe thrown dices at the beginning, and they just happened to land on such values, so we exist now. Given that it happened only once, we simply can't say how much improbable it was, as you cannot calculate probabilities from just one event. And with no way of calculating probabilities, you can't say it was so improbable, that those had to be fine tuned.

>making assumptions
I'd be more than happy to settle on "we simply don't know why the universe is way it is" with no assumptions assumed. Would you also be willing to drop all assumptions like "there is some divine creator that exist outside the existence"? This seams like quite big assumption to me.

>>17966772
>to be an atheist you have to belive: [a lot of stuff]

no? kinda unwise take
to be an atheist you could simply belive:
that we yet don't know the reason for the universe, and therefore suspend judgement on the topic
mind you, suspending judgement is like lowest bar to clear

>>17964771 (OP)
>The universe cannot be the product of randomness.
sez you.

>>17964933
There are infinite gods in infinite universes, and you have to worship them all correctly before you can get to heaven, like picking a lock on a cosmic scale

>>17965540
>>17967845
Finite gods are not gods

PS
The universe is not "infinite". It is infinitely expanding, but it itself has a finite energy that has remained completely the same since the very beginning

>>17964933
Part of god is infinite (what you normally think of as god)
Part is limited (creation)
these are not separate

The limited emerges from and cycles back into the unlimited. One symbol for this is the ouroboros. "Eternally the ring of Being remains faithful to itself," in zarathustra's words.

>>17967104

Prepare your anus
>>beauty
the sense that something perfect exists, and that you are somehow participating in that perfection
>>sense of wonder
the sense that something perfect exists, and that you are somehow participating in that perfection
>>self-awareness
consciousness is all there is. you, and everything else in creation were created by awareness, out of awareness
>>consciousness
see previous. consciousness and awareness same thing
>>desire to worship
the sense that something perfect exists, and that you are somehow participating in that perfection, and desire to get nearer (return to state of reality instead of illusion of separateness)
>>sense of gratitude towards something abstract/the world itself
the sense that something perfect exists, and that you are somehow participating in that perfection
>>selfless love/compassion for total strangers
the divine feminine part of god always gives of itself, wanting nothing in return (god emanates selfless, or "pure" love)
>>moral goodness feeling
see previous
>>why do shapes exist
divine masculine mode of god/awareness shapes and creates forms
>>why does color need to exist
nothing "needs" to exist. all that can exist, does
>>why things move of their own accord
they move of god's accord. masculine activity of god is moving them with awareness (the things are also awareness)
>>how inanimate objects come alive
see previous
>>what is the distinction between something that is alive and something that isn't and what causes it
If you want to call consciousness/awareness/god alive, that's fine. In animism everything is imbued with god (and is a unified one godhead) so everything is "alive" in that sense. Animism is true in this sense and societies fell away from it as they got more complex and accumulated "worldy" power

>>17966546
>>17966912
>the fact that gravity is consistent and keeps working and the whole universe is lock-step with predictable processes and physical forces that remain constant suggests it is not random
You're avoiding what I said. Perhaps there was an element of randomness which decided the beginning state of the universe, and then everything has proceeded from that state.
>>maybe maybe maybe
>no proof
I know that. I'm just saying there are some things that can't yet be ruled out. There are many things that humans don't yet know.

>>17967104
Science doesn't have all the answers yet. That's why we need to do more science.

There was a time when humans didn't know what radioactivity was. When they didn't know what electricity was. There are things today that we don't yet understand (like the mystery of dark matter - whether it exists or not). We need to do more science.

>>17968448
No. You cannot have an order without an intelligent being who defines order and keeps it enforced

Finite world can only be made by the hands of an infinite maker
An infinite being is beyond measure and therefore cannot be bound by anything other than his own nature - love

You are not saying anything meaningful when you go like "infinite being", you are just stringing English words together
there's no coherent idea, no model. no theory, no nothing

>>17968891
>no coherent idea, no model. no theory, no nothing
Precisely.

>>17968830
>You cannot have an order without an intelligent being who defines order and keeps it enforced
Prove it

>>17968891
Based and correctpilled

>>17968891
see if you can understand these sentences, likely not, most people on this website are too stupid to understand it
https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

>>17968950
What prove it?
Order is already evidence of intelligence

Find a scatter of Lego, and you would assume that it just fell
Find a LEGO set arranged with the words "buy milk," and you'll assume that mom made it for you or something

>>17964771 (OP)
Assertions without proof can be dismissed

>>17966320
>nothing truly random has ever been observed

Isotope decay

>>17968961
You can't use the very specific example of things we know humans do to say all "order" (you haven't defined what that is) must come from a human-like mind

