It's about time you people recognize that the universe we live in cannot have come into existence out of nothing. The big bang is very real, but it's not the reason for our creation, just an effect. Whatever caused the big bang to happen would have to be something with power, intelligence and will.

Yes, and your specific religious book from desert cavemen thousands of years ago has all of the answers about WHO done it and WHY.

>>81827095 (OP)
>universe we live in cannot have come into existence out of nothing
Why not?

>>81828178
Because it's impossible. How did it happen? What set things in motion? Only idiots actually believe that it came from absolute nothingness. Not even the brightest of scientists think this. this is purely the idea of uneducated neckbeard atheists.

>>81828669
>Because it's impossible
Why because you say so? To me it just makes more sense that our universe came from nothing, rather than having a God come into existence from nothing and then create our universe. You're just adding extra steps to something that doesn't need it. I also don't get what's so impossible about our universe coming from nothing either. You only believe that something can't come from nothing because you're conditioned to the natural laws that govern the universe. But if there really is nothing, then those laws don't exist, meaning that there's nothing saying that something can't come from nothing.

>>81827095 (OP)
Finding ourselves on a spinning rock in space, is pretty surreal, but ascribing a supernatural cause is a bit premature.

>>81828141
fpbp, abrahamic religions are dumb.

also let me shill my own religious beliefs to you anons ITT:
Agnostic Pandeism
check it.

>>81828807
God didn't "come into existence from nothing". In theology God was always there. No beginning, no end. We can not ever fully comprehend that, but we can fully comprehend that everything in our material world has a cause. The problem with your view (which I don't believe you actually believe in to be honest) is that if we came from nothing, what was before? How long was the nothingness until the nothingness caused creation?

>>81827095 (OP)
>it would have to be something with power
Aka anything
>intelligence and will
Why do you figure that

>>81828948
>God was always there
Why not have the universe always have been there instead? Just seems like your adding extra steps to something that doesn't need it.
>what was before? How long was the nothingness until the nothingness caused creation?
Why does any of that matter?

The initial state of the universe has necessary existence, Graham Oppy already talked about this.

>>81828956
It has to have intelligence or the world would not function has perfectly as it does. This universe is very finely tuned and changing even one of the variables would have catastrophic consequences.
It has to have will because the creator chose to create it. Simple as that.

>>81828983
The universe has proven to have a starting point. You cannot refute this. Also how can you claim the universe has always been there and at the same time say it was created out of nothing? Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?
>Why does any of that matter?
Why would it not? It's the very basis of your claimed views on the existence of the universe. You need something to back up your claims. Or do you think you can just say anything and expect people to just go "what an interesting view"?

>>81829403
>Or do you think you can just say anything and expect people to just go "what an interesting view"?
You don't see the irony here do you?

>>81829416
No, I don't. I at least try to back up my claims whereas you just throw them out all willy-nilly and say "why can't it be like this?" There is absolutely no substance to your claims. You seem very sure about your views, but when you are asked direct questions about your claims you answer with deflecting questions.

>>81829680
>No, I don't
It's ironic because you're accusing me of the exact same thing you're doing. You're just making shit up and expecting people to take it as fact with nothing to back up your claims. You have zero evidence that God exists. I'm just putting forward an idea that makes more sense than yours.

>>81829814
How does the universe being created from literal nothingness make more sense than it being created by or from something?

>>81830098
Because then you'd have to add even more creators or make up some shit about something always existing. Your idea just has more steps added for no reason.

>>81827095 (OP)
the big bang theory really made christians shit their bricks over the idea that the universe was created. No. The big bang was not the universe being created. It was the universe AS WE KNOW IT being created. Everything that exists has always existed. It was just in a different form before. There is no reason to believe anything was created or destroy... we literally have a law of thermodynamics that disallows that from ever occurring.

>>81830133
It's "added" for a very big reason. Without a underlying cause the universe would not exist. Do you even believe in the big bang? Where did the energy from the big bang come from? If you think the answer to that question is "nothing" you are even dumber than I think you are.
Why would we add more creators? As in the idiotic "Who created God?" conundrum? If the creator of the universe needs a creator, then the creator of the creator also needs a creator, and the creator of the creator of the creator also needs a creator, etc, etc. We cannot have a series of infinite regress because then nothing would ever be created. There has to be by definition an uncaused cause behind creation.

>>81830386
so then the fucking obvious answer is that no the universe and all the energy and mass in it was not "created" in the big bang, but had already existed. Things aren't created or destroyed if you knew anything about physics or thermodynamics. They have always existed, but in different forms.

>>81828863
Nothing in this universe is supernatural. Whatever created the universe is by definition supernatural, God or not, since it is outside our natural world.

>>81830399
I am not a physicist, but it is fair to assume that physics and thermodynamics was created as part of the universe. You claim it's logical that everything came from nothing because "those laws don't exist, meaning that there's nothing saying that something can't come from nothing." END QUOTE, yet you find it hard to grasp that law of thermodynamics didn't exist before creation of the universe?
Pick one theory and stick with it, please

>>81830386
>Where did the energy from the big bang come from?
From nothing? Why wouldn't that be possible when there's no natural laws saying it can't happen.
>There has to be by definition an uncaused cause behind creation
Then why not just say the universe has always existed instead of saying a creator has always existed and THEN the universe was created by him. Again, you're just needlessly complicating something that doesn't need extra steps added.

