Atheists HATE this!!!

Just because the universe has a cause doesn't mean there is a god. Who's saying the universe doesn't have a cause?

reality is a proof of god and your life his most direct communication with you

>If the universe needs a cause, so does your god. If your god doesnt, then why does the universe?
If the universe had turned out to be eternal, then it wouldn't have needed a cause, which is what was believed until the 1900s, when it became very clear that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old. God, being eternal, didn't need a cause to bring him into existence.

So, why do we have to acept these premises and if we do, how can we be sure that the Universe been created by god and not some gay-ass magical pixies?

How do we know that god is eternal?

>1 post by this ID.
A kike started this thread to divide whites.

>How do we know that god is eternal?
Firstly, there are many things in existence that unfortunately we will never be able to conclusively know. (E.g. due to the expansion of the universe, there is some percentage that is beyond our horizon, and no radiation/particles can reach us from this possibly large portion of the universe.) But anyway, God's eternalness is how he is described in the Bible, whereas most gods (e.g. Zeus, Thor, Ra, etc) were created according to their ancient legendary literature. That these pieces fit well together is at least some evidence in favor of its truth. (Though as I say, conclusively demonstrating such things may be forever beyond us, just as many natural phenomena are.)

What's the difference aside from the word?

Both premises are unfounded.

So, in the end, we don't know if god exists and what are his qualities, we just know what bible says about god.

Gay-ass pixies could work for giant interl-dimensional jews who are just listening to what the meta-Universe tells them and the meta-Universe is just a bunch of random fluctuating particles that collapse and explode periodically and eternally.

lol you religious retards had no idea there was a universe, you're book of fairytales didn't know there was a universe. Does your book for retards explain what happens at 10^-37 seconds after the big bang and before, we would love to hear your supernatural explanation

>Any proof that it came from a celestial primate we invented: 0

>Proof that any and all 'miracles' written in holy books have anything to do with how the universe began: 0

Christfags have 0 proof and 0 evidence and 0 connection to the start of the universe.

It's okay to not know how the universe started.

Attached: burdenof.jpg (480x320, 27K)

>So, in the end, we don't know if god exists and what are his qualities, we just know what bible says about god.
No, you're way off on that. There are many ways in which we can infer his existence and many of his qualities are implied by the way in which the universe is structured. That the Bible accurately portrays these parts we do know, is good evidence that it is also correct in the parts which we cannot so readily verify.

For another example, consider determinism. It is clear in the Bible that God thinks the universe is non-deterministic, because he asks us to make good choices again and again. But in the 1800s it was looking like the universe was deterministic, which would mean that the Bible was falsely describing God. But in the 1920s it became evident to physicists that the universe was highly non-deterministic. (As it would turn out entropy is tied to this, as time-reversibility implies 0 entropy increase, which contradicts the actual universe.)

there is no universe outside of the context of our own observations. the universe is only what we have determined it to be. we have defined it and it is directly related to the existence of matter. there goes your paradox.

Just because an idea fits the reality doesn't mean it describes something real. Invisible undetectable fairies don't contraict out observed reality too, which doesn't mean they are real.

in order to presume something was caused to exist, you have to first give it definition. something humans are unable to do in relation to God.

intelligent design is not a religious perspective but one rooted in the scientific method. educate yourself before you type, leaf.

>Just because an idea fits the reality doesn't mean it describes something real.
That's what I said. Do have have reading comprehension problems? It's not guaranteed, but if it fits better than the alternatives, that is at least good evidence for it. You really need to be conscious of the difference between evidence and certain proof, and certain proof is almost unattainable in anything but formal logic and mathematics.

By the way, using language designed to ridicule (such as "invisible undetectable fairies") hurts your own ability to discern truth from falsity. A person can be dismissive of any idea that way, regardless of the merits... and indeed, experience will show that people do use it to attack any and every viewpoint in existence, making it a worthless approach.

What exactly makes it better?

>What exactly makes it better?
There are many things; I've already listed two, but there are dozens more (hundreds, depending on how granularly you count them). But I'll give you a third: the measurement problem. All changes in the universe are of two types: when unobserved the state evolves unitarily, which is deterministic and time-reversible. The other change is a projection from a non-eigenstate (this is language used in quantum phsyics) to a specific eigenstate. This is non-deterministic and non-time-reversible. But this second type only occurs during an observation. But without an observer external to the universe, the universe would only evolve unitarily, and thus it would remain as a homogeneous blob, just as it was in the beginning.

>It is clear in the Bible that God thinks the universe is non-deterministic, because he asks us to make good choices again and again.
Tell that to the Calvinists

"time" is manmade. You dont even know what time is.

Nah, I mean what actual value has integrating god into the whole universe thing, no matter what its properties is.

That because time does not exist outside of humanity. Time is a construct that's related exclusively to the physical world. Matter is finite and only that which is finite is a confined to time.

>Nah, I mean what actual value has integrating god into the whole universe thing, no matter what its properties is.
If you're an engineer you may not care about what is true or false, but rather care about what beliefs achieve your personal goals. However, if you care about what is actually true, then you will sometimes come to realize some things are true even if they have no benefit to you. E.g. God's existence has profound implications for the purpose and function of the universe and life, but if a person only cares about getting high then whether God exists or not is something they won't care about.

