Thread 18054953

How can you rationally be an atheist? To assume life can come from non-life is completely nonsensical. We have no evidence of that ever happening at any point in time ever. Atheists really believe it's more rational to think existence itself came about with absolutely no cause, than literally any other possibility? This plant comes from here, that human comes from here, they all agree it comes from somewhere, then they take the biggest possible leap of faith and say all of it came from absolutely nothing? I'm not even a Christfag, but even God is less of a long shot. Because at least it's giving a cause to the action of creation.

>>18054953 (OP)

The biblical god is an Old Man sitting on the clouds and not an abstract Platonic creative min


The Bible does not say that Elohim created from nothing, but rather that he created from water.

>>18054953 (OP)
>There was a first cause
Fair enough
>So Moses split the ocean/Jesus died and came back to life/Muhammad split the moon in half
Uh, no

>>18054959
abstract Platonic creative mind

>>18054953 (OP)
>To assume life can come from non-life is completely nonsensical.
And why assuming that an Deity being responsible is more reasonable?

>>18054953 (OP)
>To assume life can come from non-life is completely nonsensical.
Ever heard of viruses? They are a good example of something intermediate between life and no life

>>18054953 (OP)
I stopped engaging theists on abiogenesis when I realized that their big hangup is actually their implicit belief in vitalism.

>>18055369
If you don't agree with vitalism, you're probably a lizard man.

>>18054953 (OP)
>..and that's why a magic jew in the sky clapped his hands and made everything
No.

En soi, les athéistes ne pensent pas que la création de la vie soit basé de rien, je pense qu'il croient en des faits scientifiques, une étude publiée en 2015 sur des inclusions de carbone considérées comme d'origine organique leur assigne un âge de 4,1 milliards d'années. Mais la création de la vie est un mystère, honnêtement ni les scientifique ni les religieux ont raison sur sa conception.

>>18055403
Come off it, you dumb cunt. Using this as a defense for your belief in a man on a cloud who waved a magic wand and made everything is totally daft and dishonest.

>>18054953 (OP)
>How can you rationally be an atheist? To assume life can come from non-life is completely nonsensical
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

>>18055421
this doesn't disprove op's thesis. in fact, if you actually took the time to read the article you linked, you'd realize that this experiment was a complete failure in what it set out to do.

>>18054961
>>18055327
>>18055385
>>18055420
>>18055440
Seething.

>>18055461
>then the infinite creator of the universe put his hands over Moses eyes so he couldn't see him otherwise his head would explode in amazement

>>18055461
Sorry bro, you won't go to a magical cloud kingdom after you die. It's unfortunate that you had to find out like this, but it is what it is.

>>18055463
>>18055464
You're blind with rage because you're an atheistranny.

>>18055473
>quoting the divine word of the creator of the universe
>blind with rage
Ok. Then forgive me?

>>18055473
Are you suggesting that a snake (that's also a dragon) didn't talk? That Jonah didn't pray in the giant fishes stomach for 3 days? That God didn't cover Moses eyes with his hands because if he didn't he'd die from sheer awesomeness?

>>18055420
Can't read French award.

>>18055453
There's been fucking life on Mars bro

>>18055484
>may have

>>18054953 (OP)
Non-life is completely nonsensical anon, everything is a life.

>Atheists really believe it's more rational to think existence itself came about with absolutely no cause
>it came from absolutely nothing?
It has been logically mathematically proven that everything is a function of nothing— 0! = 100%, there is no logical reason to insert a god with unknown properties into that equation any more than to insert "AI" into the mathematical definition of E.

>>18055483
This schizophrenic gaytheist cannot synthesize anything he's learned or been taught, hence he responds with irrelevant non-sequiturs like this >>18055484

>>18055485
Still no other explanation presented for them. They're gonna send an expedition to recover some of them and then it's 100% over for you christfags.

>>18054959
So both water and elohim were created from nothing?

>>18055458
>>and then the talking snake, who is also a dragon, said...
Technically, wasn't it a lizard person since it didn't lose its legs and ability to converse with other people until after it successfully tempted the wife.

>>18054953 (OP)
You can't.

>>18054953 (OP)
>To assume life can come from non-life is completely nonsensical.
Life is just a collection of self-replicating molecules, nothing more. This has been well understood since Darwin and especially since the discovery of DNA in the last century.

>>18054953 (OP)
>To assume life can come from non-life is completely nonsensical.
Why? On the smallest scale, life is just a series of chemical processes which on their own are not alive. Many happen in nature on their own. If those reactions were to happen within a membrane, that's essentially a primitive cell.

>>18055570
Came here to say this

>>18054953 (OP)
an Atheist cannot claim to be rational as they believe life came from non-life, which has never been observed or created in a lab

>>18056229
>we don't know exactly how this happened therefore magic sky daddy is real
Ok buddy.

>>18056232
more rational than claiming something not possible is the source of all living things

>>18056232
>we don't know how Jesus rose from the dead therefore it didn't happen
You guys normally like this kind of reasoning.

>>18055461
You're dilating

Atheist does not mean outright dismissing the existence of any higher power or spirituality, it just means that none of the ideas you've heard so far have convinced you

>>18055440
A whale isn't a fish.

>>18056342
Also, that whatever higher power is necessarily a god or the god or whatever.

>>18054953 (OP)
>Atheists really believe it's more rational to think existence itself came about with absolutely no cause
Theists believe in a less parsimous version of this as they think god just popped into existence out of nowhere. It literally just adds one extra layer of speculative complexity.
>shit just is
versus
>shit just is because bigger shit that created it just is

>>18056377
>they think god just popped into existence
atheists in charge of theology

>>18054953 (OP)
>To assume life can come from non-life is completely nonsensical.
God himself isn't living in a biological sense, so even if you assume god you have to accept life came from nonlife.

>>18056397
The premise of God is that He is non-biological consciousness that exists outside the material world

>>18056397
God is omnipotent.

>i don't understand basic biology
>therefore skydaddy did it
This would just be embarrassing if it weren't so tragically stupid.

>>18056413
What's the theory though, how does God make the first living cells form?

>>18054953 (OP)
>How can you rationally be an atheist?
This has absolutely nothing to do with history.
This is just blatant proselytizing on 4ch because feds love Christianity.

>>18055461
>wtf stop replying to my thread
???

>>18054953 (OP)
Because 90% atheists thinks they are cool because don't believe in God

>>18054953 (OP)
Easy, because being religious in 21st century is cringe.
/thread

>>18054953 (OP)
>Pic
Strawman
>To assume life can come from non-life
Strawman
>Atheists really believe it's more rational to think existence itself came about with absolutely no cause, than literally any other possibility?
Strawman
>This plant comes from here, that human comes from here, they all agree it comes from somewhere, then they take the biggest possible leap of faith and say all of it came from absolutely nothing?
Strawman

Your thread sucks.

>>18054953 (OP)
I was born atheist and i'm going to die as one. Simple as.

>>18054953 (OP)
Because linear time is also a belief.

>>18056229
Gods creating life hasn't been observed either. On what basis do you think that's the more rational assumption?

>>18056229
>>18056625
Have you fags considered eternity instead of this fake and gay jew lore?

Science has shown again and again that disease, weather, and planetary motion all turned out to have natural causes. That track record inclines them to think origins may eventually get a natural explanation too.