>>81830465
you're a schizophrenic retard. I'm not the only anon arguing with you here and you assuming that the laws of physics literally did not exist before hand is entirely unscientific. In science we have a rule called universality where we are to always assume that the laws of physics apply consistently across all that we know... because if they didn't nothing would make sense. You're assuming that the big bang was this crazy special thing when there's really nothing showing that it really was other than it's what put our current universe into motion. contemplating on "well maybe the laws of physics were different or didn't exist before the big bang" is pointless because we obviously wouldn't be able to test any of that. Which leaves this question firmly in the metaphysical territory aka not something we can solve rn. In such a case the best we can do is to reason for simplicity: what would be the most simple, logical answer? That the laws of physics had existed before the big bang and that everything we know has existed forever because if anything is "created" then EVERYTHING had to be created and then we just come back to the who created god conundrum.

>>81830504
You might be the only person I have ever talked to who actually believe everything came from literal nothingness and it baffles me how someone can be so adamant on something so silly. Do you even comprehend the word "nothing"? 0+0+0+0 will always give 0. You don't even have to believe in a higher power to grasp this concept.
>>81830520
Stopped reading after "schizophrenic retard". I am in fact not a schizophrenic just because I believe in something you don't. If whatever created the universe started talking to me and sending me messages through the ingredients on a carton of milk you would be justified in calling me that, but that has not happened.

>>81830657
get the fuck off 4chan then you tardo. schizophrenic retard is what we call people who act like everyone is the same person talking to them. NOT EVERY ANON IS THE SAME ANON. Either get it through your head or go back.

>>81830657
>actually believe everything came from literal nothingness
I don't actually believe anyone can know where the universe came from, I'm just saying that it makes more sense than believing in a magic man in the sky. Like you literally believe in magic. You have no room to talk about anything being silly.

>>81827095 (OP)
This is the final blackpill.
010101010001.

>>81830720
>magic man in the sky
Who said anything about a magic man in the sky? You've been watching too much Family Guy. The creator of the universe is not a man. Or a woman. Or a cat. If you think I believe that then you are justified in calling me silly. I believe in a creator that is outside our comprehension. We can not fathom what the creator looks like as the creator is unique and not like anything else.
If we take away the word creator from this and instead say that the universe came from SOMETHING, would you still hold fast to your opinion that it coming from NOTHING is more logical? It seems to me that your gripe with all of this is the deity part of it all.

>>81830672
Use nta

>>81830837
fuck you I'll be as offensive as I want. Lurk more if you're that dumb.

>>81830845
nta means not that anon, newfag. Why the fuck did that trigger you?

>>81830824
>universe came from SOMETHING, would you still hold fast to your opinion that it coming from NOTHING is more logical?
That something would still have to come from nothing at some point. It doesn't really make sense for something to have always existed. How would that even work?

>>81830824
More needless dichotomy.
According to you it's either
>the universe came from something
>the universe came from nothing
why don't you realize that it doesn't HAVE to come from anywhere? Nothing in our universe is ever created or destroyed even. It's the baseline to exist forever, so why is it hard for you to fathom that there doesn't need to be a point of creation?

>>81830854
because you're a fucking retard for even saying something like that. OP is a retard and a schizo obviously. Stop coddling him. And get the fuck back to your safe space if you can't stand a little banter.

>>81830869
According to me it's the universe came from something. I never once claimed the universe could ever possibly come from nothing.
It has to come from something since it has a beginning. I agree that nothing inside our universe can ever truly be created since we have to use preexisting things to create anything, but those preexisting things came into existence at one point. Can you please elaborate on your theory that the universe has always existed?
>>81830882
Calm down

>>81830927
My belief is that our universe as we know it is only a small section of the larger existence that we can basically call the multiverse. This multiverse is relatively consistent with the physics and laws we know here but the only difference is that it largely exists in a state of high entropy i.e. the energy present throughout the multiverse is almost completely evenly spread and nothing is formed of it. This "multiverse" has existed forever and will continue to exist forever. It is then given that because forever is... a really long time that the subtle quantum shifting of the highly entropic multiverse will eventually give rise to a pocket of low entropy. This low entropy pocket is what we know as the big bang and forms into our universe on its way from that extreme low entropy state to the natural state of the multiverse, which is the "heat death" of our universe. We exist here in this universe because it is the only place that life can arise to perceive and experience, but nothing can ever be destroyed or created in the universe and the larger multiverse only reshaped and recycled endlessly.

>>81830982
Multiverse theory has no evidence to back its claims. This is purely a thought experiment.

>>81831143
It's not multiverse theory, but that's the best way I could describe it. It's CCC theory, but that's less understandable. The crux of it is that the universe goes through cycles where it's created from a low entropy state (the big bang) end ends in a high entropy state (the heat death) and goes from that high entropy state back to the low entropy state through random chance (which will eventually happen assuming the universe exists forever). Either way far more logical than some sentient force being responsible for any of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

>>81827095 (OP)
oh yeah, and so where did god come from, can't have just come into existence from nothing by your reasoning, so who made him?