>>17966280
They'd argue there's a lot of coincidental remarkable things about the universe, like the sun and the moon appearing to be the same width in the sky, and life develiping on earth. I guess the intricacies of biological systems was also used as evidence, but now that is but a consequence of a starting lifeform.
It's the watchmaker's argument. I think a decent chunk of the evidence can be waived away with the anthropic principle

>>17968980
>like the sun and the moon appearing to be the same width in the sky

That wasn't true for a lot of the history of the earth and they aren't actually the same apparent size, which depends on the position in their orbits; such a silly argument

>>17964775
not to mention all the other possible forms a deity could take. Perhaps they are braindead. Perhaps it's an object (e.g. a rock that was the first mover). Maybe it doesn't care about earth or humans. It could be dead.
A lot more is needed to pin down even the broad nature of this god

>>17968961
>Order is already evidence of intelligence
No it isn't. Let's say I have a list of the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - but they're arranged in a random order. I get my computer to randomly reorder the numbers. Occasionally it will put those numbers into what we consider the correct increasing order, from 1 to 5. That doesn't mean the computer is intelligent. It used a process involving randomness and just happened to result in an order that we consider meaningful.

>>17968980
Yeah maybe they would. I think that argument is dumb, personally.

Here's a thought. What if Earth is the only planet with life in the entire universe? So life would only manifest in something like 0.0000001% of possible circumstances. If the universe was so perfect that it must be designed, surely something like 100% of circumstances would produce intelligent life?

>>17969004
Maybe the deity sees a barren universe as a more desirable one.

>>17969007
Perhaps. Or perhaps there are no deities.

>>17969004
>If the universe was so perfect that it must be designed, surely something like 100% of circumstances would produce intelligent life?
Unless God created humans with the intention that they would go on to leave Earth and populate the universe. You're assuming that God doesn't want humans to ever become a space-faring civillization for some reason (probaby because the Abrahamic religions just assume this based on all their texts stopping at the end of God's plans for Earth - if Yahweh is real, for all anyone knows that whole business with judgement day, Jesus and Satan etc is all just the prologue and once the heavenly jerusalem docks on Earth, his kingdom goes far beyond it, or maybe Wotan and co are actually chilling on some other Valhalla planet in Andromeda waiting for their chosen nordic people to escape Earth and get there)
>>17968980
Anthropic principle is just cope and relies on the assumption that there are other kinds of sentient human-level life that even can exist elsewhere on other planets or that other variations of universes are out there (no evidence for these); if it's actually where humans are literally the ONLY human-level intelligent beings in existence on this one planet and this is the ONLY universe then it becomes a lot more conspicuous that we're here
>>17968969
funny how this principle is never applied to so many other things both 'scientific' or even mundane in modern secular liberal athiests minds that they believe without proof (e.g. a multiverse exists, aliens are real, any race could have become a technologically advanced superpower, anyone can integrate into any culture anywhere, social norms aren't tied to biological facts, certain historical events happened etc...)
>>17968993
On the assumption that a deity was specifically trying to communicate with humans it makes some sense that said deity would take a human-like form or act human-like (assuming it can do this); Christians have the best claim to this since they have Jesus

>>17968972
isotope decay is literally not random because it's statistically predictable with large groups of atoms and they have an associated half-life (which can be used to predict the ages of things)
if the universe was truly random, then it wouldn't just be that 'decay' was a process that could predictably happen randomly, it would be where isotopes could start decaying at random for no reason then suddenly reverse decay or stop decaying again just as randomly. If the universe was truly random then the physical forces wouldn't be constant; sometimes gravity would disappear, sometimes things would become electrostatic for no reason, molecules would just drift apart, random objects of random amounts of mass would suddenly turn into singularites and basically none of us would still be here 24/7 on the dot every single planck second of day without anything fucking up even slightly down to the smallest level, even with the quantum scale being a thing. I don't think you truly appreciate just how remarkably ordered and non-random the universe really is when you actually think about it.

Why is it like this?

>>17968891
some species of jellyfish are biologically immortal and they are just physical beings made of matter therefore imagine what a being made of pure consciousness or spirit could do, checkmate atheists

>>17964771 (OP)
>The universe cannot be the product of randomness
This doesn't mean God did it. It's a non sequitur. Some other cause can be the origin without being called God and having any attributes you give him.

>>17964771 (OP)
Yes it can.
Debunked.