>>18054953 (OP)
In the face of how absurdly bizzarre reality is atheism is a perfectly rational position, this dosent make it accurate or inaccurate its just a valid way for a sensible person to sort these things out and get on with life
Lots of people go to long lenghts to make themselves believe something in accordance to their religion, which is fine, if it works for them
Other people make a rational conclusion that its all unbelievable and unrelated to everiday life and see no need to believe in any of it, this is also fine, if it works for them
Sincerely believing or not believing are practical mental positions that make life easier and save a lot of stress, its great for people that can pull that off
The rest go trough life either entertaining all sorts of notions while knowing they dont know or just being constantly scared shitless due to what they know and what they can extrapolate based on what they know, these people are usualy very carefull about who they believe and would prefer that ''whatever it is'' leaves them the fuck alone, which unfortunately never happens
Its generaly better to just believe, but not everione can pull off that trick

>>18055628
Don't you jus love when people belittle and swpe under the rug the most mind blowing stuff in the universe. Well understood my ass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_tYrnv_o6A

>>18056720
Yeah, it was made by a ghost with the superpower to do anything

>>18056720
What else is anon supposed to do anon?
Say youre walking down some street in the middle of the night and a fence door just opens all by itself, youd just nope right out of there, it just happened, fuck knows how or why, its nothing, you didnt see shit, it was just a random thing, shit happens, keep walking
What are people supposed to do when they see picrelated, which by the way is a realy cleaned up streamlined render of it, I know what id like to do, same as allways id like to have another drink

>>18056419
Doesnt change the fact that its life coming from nonlife

God has the power to create the world in whatever way he sees fit, right? Sustain and hold the world together by magic, no need for mechanisms

All these tiny machines, structures invisible to the eye, molecules and atoms
That's not what I'dd expect from a God. Things would just be what they appear is what I'dd expect

>>18054953 (OP)
It makes sense to use this angle to defend deism as it is vague and doesn’t assert absolute explanations about life, but not Abrahamic lore.

>>18054953 (OP)
Define atheist.

>>18054953 (OP)
Given any premise, a conclusion only has to follow in order to be considered rational. God has ordered the world so that every man can have reasons, even many reasons, to break himself upon any cherished conclusion, a martyrdom sometimes called religion. It's a mistake then to call the atheist irrational. Call him wrong, hopelessly wrong, but not irrational.

Does Christianity hinge on biological sciences?
Like if in the future, biologist have REALLY good explanations for all of this stuff, would that falsify Christianity?

God is the kind of thing that can explain the things we can't explain.

>>18056959
yes, just like it happened with astronomy and cosmology

>>18054953 (OP)
>I'm not even a Christfag,
Then these musing are irrelevant, since you're going to the same eternal burn pit as the atheist trash you are critiquing. Enjoy.

>>18056515
>This is just blatant proselytizing on 4ch because feds love Christianity.
atheshit discord tranny godjak spammers complaining about inorganic posting mannerisms will never not have a delicious salient irony to it.

>>18054953 (OP)
Do you have any rational evidence of divine creation?

>>18054953 (OP)
Yea, I believe something came from nothing, just like you minus one cosmic deity.

... But life can come from non-life. It does, eventually. It is an inevitable geometric construct that forms within the nauseating power of infinity. Within infinity all things become inevitable. Just think about it for long enough and you'll eventually realize the undeniable defaultness of it. It is quite beautiful. It is God.

The true nonsensical and irrational statement you're making is: Not all things are possible within the span of infinity.

Surely you can see the insanity of that? If infinity is truly unlimited, stretching on numerically for all eternity, many things enter a state of guarantee when empowered by that infinity. The sensation of organic life is merely a combination of interfunctional atomic orbits caught within a pattern of self replication and propagation.

God need only guarantee infinity be infinite. Why should it lift a single finger more than that?

I think your biblical fantasies have gotten the better of your caveman neural architectures. You ask too much of God. Atheism is completely understandable in its incorrectness when any of the major earth religions are inspected for logic.

>>18054953 (OP)
Does the creation of the world correspond to existence? No. The world is many years old, and humans are not made of clay. If someone did create it, it certainly wasn't the same entity possessed by the foreskin.

Why is it necessary to be an Abrahamic believer?

>Augustine of Hippo's The City of God contains two chapters indicating a debate between Christians and pagans over human origins: Book XII, chapter 10 is titled Of the falseness of the history that the world hath continued many thousand years and the title of book XVIII, chapter 40 is The Egyptians' abominable lyings, to claim their wisdom the age of 100,000 years. These titles tend to indicate that Augustine saw pagan ideas concerning both the history of the world and the chronology of the human race as incompatible with the Genesis creation narrative. Augustine's explanation aligned with most rabbis, and with the church fathers, who generally dismissed views on the antiquity of the world as "myths and fables", whereas Jewish and Christian claims were based on "revealed truth
Oops
The Egyptians were right, not entirely, but at least they didn't say that the world is 6,000 years old
They also knew about the Younger Dryas flood 12,000 years ago.

>>18054953 (OP)
we have no evidence of how life came to be, period, we have lots of mechanistic arguments for how it could come from non-life. either way, the can is just kicked down the road by claiming a higher power

>>18057177
>"try again but fix the grammar and use smarter, more religious language"

>>18054959
Back then, Water meant consciousness. People read religions literally but that’s not how language was to people’s ages ago.

>>18057328
Your brain is worthless.

>>18055489
Mathematics presupposes…

>>18055628
You should look into teleology and metaphysics in general. Just by using pure logic, you can realize that there are additional dimensions that arise from the concept/reality of self replicating molecules. Your view is reductionist materialism which ignores aspects of reality that are inherent. What is the field that forces the function of self replicating and preserving molecules? In other words, why is that the primary function rather than chaos? Atheists and reductionist materialist describe the “how” and think that’s all there is, which is disapproves by the very fact that we can also ask “why”. This is matter of fact logic that may be hard to wrap your head around at first.

>>18056342
What if you just don’t understand the ideas? It’s a matter of ignorance mixed with arrogance. It’s being presumptuous. For example, If you think religious myths are incorrect because you think it’s literal, and you think you’re smart enough to realize the impossibility of the literal (like “a god in the clouds is scientifically implausible”), you’re really just an idiot who can’t read poetry.

>>18056504
Platonism/panpsychism somewhat answers this. Higher forms (which are beyond the realm of our observation) are condensing into material forms, so information which is immaterial is informing electricity and magnetism, etc. which orchestrates further into forms that produces different material. It’s literally like music. Everything is made up of atoms right? And the atoms are in a state of constant motion and transference, and the minor exchanges create entire different material as you travel further into the fractal.

its the Ex-Christian cope mechanism to manage since they know they have the wrong depiction of the Abrahamic God and they don't want to accept any of the two other faiths because Jews and Arabs are brownoids ewwww

99% of the thread is indian spam lol

>>18056804
That argument doesn’t hold up. If anything, it supports intelligent design. The material world must consist of something and function through mechanisms, that’s the very essence of design. Saying that natural processes disprove creation is like arguing a carmaker should make cars appear out of thin air instead of building them through intelligent engineering

>>18057405
If you don’t believe in the literal death burial and resurrection of Jesus, it would have been better for you never to have been born. Tick tock.

>>18057444
Wtf are you babbling about you jew

>>18057340
Haha true, I have a PhD, but you’re literally retarded

>>18057451
I agree with this anon, having a world that makes sense to the finite does not mean the infinite is bound by whatever it is that makes said construct
>>18057456
trinity and trying to understand God's physics is what im talking about you Christian loon

>>18054953 (OP)
>To assume life can come from non-life is completely nonsensical.
Why?
>We have no evidence of that ever happening at any point in time ever.
We have many viable explanations on how it could have happened.
>and say all of it came from absolutely nothing?
No, I don't.
>I'm not even a Christfag
Then why do you use tired Christfag arguments?

>>18057453
Jesus’s teachings are in parables. It’s poetic language you dolt.

>>18057465
>trinity and trying to understand God's physics is what im talking about you Christian loon
You didn't reference anything tangentially related to that point, you incoherent retard. You just stated that judaism and islam are more correct... just because.

>>18057451
It's not an argument

It's just why I don't grant the premises needed for intelligent design argument for God
those premises - essentially just being vibes, that people pull out of their ass, as to what they would expect a god to do, or not do
I have other expectations of god, so the argument have no persuasive inertia for me

>>18057451
>The material world must consist of something and function through mechanisms
Right
But why would God create a material/natural world? The important stuff, like God, and angels and souls and stuff - those are all immaterial/magical
I also don't understand what it means for the world to be material, yet God and miracles be a part of the world

I think a God would create a supernatural world, where stuff functions by way of magic

It's not like we can argue and justify this stuff, it's feelings

>>18057451
If everything is designed, then the word "design" points to no qualities. You can't point to something that isn't designed to then compare with everything in the world to prove that everything is in fact designed.

>>18057477
I do not argue about religion on Mongolian Cartoon forums, those who wish to know the truth know to seek it and where to seek it.