>>81831188
The creator of the universe is uncreated. No beginning, no end. Nobody made the creator.
Basically the universe has a beginning, so that beginning has a cause. That cause needs to be uncreated and eternal or else we would have infinite regress. I have explained this previously in the thread.

>>81831264
again you assume the universe has a beginning. We don't know that the big bang is that beginning. In fact most scientists agree that things did in fact exist before it.

>>81831273
>most scientists agree that things did in fact exist before it
What things? As in the singularity? The singularity that supposedly existed forever then all of a sudden had a change that caused a violent expansion? How can something that has supposedly existed forever suddenly change like that?

>>81831345
it didn't just suddenly happen. It happens repeatedly and consistently, and the thing about entropy is that it's purely the result of probability. If you were to leave a car out in the middle of a rain forest for 10 years it's LIKELY to rust but there's a chance it won't. In fact there's theoretically the possiblity that a pile of rust could revert into a car it's just REALLY REALLY unlikely. But with infinite time unlikely is more like inevitable.

>>81828863
>Doesn't value anonymity
>In 4chan

>>81831398
>But with infinite time unlikely is more like inevitable.
I don't think you understand infinity. If the universe had no true beginning and was always there then it would be constant and big bang would never happen. An infinite amount of time would pass before any change, and also an infinite amount of time would pass with no change at all.

>>81831476
Infinite doesn't mean unchanging. What are you on about? A sine wave is infinitely long in mathematics but it constantly goes up and down. Again we know for a fact that under our current laws of thermodynamics energy DOES last forever. It can't be created or destroyed and yet it can change form... like the universe. It is a shift in our understanding to try to claim otherwise.

>>81831518
Infinitely long and infinitely going up and down. No change. As I said you don't understand infinity. It's not like the sine wave will suddenly change into going only up.

>>81831563
and the universe goes up and down consistently through multiple big bangs and multiple universes. Take a single math class. If you really want an infinite ever changing nonrepeating item then look at pi. It is an infinite string of numbers with no pattern.

>>81831577
>the universe goes up and down consistently through multiple big bangs and multiple universes
Do you have any proof of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCoNjt5AXpU&list=RDyCoNjt5AXpU&start_radio=1

>>81831649
https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.01740
There are arguments for it in looking for patterns in the cosmic background radiation that would be consistent with past universes, but I don't know if that's definitive at all. The main point is that it's logical and simple. There doesn't need to be a creator because reality simply was never truly created. It also upholds universality, and is basically just taking what we know of the universe and extending it to fill what we do know which is about as parsimonious as you can get. Could I be wrong? Sure, but this seems as correct to me as we could get with our current understanding. I'd like for you to show me any proof of a creator.

>>81831712
what we don't know*

>>81831712
There are many evidence for the existence of a creator, but I am sure none of my evidence will be accepted by you, but that's ok.
To me the mere fact that we exist means there is a creator. I know this is not something that would be scientifically accepted by you, or anyone for that matter. How finely tuned this universe is cannot have happened by pure randomness. There is thought behind it. Everything in this universe is dependent on something. There is not one single thing that is out of place. Remove one tiny little variable and it all collapses.
Even mathematics is evidence of a creator. The universe IS mathematics. We did not invent mathematics, we discovered it. That brings the question "Who put it there in the first place?" To me it doesn't make sense that all of these mathematical formulas just happen to be so perfect, how you can explain the entirety of the universe with a calculator. Something this perfect has to come from something that is much bigger and greater than anything we can possibly imagine.
There are also lots of testimonial evidence for the existence of a creator, mainly the prophets. It's highly unlikely (for me at least) that all of these people suffered from some sort of psychotic episodes. People that came with a message to worship one creator instead of idols, icons and what's worse; Human beings.
But the most compelling evidence of a creator is life itself. Where did life come from? Why is there biological life? Abiogenesis has yet to find any evidence or proof of how inorganic material became life. There are just theories. I am not going to sit here and claim that I have read any of the theories surrounding that subject, but it seems just strange that a rock can evolve to become a living breathing thing.
A bit of a ramble, and I am willing to bet you find me strange, but I am ok with that.

>>81832091
>Abiogenesis has yet to find any evidence or proof of how inorganic material became life
rna world hypothesis has tons of evidence. Fuck off.

>>81832118
Does inorganic material contain RNA?

>>81832137
not directly but it can become rna from the materials present in the primordial ocean. That IS actually known and all it would take is ONE molecule being created over millions of years in IDEAL conditions. You cannot even fathom that. The miller-urey experiments showed that complex amino acids that are necessary for life could very easily arise in the primordial seas.

>>81832175
Can you send me link to some research on this? Might be an interesting read

>>81832231
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5410828/
they also created adenine and guanine in their experiment which are nucleotide bases and given enough time they almost certainly could produce full rna, but again this origin of life came across like hundreds of millions of years. Obviously they can't replicate all of that in the lab.

>>81827095 (OP)
It was The Q.