>>17968815
>Science doesn't have all the answers yet. That's why we need to do more science
Science has caught the scent with dark matter/energy (it doesn't 'interact'). Also follow Stephen Wolfram's work, if you're not already. He's expressing Neoplatonism through physics/maths (LMAO, as Pythagoras sorta did)

>>17968830
>You cannot have an order without an intelligent being who defines order and keeps it enforced
Various traditions call this the Preserver (i.e. the Son, Vishnu, etc) It's one of the activities/functions of the divine masculine

>>17968891
>no coherent idea, no model. no theory, no nothing
the infinite part of god's activity is unconditioned, so no concepts or models stick to it, limit it, etc. You can use all that masturbatory pilpul when talking about creation (divine masculine part: matter, space, time, 'physical laws' and all the limited shit you're familiar with)

>>17968961
>Order is already evidence of intelligence
being obsessed with 'intelligent design' is a transitional stage. Keep inquiring, growing, and expanding your perspective

>>17968980
>anthropic principle
keep going in this direction. The reason you experience subjectively in a "first person" way is because that's god's perspective: subjective "first person,' since god is all that exists, and god is pure consciousness

>>17969448
>funny how this principle is never applied to so many other things
So do you agree that claims need to be proven or not? Prove that God exists.

>>17970131
>So do you agree that claims need to be proven or not?
yes
>Prove that God exists
the highly ordered, finely tuned, consistent and non-random universe running on unbreakable laws/principles and mathematics is proof of God's existence - furthermore the universe has superfluous aesthetic aspects about it for no apparent functional reason that suggest an artistic mind behind them e.g why do nebulas look like that and not something else less visually pleasing, why is 'color' even a property of reality at all that can be simulated and appeciated etc
a universe without a God wouldn't actually look like ours

>>17969673
>masturbatory pilpul
Gonna cry, huh? Still no model, huh?

>>17970333
describe a model of the universe where a God does exist and explain how it would be different to ours
then explain/justify why you think our universe is what the model of a universe without a God looks like

>>17970333
I'll build a model up to your ass, drive a Lionel up in there

>>17964771 (OP)
>The universe cannot be the product of randomness.
Correct the universe produces randomness.

>>17970351
If you think you can get a model that fully describes the uni (even the indescribable part), you're going to be spinnin' your wheels in the wrong direction your entire life like Joscha Bach: Model Man.

>look ma, I played with my models again all day and all decade/century and still didn't solve the "hard problem of consciousness!"
>guess I'll quadruple down and prove Einstein's definition of insanity!

>>17970637
>hard problem of consciousness
Hahahahaha. There is no problem that's the answer.
>Science is just a model
It's a pretty damn good model much better than a bronze age religious text.

>>17970645
>bronze age religious text
This nigga's euphoric. Enlightened by his own intelligence.

>>17970659
I'm not an atheist.

>>17964771 (OP)
No argument ever attained the jewel of jewels: mystical union with god. You should be moving in the direction of practices, actions, emotions, and attitudes, not thoughts. In fact, see if you can quiet your mind down until it becomes comfortable with silence.

>>17969448
>Unless God created humans with the intention that they would go on to leave Earth and populate the universe. You're assuming that God doesn't want humans to ever become a space-faring civillization for some reason (probaby because the Abrahamic religions just assume this based on all their texts stopping at the end of God's plans for Earth - if Yahweh is real, for all anyone knows that whole business with judgement day, Jesus and Satan etc is all just the prologue and once the heavenly jerusalem docks on Earth, his kingdom goes far beyond it, or maybe Wotan and co are actually chilling on some other Valhalla planet in Andromeda waiting for their chosen nordic people to escape Earth and get there)
Maybe such a God exists. Maybe not. We should use science to prove the true nature of the universe - whether a God exists or doesn't. What we shouldn't do is jump to a conclusion that God exists, when there is not sufficient evidence to prove this.

>>17969673
>Science has caught the scent with dark matter/energy (it doesn't 'interact'). Also follow Stephen Wolfram's work, if you're not already. He's expressing Neoplatonism through physics/maths (LMAO, as Pythagoras sorta did)
I'm not a scientist so I don't know the details of dark matter etc. I'm just saying that science obviously doesn't have all the answers yet, but if we do more science, we will learn more.

Religious people say things like "well how does science explain why there's a universe at all? Checkmate atheists, therefore God exists". But that's a dumb argument. The correct answer is "we don't know yet, but we may one day find out, if we do more scientific investigation". It's incorrect to say "God definitely made the universe" when we don't have sufficient evidence for that conclusion.

>>17964771 (OP)
Satan created it for endless amusement and watching/seeing humans suffer?

>>17966330
I care not for jewish fables

>>17964771 (OP)
If a jew in the sky created the universe then he had to be subject to a pre-existing set of natural laws. Either that or the universe is arbitrary. Either way, your own argument is self-refuted.

>>17970351
>describe a model of the universe where a God does exist and explain how it would be different to ours
that's your task, otherwise your god is unfalsifiable and you can't prove that it does anything for us

>>17971189
Irrefutable /thread