>>18057547
What?

>>18057569
I get what you mean: if God’s beyond nature, why make something so limited and mechanical? But maybe that’s the point: the material world isn’t the opposite of the divine, it’s the canvas for it. The “natural laws” are like the language God uses. Miracles aren’t outside the system, they’re just rare expressions of a deeper layer of it.

If everything worked like magic, we wouldn’t even notice the divine, it would just be normal. The material gives us something to wake up through. It’s the medium that allows for experience.

>>18057584
This is just circular circle jerk semantics, which does not disqualify the underlying concept.

>>18057612
I wasn't trying to provide an (counter)argument
I was telling why I don't grant the premises used for fine-tuning and intelligent design arguments. Premises that are ultimately just motivated intuitions and feelings I don't have.

>>18057569
Honestly, you could make an argument the material universe *is* supernatural. It’s a matter of relative observation. We are used to treating things with a certain framework and language that nullifies experiences that, from another perspective of relation, are actual supernatural.

>>18057626
It actually does. To compare something with something that's designed while assuming nothing is actually undesigned means that the criteria will always be met, meaning that the criteria for determining whether something is designed is meaningless.

>>18057634
I understand, but I gave you a logic based premise, not a “vibes” one. Could you explain further your perspective? I’m curious.

Making a distinction between stuff that is natural and supernatural, is a very modern way of thinking, as far I understand
Demons and spirits, used to be thought of as just a part of the world, like anything else.

I get the need to make the distinction if you want to preserve belief in magic with how we've come to think of the world, I just think all of this should be filled away under "evidence against"

>>18057644
That argument collapses under its own premise. It assumes, from the start, that “nothing is undesigned,” and then uses that assumption to conclude that design is meaningless — which is circular reasoning. The validity of intelligent design isn’t dependent on a semantic contrast between “designed” and “undesigned,” but on the recognition of order, purpose, and interrelation beyond random assembly.

saying the criteria for design are meaningless because everything fits them is like saying gravity is meaningless because it applies everywhere. Universality doesn’t invalidate a principle.

>>18057663
You can't use an argument that states something falls meets certain criteria if you don't define your criteria for failure. You can't give an example of something that isn't purposeful, ordered, or random under this argument.

>>18057645
>The material world must consist of something and function through mechanism
I get that you used the word "must", but the way I interpret this is just that you have a feeling or a hunch - vibes
you've not provided a logical argument

just noticed that you said the specified the MATERIAL world, but I figure that was just a slip, as I was specifically talking about why the world doesn't *need* to be a material world

>a carmaker should make cars appear out of thin air instead of building them through intelligent engineerining
We're talking about God, the guy with the superpower to make stuff appear out of thin air, who decided what air and stuff is.
It's exactly my point, I *would* expect for God to conjure cars out of air.
Telling me that you have the opposite expectation, for God get a wrench, roll up his sleeves and get his hands greasy (no clue where the proverbial wrench comes form)

This is not a logical arguments. It just telling stories about what we'd expect a God to do.

The positive case for nothing happening or nothingness or something from nothing is more the realm of materialism. Acausality is an interesting subject now that has seen some relevance, but real cutting edge science is hidden from us, kind of how newton was hidden for society at the time, which really sucks. A matter of national security or making sure people fear death enough to not kill rich people, probably.

>>18055478
Note how this went unanswered? Why do Christians freak the fuck out when you recite what their holy book, the perfect word of the divine creator of the universe, says?

God cannot prove he wasn't created by an external process, and that is the fundamental problem of religion. It uses God as a singularity, but it doesn't provide any answer at all.

>>18057698
It's just paywall and buried beneath Jargon you cannot understand man. Newton's work was not really hidden. But it was not of popular knowledge. An actual hidden facet of Newton was his religious beliefs. We found out about those after his death.

>>18056558
There's nothing more arrogant than to coolly judge people as deserving eternal super torture

>>18057720
>God cannot
Oooooooooooooo that's a burning.

>>18057740
literally playing word association

>>18057731
I'm not talking about all atheists are stupid, no, but I think most of atheists are just posers

>>18056720
It absolutely is well understood and no amount of seething on your part will change that.
>>18057381
I don't care about your metaphysical nonsense.

>>18054953 (OP)
>To assume life can come from non-life is completely nonsensical.
What is life? What is to say a rock isn't a life form? What if there was no beginning? What if we are in a simulation? What if we are all dreaming? There is literally zero guarantee that we actually exist and that "non-life" is a thing, it's all our interpretation.
>Atheists really believe it's more rational to think existence itself came about with absolutely no cause, than literally any other possibility?
Rather, there are way too many possibilities, and being certain of something is the only wrong move. Some people will refrain from believing in something if given no reasonable argument or personally experience something.
> This plant comes from here, that human comes from here, they all agree it comes from somewhere, then they take the biggest possible leap of faith and say all of it came from absolutely nothing?
Who is they? Why are you projecting?
>I'm not even a Christfag, but even God is less of a long shot
I agree, but there is 0 reason to be sure besides being the easiest answer
>Because at least it's giving a cause to the action of creation.
The Big Bang also does that, the simulation theory also does that, the it's all a dream theory also does that, ...

I now remember why I started ignoring every religion-related debate, reddit atheists, delusional religious zombies, and smartass neutrals, I hate you fucking all.

>>18057359
Yes, that is step one, then it proves that the mathematical presuppositions are logically consistent internally and through empirical analysis and thus logically valid presuppositions necessary for one to exist and observe.

>>18057381
>What is the field that forces the function of self replicating and preserving molecules?
A field is just a map rather than the territory, what you call a field of rice isn't based on there being an empty field made specifically to hold a well ordered array of units of rice, its based on there being a plot of land that people decided to plant rice in regular intervals.

>why is that the primary function rather than chaos?
Chaos is the primary function, order is artificially superimposed onto some arbitrary cross section of chaos.

>>18057405
So religious myths are not even wrong and you think your job is to place any metaphorical imposition on any story you choose to make the story completely different than what is literally written?

>>18057428
>Everything is made up of atoms right?
Huh? How are time and space made up of atoms?

>>18055421
>>18055484
Meet atheist theooorer:
>Prove to me Jesus was real! no I don't have proof of abiogenesis or macroevolution!
>*Links you to an article they half read full of mays and could but never is
>Can't explain why life only exists on earth gotta theooorize
>Will never make a truth claim but defends his political values to death
>"Why humans are the only sentient species? I have a theoory for that!"
>"Religion set us back 1000 years"
>Morality is a survival mechanism because... because it just is okay!

>>18057451
>Saying that natural processes disprove creation is like arguing a carmaker should make cars appear out of thin air instead of building them through intelligent engineering
Except the first step of modern engineer is to make cars appear out of thin air as an idea onto paper, then turn capture that documented idea digitally as a rendering, then turn that rendering into a small physical model, then fine tune the model, then finally scale up and make an actual physical car prototype.

>>18057465
But the infinite is not bound to reality, so you can't even say its real because that would be imposing the same kind of limitations on it that you impose on the finite, if the infinite were truly real to the finite, then every number would be exactly equal to every other number since inf+x=inf+y.

>>18057622
>If everything worked like magic, we wouldn’t even notice the divine
Everything does work like magic since the invention of electricity, nobody actually does notice the divine, they are exposed to fictional poetry about it and it inspires their individual imagination to come up with more derivatives.

>>18057626
No, it points out that your underlying point is just circle jerk semantics trying to redefine what design means so that it applies equally to natural phenomenon as intentional physical labor in the exact same way post ironic memers redefined literally to also mean its exact opposite sentiment.

>>18057999
They are the posers because they don't play dress up every week so they can sing old songs together and pretend to drink blood?

>>18058060
>>Prove to me Jesus was real! no I don't have proof of abiogenesis or macroevolution!
There is proof that those things are physically possible while most miracles are physically impossible by design.
>*Links you to an article they half read full of mays and could but never is
At least it can be theoretically proven and isn't just a bunch of "you better trust me or you will burn" bullshit.
>Can't explain why life only exists on earth gotta theooorize
Not true, L2 tardigrade.
>Will never make a truth claim but defends his political values to death
Math is almost entirely about proving things true, programming explicitly depends on truth statements.
>humans are the only sentient species
Another completely untrue statement, every species that can figure out how to navigate the environment and reproduce is sentient by definition.
>"Religion set us back 1000 years"
Yeah in addition to setting your penis back 1000 millimeters for some reason.
>Morality
Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality and is in fact responsible for some of the most immoral acts in history along with being used to justify them.

>>18058134
What?

>>18058159
Atheists are the posers because they are the ones that don't dress up every week to sing old songs and pretend to drink blood?

>>18058168
I'm not atheist, but I don't do this shit. Maybe in Africa.people do this, but I am not

>>18058186
No, people do it all over the world, it is the explicit recommendation of the catholic church and nearly all of its protestant offshoots which collectively make up the majority of theists in the world.

>>18054953 (OP)
What atheist confidently claims that the universe was created from absolutely nothing? Name one.
Most of them just say that they don't know.

>>18054953 (OP)
>God is less of a long shot. Because at least it's giving a cause to the action of creation
Who created God or how did He come to be?
And why did God create things the way that He did and for what purpose?

>>18058204
Krauss wrote a whole book about how everything can definitely come from absolutely nothing.

>>18058204
In order to be an atheist, you have to believe the universe was created by nothing. If the universe was created by anything, then the universe has a Creator and therefore atheism cannot be true.

>>18054953 (OP)
>How can you rationally be an atheist?
You can't because atheism is an absurdist position. In an atheist model, the universe exists for no reason because it was created by nothing, therefore there is no such thing as cause and effect and nothing in sensible. Which is why atheists always behave as though atheism is false even when they say that it is true.
You can't rationally be an atheist anymore than you can rationally be a Christian. Both of them are irrational positions, but while atheism is absurdist, Christianity is more ontologically-orientated.

>>18058246
>>18058250
define "nothing" and why is the assumption that the precursor to the known universe is
"nothing"
>>18058250
>the universe exists for no reason
something having a reason is solely a human concept. for example planets form and black holes exist for no reason at all, based purely on physics and chemistry. if the lack of reason for the world's existence is what pushes you towards believing in god, then that points to wishful thinking on your part.
>no such thing as cause and effect
there clearly is and it does not require a god.
> nothing in sensible
what does that even mean?

>>18058250
>so anyway the rabbi who is also his own dad who is also the creator of the universe saw there were no figs on the tree so he cast a spell on the tree

>>18058246
>>18058250
Not the previous guy but why do both of you assume the cause of the universe is necessarily a 'god'? It originating the universe does not imply anything beyond that without qualifiers. It could not be conscious, agentic, etcIt does not have to be intentional, conscious, deliberate, or anything else.

>>18058285
>something having a reason is solely a human concept
can you demonstrate this to be the case?

>>18058285
>define nothing
lack of a thing

>>18058289
reason implies intention for a specific set of events to occur. Like the reason i have breakfast in the morning is so i feel better and healthier, don't lose weight etc. laws of physics and nature do not intend, they just happen. that being said, the burden of proof is on you technically - the default position is lack of judgement on the subject, after which you (and christians) claim that there's a reason for all this.
>>18058290
we don't know if there was "lack of a thing" before the universe began its existence. we don't even know if time itself was there.

>>18058288
>It originating the universe does not imply anything beyond that without qualifiers
Yes it does, and it is simple to demonstrate how. Simply speaking, anything capable of creating nature has to, by definition, be supernatural. At the moment the universe began to exist, nature existed. Therefore, nature cannot create itself anymore than you can be your own father. Therefore, whatever created nature must have supremacy over nature i.e. it must be supernatural. Calling whatever that "thing" is as God is not really a stretch of the imagination.

>>18058293
There is no such thing as before the universe began. You're basically asking what time it was before time began to exist.

>>18058293
>the default position is lack of judgement on the subject
That is only true in the sense that most people are dead and thus lack positions on anything. Clearly, you don't lack a judgement regarding this topic as you are currently sharing your opinion with me. The burden of proof lies with the claimant, the one who makes the claim, that's all.
>after which you (and christians) claim that there's a reason for all this
I am not claiming that there is a reason (for all this), I am simply claiming that there is reason. You are saying that reason is just something that humans made up, but you have failed to demonstrate how humans created reason and how they did it. I, for example can demonstrate how humans created language - can you do the same with reason?

>>18058294
>anymore than you can be your own father
why is this an analogy? nature does not follow rules of how biological creatures reproduce on planet earth.
> Therefore, whatever created nature must have supremacy over nature i.e. it must be supernatural. Calling whatever that "thing" is as God is not really a stretch of the imagination.
NTA but i can happily concede on that. now does this "thing" keep track of what everyone does in sends me to hell if i masturbate? that's a massive, HUGE stretch of the imagination compared to just the beginning of the universe.
>>18058295
yes, i mentioned that. so there was no god before the universe?

>>18058300
>can you do the same with reason?
humans did not create reason in the same way they created language. language emerged as a necessity along with evolving as a species. Reason in this specific context as a concept can only be applied to sentient beings capable of intention.
>I am not claiming that there is a reason (for all this)
you did, by implying that atheists believe that the universe emerged for no reason at all, thus setting yourself in opposite to that position.

>>18058196
But you talking about catholics only and I'm not sure that they do this shit in 2025

>>18058304
>so there was no god before the universe?
Whatever created time and space has to be outside of both time and space, the same way you have to be outside of a watch in order to construct a watch.
>nature does not follow rules of how biological creatures reproduce on planet earth.
Okay, so let me ask you this. A man and a woman have sex and therefore a child is produced, that is cause-and-effect. A seed is planted in the dirt and a tree grows, that is cause-and-effect. Can you name one thing in nature that is not the direct result of cause-and-effect?
>now does this "thing" keep track of what everyone does in sends me to hell if i masturbate?
I'm not sure if you want to seriously discuss whether or not masturbation is legal in Christianity, but what I will tell you is that the only people who say that it is are old grandmas who don't want you to beat off because they want you to get married and produce grandchildren for her enjoyment. In other words you beating off threatens women's ability to control you with sex so they hate it and say that it's a sin, even though there is no Biblical evidence to suggest that masturbation is a sin.

>>18058306
>you did
Dude, what I mean is that there is reason in general, which means that there is a reason for everything, including but not limited to (all this). That is what I meant brah.
>Reason in this specific context as a concept can only be applied to sentient beings capable of intention.
Okay but can you demonstrate to us that human beings created reason? Better yet, let me ask you a different question. Are humans born with an innate ability to reason or are they not?

The humanities are full of science illiterates. This must be fixed.

>>18058310
>the same way you have to be outside of a watch in order to construct a watch.
the universe is not a watch
>Can you name one thing in nature that is not the direct result of cause-and-effect?
you're conflating reason with cause and affect. I was arguing for the concept of "reason" as in your notion that god (or not god, whatever it is) has created the universe for a reason.
>even though there is no Biblical evidence to suggest that masturbation is a sin.
ok a different example - will the same god that created the universe "for a reason" send a gay person to hell? or someone who hasn't repented because they didn't know about christianity? you've only addressed the validity of whether masturbation is sin or not, not the huge stretch of imagination i was implying.

>>18058311
>Okay but can you demonstrate to us that human beings created reason? Better yet, let me ask you a different question. Are humans born with an innate ability to reason or are they not?
"reason for all of this" and humans being able to reason are two different concepts. see >>18058317, for a reason as in intention, intended purpose.

>>18058317
>the universe is not a watch
Yes but it is a physical object.
>you're conflating reason with cause and affect
Cause-and-effect is the very basis of reason. Without cause-and-effect there is no reason. It's the same thing. When you read this stop typing and actually think about it. Do you seriously believe that reason could exist independently of cause-and-effect? It is quite literally the same thing.
>will the same god that created the universe "for a reason" send a gay person to hell?
If someone does not want to worship God for any reason, gay or not, God does not force them to worship him in heaven forever. The only other place for them to go if they do not want to worship God is hell.
>or someone who hasn't repented because they didn't know about christianity?
Anyone who does not repent of their sin cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (John 14:6 and Luke 13:5).

>>18058320
In order for human beings to be capable of reasoning there needs to be reason already, so where did it come from?

>>18058294
You are still ascribing many extra qualities by using the qualifier of 'god'. Supernatural, sure. Something beyond nature created nature. But you jump into assuming it is not only an entity (rather than just a force, or whatever else), it is also a conscious and intentional one.

>>18056585
Interesting. Go on...

>>18056663
Books are made of pages which are made up of paragraphs which themselves are made by sentences, words which are made of letters. There is no reason to believe that a book ever had an author because with this track records we are bound to find a naturally occurring first cause.

>>18058329
>It's the same thing
no, the concept i'm arguing about (which you've switched with a sleight of hand btw) is reason as in "my reason for doing X was Y". This is the implication you've made when claiming that atheists believe the universe happened for no reason, as in your position is that god created the universe for a reason, a purpose he has in mind for it. If you mean reason as in a cause for something, then the current consensus is that the reason is unknown. However, that does not mean that there is no cause and effect in an atheist's world view, because there clearly is as its clearly observable - atheists do not deny cause and affect and you claiming that they don't believe it in does not change that fact.
>If someone does not want to worship God for any reason, gay or not, God does not force them to worship him in heaven forever. The only other place for them to go if they do not want to worship God is hell.
again, you're addressing the wrong question - i'm not asking you whether these people go to hell, i'm asking whether you think it's a much bigger stretch of the imagination to assume that the same entity that willed the universe into existence is the same one that sends cosmically insignificant creatures on a speck of dust to hell for cosmically insignificant events. because to me, it's a MUCH bigger stretch of the imagination than simply calling that which caused the universe to exist "god"

>>18058334
The reason why you do that is simply because you have a fear of the word God. You literally just described whatever created the universe as being a supernatural force, as if God himself is not a supernatural force.
Now while I never said that God is conscious or not, strictly speaking it is impossible for me to demonstrate whether or not the Creator of the universe is conscious and intentional. I personally believe he is, but I cannot actually prove that.

>>18058345
What a retarded analogy.

>>18058334
yes, exactly
>>18058333
define "reasoning" and "reason" and tell me why it has to be that way.
>>18058345
the universe is not a book.

>>18058333
Reason is not a substance. It's a convenient abstraction.
Do you believe the economy is a discrete thing that needed to exist before people could exchange goods and services?

>>18058355
in order to accept your arguments until now, i'd have to accept that the creator is conscious and intentional as well, but you can't prove it which is the problem.

>>18058355
>Armchair pseudo psychologizing
Believe it or not, there are more ways for something to be beyond nature than the one you predilect. It's not a dichotomy of God/nothing, not outside the arena you have rigged in your favour, anyway.
>Now while I never said that God is conscious or not, strictly speaking it is impossible for me to demonstrate whether or not the Creator of the universe is conscious and intentional. I personally believe he is, but I cannot actually prove that.
Can you prove it is a 'creator' and not just a force? Or an event?

>>18058351
>If you mean reason as in a cause for something
It's the same thing. "My reason for doing X is Y" is the same thing as "The cause for me doing X is Y", they both refer to linearity and cause and effect because people do not do things for literally no reason.
Atheists cannot believe that the universe has a cause because that would imply that the universe has a Causer. But if the universe began without a cause then the very foundation of the universe is not subject to the laws of cause and effect, which effectively means that they cannot be relied upon to describe things within the universe. That's why I say atheists do not believe (intellectually) in cause and effect even if they know it to be the case. If you are an atheist, Steady State theory makes more sense because obviously something that never began to exist cannot possible have been caused to exist, and therefore God becomes impossible or at least completely unnecessary. In short, my point is that the leading cosmological model supports the idea of God existing - Steven Hawking himself admitted this and honestly, he is right.

>>18058365
It's not a problem because obviously you can believe something without me having to prove that it is true.

>>18058351
>i'm asking whether you think it's a much bigger stretch of the imagination to assume that the same entity that willed the universe into existence is the same one that sends cosmically insignificant creatures on a speck of dust to hell for cosmically insignificant events
It is a bigger stretch of the imagination which is why people sometimes do not believe it. I'm not sure what you want me to tell you.

>>18058361
>define "reasoning" and "reason" and tell me why it has to be that way.
I simply defer to Merriam-Webster.

>>18058364
In order for people to exchange things then they would have to had an agreed upon value prior to them being exchanged, that's literally what the economy is, therefore before the first goods ever changed hands yes, there would necessarily have had to have been some economy in order to value those goods. Basically people exchanging goods and services is the same thing as the economy.

>>18058382
>It's the same thing. "My reason for doing X is Y" is the same thing as "The cause for me doing X is Y
yes, but you're referring to "me" as in a conscious actor, a being capable of intention. there's plenty of things that have a cause and an effect that are not conscious and without intent - the moon controls the tides on our planet, lightning strikes a tree and it burns down. All these have a cause and an effect, but no intention because only a conscious being can give it intention.
>But if the universe began without a cause then the very foundation of the universe is not subject to the laws of cause and effect
i've said multiple times, the cause is currently unknown. that doesn't mean it's not there and that certainly doesn't mean that it had to have been a conscious (withour proof, as admitted by you) creator. bear in mind, i'm not arguing for a lack of cause, i'm arguing for the lack of an intentional creator.
>Steady State theory
it has been abandoned for about 50 years now, no?
>my point is that the leading cosmological model supports the idea of God existing
no, it permits room for interpretation of it as such, not the existence of an actual conscious creator. if that was the case, then every single christian would gloat and point to this in every single conversation and the scientific community would be much less ambiguous about it.

>>18058403
retard

>>18058378
>Can you prove it is a 'creator' and not just a force?
Why do you they need to be two separate things? Let me explain it to you this way. There is a ball at the top of a hill. A dog hits the ball with his nose and it rolls down the hill.
The dog is the "cause" of the ball rolling down the hill; the dog is also the "force" that caused the ball to roll down the hill. They can be the same thing.
The event is the creation of the universe. God is the cause (or supernatural force if you prefer) that caused it to happen - the basis for cause and effect, if you will.

>>18058410
But where did the economy come from???
Did God speak the economy into being before creating the animals or after putting the stars in the sky?

>>18058387
in this particular conversation, you're making a case for something that is reasonable to believe in. it requires a creator that you can't prove to be conscious, therefore i can't accept your case.
>>18058396
i was referring to this: >>18058294
calling the cause of the universe "god" is a huge stretch of the imagination, unlike you've claimed it not to be.

>>18058424
you can't use this analogy because it implies time and space, both of which most likely were not a thing before the universe began its existence.

>>18058417
>the moon controls the tides on our planet, lightning strikes a tree and it burns down. All these have a cause and an effect, but no intention because only a conscious being can give it intention.
you're completely correct and I agree, but what I'm ultimately talking about is the thing that created the universe, not things within the universe itself. Whatever created the universe is not the same as the universe itself, but like I already told you I cannot necessarily prove that the Creator of the universe is a conscious or intentional actor.
>i've said multiple times, the cause is currently unknown.
Yes, I know that that's what you believe.
>it has been abandoned for about 50 years now, no?
Yes but when it got debunked many atheists were upset, because Big Bang clearly implicated the existence of a Creator.
>then every single christian would gloat and point to this in every single conversation
Not every Christian has the intellectual capability to notice this much less explain it in a conversation, or to even understand it fully. Let us just be honest about that. And the "scientific community" does not need to make any comment about God because God is beyond the purview of science to begin with (since God is not a physical object). Scientists are concerned with what is observable because that is what scientists study. Even if you assume I am correct and that God really does exist, the "scientific community" doesn't have to make any comment about it because God's existence has no bearing on their field of study at all.

>>18058439
It is not a perfect analogy, but unfortunately the Big Bang is a one-time non-repeatable event and no possible analogy would actually be appropriate to describe it.

Will this thing (life/universe) have a natural explanation, like everything else that was ever ever explained? No!
In this case the explanation is not natural, it's magical.
...

Just seems like Theists should be way more humble in whatever premises they assert as to why it's literally impossible to explain life without magic, when magic got such an awful track record of explaining things.
While natural explanations got an amazing track record. All the explanation I know of are natural.
Maybe you went wrong with the premises

>>18058425
I never really thought about it until this very moment, but I do think you could interpret Genesis 3:19 as God speaking the economy into existence.

>>18058442
>Whatever created the universe is not the same as the universe itself,
>>18058446
>and no possible analogy would actually be appropriate to describe it.
yet you (or someone else as well) keep bringing up the watchmaker argument dressed in different clothing
>because Big Bang clearly implicated the existence of a Creator.
how exactly? it does not imply a creator but the current state of knowledge on the theory permits intepretation, which (coincidentally) christians interpret in their favor, just like they changed their mind on when the age of the universe was established, evolution was proven etc etc etc
>the "scientific community" does not need to make any comment about God because God is beyond the purview of science to begin with
the scientific community is concerned with the origins of the universe, where one of the proposed notions is god. it is obviously within their realm of study.

>>18058461
you have to be kidding me

>>18058246
>If the universe was created by anything, then the universe has a Creator
No only if the universe was intentionally created by a being with agency is there a creator.

>>18058285
>no reason at all
>the reasons are physics and chemistry.
contradict yourself much?

>>18058290
>lack of a thing
That makes it a thing which means it can't exist because it can't lack itself because it is itself.

>>18058479
>the scientific community is concerned with the origins of the universe,
No it's not you're fundamentally misunderstanding science. Nothing about the origins of the universe can be scientifically measured other than the fact that it began to exist. You cannot describe the origin of the universe in strictly physical terms because you cannot go any further back to study what happened "before" the Big Bang. All scientists can do is say "it happened" and move on. Individual scientists may be concerned about it but that doesn't make it a scientific matter.
>it does not imply a creator
It quite simply does if you follow cause and effect. The universe exists. Therefore the implication is that something caused it to exist. That's not me interpreting anything in my favor, I am just outlining the theory.

>>18058308
No, I am explicitly pointed out how I am talking about the majority of theists in the world, learn to read, retard.

>>18058504
>lack of a thing is a thing
yeah its called nothing

>>18058498
If you create something unintentionally are you still the creator or not?

>>18058511
No, by your incoherent definition the thing called nothing can't be nothing because nothing is the lack of a thing, even itself.
Nothing is the smallest possible amount of anything and everything.

>>18058518
>nothing is something
i feel like i died and i'm in purgatory (which i don't even believe in cos i'm not catholic)

>>18058516
I am a being with agency, so it doesn't apply, but if something unexpected happened to you that was completely unintentional, it wasn't a creation, it was a consequence of your action, creation specifically implies intention.

>>18058525
Yes nothing is something to such a high degree that it can even be quantified.

>>18058527
thats a load of semantics tho

>>18058527
Honestly it really does not, there are quite literally many inventions (which are creations obviously) that were created unintentionally, but that is kind a nitpick and that is not actually the substance of your argument so I will ignore it.
Regardless, whatever is responsible for the existence of the universe can reasonable be described as being the creator of the universe. If there's a big hole in the ground and you ask some guy and he says "Oh yeah a bomb made that hole" you wouldn't say "No dude the bomb wasn't a conscious actor it's impossible for bombs to make holes" you would be like "Oh okay" and perfectly understand his meaning. This whole rigamorole is kind of silly.
If you wanna say that the creator of the universe is not conscious or intelligent or intentional you can do that, but the idea you have that anything capable of creating something needs to be conscious or intentional is just flatly wrong. I think actually AI is another perfect refutation of your point; obviously LLMs have no agency but are still capable of creation so your point is ultimately moot. It's just an arbitrary definition you are using.

>>18058501
i've clarified multiple times the difference between reason as intention and reason as a intentionless cause for something, read more
>>18058506
>Nothing about the origins of the universe can be scientifically measured other than the fact that it began to exist.
that doesn't mean that the cause of the big bang is not a scientific subject.
>and move on
they haven't moved on, otherwise further studies on it would cease. they haven't:
https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/news/new-theory-challenges-how-our-universe-was-born
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/07/250730030404.htm
https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.03538
>It quite simply does if you follow cause and effect. The universe exists. Therefore the implication is that something caused it to exist. That's not me interpreting anything in my favor, I am just outlining the theory.
i'm not arguing against there being a cause - i've stated multiple times that the cause is simply unknown. you're interpreting the cause to be god (a conscious one, the same god that sends people to hell, as we've previously established) when there's no indication that it is except the watchmaker argument.

>>1805850
Oops, I agree that I'm a retard XD

>>18058339
NTA, but Philip K Dick began talking a lot about how time is not linear and things in our past may have changed. He then got killed by glowies. Not that thinking about that is very interesting it sounds kind of stupid

>>18058947
this is accepted in contemporary astrophisics, theres math behind it and so on, most things function in a certain way depending on variables such as scale, even the way we percieve time and the way time seems to objectively function dosent seem to work the same in all cases, meaning for all we know reality is byond causal logic as we can think it, cause and effect chains might as well evolving fractals, its all eating its own tail

>>18058050
That’s circular though lol. Logic would have that the existence of mathematics implies metaphysics, as there is order being informed, and this order is immaterial. Mathematics isn’t a physical dimension, it’s purely mental / metaphysical, and yet it is consistent in material expressions. This is indication of platonism, as there are complimentary relationships between the observer and the observed, which signals they are of the same wholeness, which is a higher dimensional principle known as God.

>>18059090
go off king

>>18059090
Yeah, you can't have math without Jesus

>>18059108
How can 1 + 1 = 2 without Jesus holding the 2 in place so that it can't run away? Explain that, atheists.

>>18059109
That's exactly what I'm saying

>>18059090
>a higher dimensional principle
>higher

Always with the spatial metaphors. When talking about stuff that are not spatial.
I understand what higher means when it's about one thing being taller than another. IE: The Eifel Tower is higher than my house. Stuff like that.

I don't understand what it means for a dimensional principle, to be higher than another dimensional principle
Can you rephrase sentence without using spatial metaphors?

>>18058056
If chaos is truly primary and all order is arbitrary, then the emergence and persistence of any stable pattern, including self-replication, would be statistically impossible or at least meaningless. Yet, order consistently emerges, persists, and scales. That suggests order isn’t merely “artificially superimposed” on chaos; it’s a property latent within it, an attractor within the field of potential, not a human projection.

You can call the “field” a metaphor, sure, but metaphors that predict reality consistently point to something more than semantics. The fact that molecules do self-replicate and preserve themselves implies there’s an underlying principle, whether you call it a field, law, or attractor, that biases chaos toward complexity, not the other way around.

>>18054953 (OP)
>God is less of a long shot.
It isn't because the question of what God is and where did they come from and why did they create things the way they did still remain.

>>18059118
Not that guy, but you could say outside of the material world is not subject to change, therefor outside the rigours of time and death.
Even though we live and die every single rule that governs the material world is unchanging.
The things contained in the material world are usually represented as "lower" because they are an instance of a higher form but are subject to change and death, therefor they are corruptible and inferior.
It's like if you were seeking a knowledge of Truth, which is superior, the one that is always changing or the one that never does? For me, as a seeker of Truth I would prefer the eternal one.

>>18058058
Huh? You’re missing the point. All myths are expressions of human consciousness within the context of the people who develop the myths. They’re all true in the sense that they are modes of condensing higher principles into forms of language that are relative to the human condition. Archetypes of the human psyche its relationship to experience. There is no imposing metaphorical meaning, that’s a low level understanding. Human beings have a way of using language and expressing, and there are underlying patterns that emerge from that. Have myth makers ever expressed that the myths are literal? What it “literal” as a concept? Could it mean different things at different times? Do you speak in a way that is always literal? It’s not about making the story different, it’s about resonating with what a story IS.

>>18059138
>the question of what God is and where
Not a problem. My brain just stops thinking when I hear the word 'God'.

>>18058059
Well space and time are metaphysical dimensions as they allow or “hold” experience. It’s the dimension that allows separation and thus observation. Also, space isn’t actually nothingness in a vacuum, you know that right? You’re aware that time is a human concept and is not always linear in the universe?

>>18058062
Correct. How is it possible to pull forms from a higher dimension? That implies a higher metaphysics. You’re proving my point lol

>>18058073
Exactly. Well said. That was sort of my point earlier

>>18058076
This is literally semantics.

It’s not circular reasoning to recognize design in natural phenomena; it’s an inference from consistent, functional order arising within systems that would otherwise yield randomness. The claim isn’t that “design exists because we call it design,” but that certain patterns, self-replication, information encoding, feedback regulation, display hallmarks of intentional organization that exceed chance and necessity alone. Dismissing that as “semantics” ignores the empirical fact that nature behaves as though guided by an underlying logic or intelligence. Observing that intelligence through its effects is not redefining design; it’s acknowledging that the boundary between natural and intentional order may be artificial, not the inference itself.

>>18054953 (OP)
>We have no evidence of that ever happening at any point in time ever
untrue. We also know how to assemble life, and routinely modify it to our specifications, though assembling it from scratch is a bit outside present technology.
>Because at least it's giving a cause to the action of creation.
This is the failure in your reasoning. There was cause to the genesis of life, it just wasn't a idealist reason like you seem to want it to be. The root cause was something more like a self-sustaining reaction, though it has since negated to be something far greater.

>>18059202
>ignores the empirical fact
Your hallucinations of invisible skydaddy controlling nature are not an empirical fact.

>>18058306
Reason is what connects cause and effect. If cause and effect are separate then the separator or dimension of separation must exist, and we call that reason.

>>18059158
>e things contained in the material world are usually represented as "lower"
Represented by whom? Morons?
>because they are an instance of a higher form
Where's the evidence for this statement? Oh wait, you're just making it up.
>For me, as a seeker of Truth I would prefer the eternal one.
It's funny how you've failed spectacularly at that.

>>18058334
Define conscious. You could argue god is consciousness. Plants turning to face the sun is consciousness.

>>18058410
Economy is a higher principle, an immaterial form that then informs material. Exchanging good and services are actions of an economy. Economy isn’t a physical thing, it’s an abstract that describes the relationship of actions.

>>18058506
The scientific expression of the Big Bang is quite literally the same as the religious expression of creation. They’re just different languages. The Big Bang scientifically implies a miracle.

>>18059220
you are operating in complete bad faith and not worth talking to

>>18059109
Don’t know if you intended this but that’s actually a brilliant way to explain the fact that there is a metaphysical order that contains the possibility of coherence.

>>18059238
Is dick sucking a higher principle? Does the immaterial dick sucking platonic form possess you whenever you feel the urge to suck dicks (as you surely do)? Is the platonic immaterial form for dick sucking inferior to the platonic form for sucking big black dicks? Is the cum ejected by the platonic also platonic? These are the greatest unanswered mysteries of the philosophy of platonism.

>>18059255
It is intended as a mockery of your thought process.

>>18059118
I mean I’m just trying to allude. Language is limited. It’s hard to express that which is beyond the realm of vocabulary and logic even. I’d say: a principle that operates at a broader level of dimensionality. Also, when you imagine something in your head, like “saving the girl from danger” daydream…where is that light coming from?

>>18059211
?? lol can you read?

>>18059268
?? lol are you always stupid or is it just this time???

>>18059257
No. Sucking dick (which you seem to be obsessed with—just do it already!) is a psychical phenomena, not a principle. Platonism is about the relationships between abstract forms. You could say the abstract essence of what constitutes satisfaction or completion in dick sucking, independent of the specific acts or objects, is an implying higher principles.

>>18059262
I know, but you unknowingly proved the point like a retard.

>>18059275
You’re probably 13 and brown so I’ll forgive you. You should attempt to understand, you might learn something through playing with the ideas.

>>18059284
Dick sucking is an abstract act since it doesn't refer to any particular dick or any particular sucker. Ergo, dick sucking is a platonic concept whose existence which can only be explained by the existence of a God who loves sucking dick.

>>18054953 (OP)
How was the almighty creator created? Your logic is correct, but to be consistent you have to apply it to the step before. However, that leaves you with a paradox; there has to be a cause of everything at the same time as every cause has to have its own cause.

>>18059263
I'm just skeptical that you're saying anything meaningful

>a principle that operates at a broader level of dimensionality
Right. So I understand what it means for a dumptruck to be broader than my ass.
I don't understand what it means for a principle to operate at a broader level of dimensionality than another principle

Not even clear on what you mean when you use the word principle, or dimensionality in this context. Problem is, I don't think you can help me out, if this stuff is all gibberish.

>>18059289
You obviously don't know, or you wouldn't continue to be retarded.
>>18059291
You should attempt to say something non-retarded for once.

>>18054953 (OP)
Wtf is God even Platos shit doesn’t make sense God can’t be external greater nor less than anything nor internal so God isn’t sentient so what is it

>>18059311
You rang?

>>18059298
Yes. God exists. It is self evident and can be found even in the abstract of dick sucking. Lol

>>18057033
One question for you Christian’s. All religions can be believable it spends wherever you’re born and also why would a grand god of all allow other religions to co exist? Is reasoning outside of God? Then god isn’t omnipotent

>>18059319
So true kween. Which kind of dick do you think God loves sucking the most? I'm guessing it's big black dicks. That's the only possible explanation for why they're so large.

>>18059300
You’re constrained by your own imagination and logical reasoning. I understand what you’re saying, but the point is there is no language to describe that which is beyond the realm of language. So you can only allude to it.

You’re arguing in bad faith. Broader dimensionality or higher principles would be exemplified through mathematics; the concept of number itself. Here, “number” is more abstract and general than any particular numeric instance. In Physics, the conservation of energy is a higher principle that contains the “lower” like kinetic energy in a moving car, or potential energy in a raised weight. In Philosophy/Ethics, Justice is the broader dimensionality/principle as the contained instances are a fair trial, equal pay, anti-discrimination policies, etc. Does this clarify the concept? We can then take these higher principles and go beyond them into another dimension that’s even more abstract, which informs those principles. That’s what I’m alluding to.

>>18059306
You’re making a fool of yourself. Only you don’t know it. What’s that called?

>>18059332
BBC is aktually a myth. My dick is bigger than 95% of all men, and that’s by the grace of God. Your attempt at vulgarity doesn’t disprove anything. God (as I understand it/him(him just being a descriptor for relative convenience)) is not offended by your dick sucking lol

>>18059322
There are dozens of languages for saying “water”. Does that mean water doesn’t exist? Does it mean the languages are all wrong?

>>18059352
Myths are just as real as reality because there is a platonic form for the myth and the platonic reality is superior to the inferior physical reality. Ergo, BBC is 100% real and god loves it. Also, there's a platonic form for sucking my dick in particular and that means God sucks my dick too. He's not only not offended by it, but he also loves it.

>>18058060
So, you're a deist?
Since non of your arguments makes any sense in order to prove a certain religion.
>>18058238
Not true, Kauss defined nothingness as a kind of vacuum.
>>18058246
>In order to be an atheist, you have to believe the universe was
>created by nothing. If the universe was created by anything, then
>the universe has a Creator and therefore atheism cannot be true.
Implies everything that creates the universe needs to be a deity. Doesn't follow.

>>18059361
You’ve been defeated. Now you’re just spewing psychobabble lol. btw myths literally are reality, what else are they? You’re unable to understand literary and psychological concepts lmao

>>18059386
Sorry, God is sucking my dick right now (as necessitated by the existence of the platonic form of "God sucking my dick right now"), so I can't respond to your post. He's really quite the slut, you know?

>>18054953 (OP)
>To assume life can come from non-life is completely nonsensical.
to assume anything about that which is unkown without concrete empirical evidence is nonsensical. which means agnosticism is the only way.

Learn about protein

>>18057328
>Back then, Water meant consciousness
No it didn't

>>18054959
The Biblical god is not an Old Man Sitting In The Clouds, and he is, in fact, an abstract creative mind, a self-evident and self-sustaining idea. Scripture even attests to this. Anyone who unironically believes that God, the I AM, is just Old Man Who Sit In Cloud And Yell is immediately outing themself as an r/atheism-tier midwit who has NEVER read the Bible before.

John 1
1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2: The same was in the beginning with God.
3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The Word IS God. God IS Word. All throughout Scripture, from Old Testament to the New, attests that he is a spirit and not of the material realm. As a matter of fact, the fact that he SPOKE the world into existence means that we also, are created of Word. To God, this world is merely a construct of information bound by a specific set of rules that he put in place. You want to know why God cannot lie? Because he is a Word, and a Word that is not true cannot exist. He cannot contradict himself, to contradict himself would negate his existence, and if his existence were negated everything, future, present, and past, would immediately cease to exist. This is also why no man can look into the face of God and live, because to look into the face of God is to see his totality, past, present, and future. Not only would this (probably) immediately fry our brain, this would also break the chain of causality. This is why when he does show the future to someone, he usually only shows just enough to prevent causality from being violated and causing a contradiction.

>>18059508
Was Michelangelo an r/atheism-tier midwit who NEVER read the Bible?

>>18059508
Why is he obsessed with your masturbation habits though?

>>18059508
>not an Old Man Sitting In The Cloud
Sitting on a chair to the right side of my heavenly father (sky daddy), btw

Another worthless thread.

>>18059549
What is even the point of this post? If you're going to depict the invisible God in a visual medium then there is going to have to be some concessions made. Michelangelo isn't the Bible, he has nothing to do with the discussion.
>>18059556
>>18059691
>so-called rational and logical atheists when asked to think outside of the bun:
Is this really the best that you have? Are you actually capable of metaphysical discussion or are you just canned snark all the way down?

>>18059795
My point is that picturing God the way that the most famous artistic depiction of God depicted him, a depiction that was approved by the largest Christian church and is in the ceiling of their most important chapel, isn't all that odd.

>>18059795
My point is that you are a big fat liar
Christians literally do believe God is a daddy that lives in the sky, and Jesus sits on a chair next to him

>>18059805
Yes, but that's just a depiction to make God understandable and depictable. In the source material, it states quite plainly that God is a spirit, that God is Word. He isn't literally some dude sitting up in the clouds.
>>18059808
Job's friends also believed in God and said all sorts of things that were completely and utterly wrong, too. I'm sure that there are Christians who conceptualize God as Old Man Upstairs Sitting In Cloud, but that doesn't mean anything when the literal source material proves them wrong.

>>18059828
Just fucking stop. Don't tell me what I believe or don't believe.
I am a Christian. God is my daddy and lives in the sky.

>>18059834
So, just canned snark all the way down. Good to know.

>>18059828
He is capable of impregnating a woman, i.e. he is a dude, and he rules the kingdom of Heaven, i.e. he sits up in the clouds.

>>18059846
You lied, take some accountability

>>18059808
NTA
>Christians literally do believe God is a daddy that lives in the sky,
Actually, the biblical view is that yahweh is an extradimensional being. It is everyone else, except jews and the jewified golems, who tend to view God as a celestial patriarch.
But since christian Europeans in practice syncretize their innate beliefs with their foreign bible, your confusion is understandable.

>>18059854
You think God was only able to put a baby in Mary because he's a guy? The being who created everything is somehow restricted by the way humans put their dicks in someone?

>>18059875
Yes, and because he had a wife called Asherah before the Israelites became monotheists and because of what Genesis says:
>And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him

>>18059874
>extradimensional
Not biblical

Jesus moves in the direction UP (towards the sky) when he ascends to heaven (the sky)

Jesus thought the universe looked like this.

>>18056720
>>18056743
To further the "fence door" analogy, I had a door that used to close itself. If I was a superstitious man ignorant of physics I would assume it was a result of a spirit or unseen agent doing it. It was actually just air pressure differentials. What you see as complex and mind blowing isn't necessarily so on a cosmic scale, just like how our minds aren't blown that air pressure can cause things to move.

>>18054953 (OP)
What u believe might happen with the idea of abiogenesis, would be the Zeno's paradoxical (if you don’t know (this will be a very rough summary), it’s a story of a man and a turtle and the man goes half the distance closer to the turtle every time. At the start the man is making incredible progress, but eventually the man will be mere atoms away from the turtle but he can never fully reach it). We will be able to get alll the components of an organism but we can never make life

And I’m not saying this as a coper I just genuinely believe this

>>18054953 (OP)
>person who doesn't believe in ANY god
Omni-atheist.

>persom who believes in a god but not in another
Relative atheist, like christians, they're atheists about all gods except a schizo with 3 personalities.

>>18054953 (OP)
We don't assume life from non-life is simple. We infer from cosmological evidence that existence emerged from a quantum fluctuation in a primordial vacuum, a state of *nothing* teeming with potential, governed by physical law.

religion spam threads go to /x/

>>18054953 (OP)
you are a fucking retard if you unironically cannot understand how a person cant be rationally an atheist, go fuck yourself, seriously, iḿ a believer, i'm catholic, but, holy shit, i cant understand for some faggots its too fucking hard to understand a person can choose not to believe in any god, fuck off, retard.
>To assume life can come from non-life
its not that a fish came from a rock, you idiot, learn more about chemistry
>to think existence itself came about with absolutely no cause
if you really believe it should be a rational entity for nature to ocurr, thats your bias and problem, nature do its shit without any entoty causing it, that doesnt mean its acausal, you fucking moron
i bet you are a fucking prottestant, only a protestant can be so fucking retarded

>>18063074
>I'm a believer, I'm catholic
>bunch of childish ad hominen and sardonic insults draped in judgment Jesus would never promote or say
Aren't you types supposed to be the ones who are supposedly the closest to Christ?

>>18063124
>catholic
>Aren't you types supposed to be the ones who are supposedly the closest to Christ?
Not sure where you got that idea. Definitely not from the Bible.

>>18063124
Catholics aren't Christians. They will burn in hell with the popes they worship.

>>18055336
>Ever heard of viruses?
Never. Sounds fake.

>>18058246
>In order to be an atheist, you have to believe the universe was created by nothing.
The universe always existed or has an indeterminate age. Big Bang Theory is literally a Christian psyop created by Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre. It is currently being shredded apart by the JWST finding galaxies that formed impossibly early after the Big Bang.

>>18054953 (OP)
By not believing in some bullshit book made 2000 years ago
Religion is literally cope
People cant imagine that when they die theres nothing so they gotta make up some fairyland happy place they go to and meet all their dead family in

>>18059913
>Jesus moves in the direction UP
Yes, sorry, that's totally real and definitely happened. How could I forget.
>t. a genitally mutilated pharisaic rabbi mohel jew

>>18057453
You have a worthless brain.

>>18064833
You're a subhuman with a worthless brain. Disgusting rat. I can't wait to hear you pitiful screams :)

>>18064852
Cringe projection from a loser. Yawn.

>>18054953 (OP)
Which god is real god(s)? Ancient Egypt, Zorastorism, Greek Pantheon, Roman Pantheon, Aztec Pantheon, Mayans, Judaism, Islam and all of its flavors, Christianity and all of its flavors, Hindu, or any of the probably 200 other religions and their god or gods?

>where does life come from
>no idea
>uhm lets call it god!!
Ok and then what? You have a God whos only attribute is that it is the source of life.

>>18065114
Divine truth is non-local. All deities are regional avatars of a singular consciousness experiencing itself through our belief.

>>18065121
>[Everyone hated that]

>>18064850
>i dont believe in your fairytales
>heheheheh ill enjoy watching you burn and hearing you scream. yes yes how dare you disagree with me.

>>18054953 (OP)
> life from non-life
We've replicated early Earth conditions in labs and created organic molecules from inorganic shit. Miller-Urey, 1953. It's evidence abiogenesis isn't nonsensical.

> something from nothing
Nobody claims the universe came from "nothing" in the philosophical sense. The current model is the Big Bang, a quantum fluctuation from a singularity.

> God is a better cause
Cool story. So your "cause" is an uncreated, timeless, spaceless, omnipotent consciousness that just always existed. How is that less of a leap than a natural, uncaused quantum event? You're just replacing one mystery with a bigger, more complex one that has zero evidence.

>>18065120
Then they will shimmy their way into talking about the specific god they want to talk about. Which we will assume to be Tenri O no Mikoto.