I don't see how it's true, and if it's not even useful to add god into the whole thing, I don't get what's the point of believing in god at all.

You're a retard if you think that cause is your god instead of the thousands of other invented gods, troll

>Be christ cuck
>Believe Jesus - king of the jews - is our saviour
>Believe that jews are God's chosen people
>Unironically

>the universe has a cause
"something caused the universe to exist" doesn't translate into "God created the universe" you fucking moron

I gave three examples of things that make much more sense with God, one of which is essentially impossible without God. That (and many other reasons) is why you can conclude it's true. Whether it's "useful" to you personally is irrelevant to whether it's true. That should be obvious, unless you are a philosophical Pragmatist perhaps. As I say, there are things which are true, totally independent of human opinion on whether it is "useful" or has a "point".

Though I would argue that there is a point, if it is indeed the case (as I say) that the universe and man was created for a purpose, and going contrary to the purpose will result in degeneracy and ultimately a negative judgement.

It doesn't makes more sense, it just fits a certain narrative. You can write multiple things that would fit it too. It doesn't explain anything useful (which is what science and truth does). It just conveniently connects a certain religion to the current scientific views.

Time is an aspect of the universe, which has a beginning, brainlet.

I never said it did tard wranglee

Say I reject your second premise. The conclusion of the first premise alone is that something is eternal. We can't argue without evidence (that is, to accept as axiomatic) that the universe is not eternal.

how is that going to support theism? you are basically saying nothing

I think your heart is in the right place but please... take your meds

>its in the bible

every, single, time why the fuck do you even argue with these retards ?

I wasn’t trying to support theism, tard wranglee

You so sure he's not? He didn't deny it.

You have a tiny weener

And you have no foreskin.

>It doesn't makes more sense, it just fits a certain narrative.
It does make more sense of those pieces of evidence; you either didn't understand them or are being intellectually dishonest. You speak just as the anti-Special Relativity cranks do when they berate it.

>You can write multiple things that would fit it too.
And yet you didn't. It's a hard stretch to make something else fit, especially with the measurement problem, and some awfully intelligent people have been trying to resolve that one for almost a hundred years.

>It doesn't explain anything useful (which is what science and truth does).
That is absolutely not the kind of attitude that men in the hard sciences have. Again, I can only conclude that your knowledge of science comes from pop-sci sources like the Discovery Channel and Scientific American. Unlike you, they are typically interested in what is true independently of whether it is useful.

>It does make more sense of those pieces of evidence; you either didn't understand them or are being intellectually dishonest. You speak just as the anti-Special Relativity cranks do when they berate it.
Nah. I'm just saying what I'm thinking. It doesn't make sense.

>And yet you didn't. It's a hard stretch to make something else fit, especially with the measurement problem, and some awfully intelligent people have been trying to resolve that one for almost a hundred years.
Dude. Fairies. Magical fairies.

>That is absolutely not the kind of attitude that men in the hard sciences have. Again, I can only conclude that your knowledge of science comes from pop-sci sources like the Discovery Channel and Scientific American. Unlike you, they are typically interested in what is true independently of whether it is useful.
Yeah, right, something that's true independently from what's useful. Like what, for instance?

Stop having this retarded argument. Nobody can possibly know for certain whether or not god exists. Talk about something more productive.

Premise one is invalid

>the universe began to exist
Proof?

Attached: HTB1dTxURVXXXXboXVXXq6xXFXXXl.jpg (780x780, 99K)

>Time is man-made
>Therefore acceleration is not real :DDD
>Therefore velocity is not real :DD
>Therefore gravity is not real :DD
The absolute state of nu-Jow Forums trying to science

>Nah. I'm just saying what I'm thinking. It doesn't make sense.
>Dude. Fairies. Magical fairies.
Thanks for sharing your feelings without reasonings, but that's worthless.

>Yeah, right, something that's true independently from what's useful. Like what, for instance?
Like the existence of Dark Energy?
Like whether spacetime is continuous or discrete?
Like the energy density of intergalactic space?
Like the Higgs boson?
Like CP violation?
Like the existence of 5-quark systems?
I could go on literally for days. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Premise one: whatever begins to exist has a cause
Premise two: super special space fairy began to exist

Therefore super special space fairy has a cause

COME AT ME DEIST RETARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!COME AT ME DEIST RETARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!COME AT ME DEIST RETARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!COME AT ME DEIST RETARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!COME AT ME DEIST RETARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!COME AT ME DEIST RETARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Attached: 1556403767542.png (600x650, 208K)

have you ever gotten the schizo Jesus was a dif jew that was white but still from the middle east post?
its nuts

Attached: nun.png (233x266, 161K)

>Thanks for sharing your feelings without reasonings, but that's worthless.
So are your attempts at inserting god into science. According to you, at least, there's no benefit in that.

>You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Actually, the reverse is true. All the things you've mentioned are theories that trying to explain already existing phenomena, so that we can understand the way they work and put 'em to good use. God is just adding a layer of fundamentally unexplainable stuff to an already complex structure for no clear reason.

>According to you, at least, there's no benefit in that.
No, I clearly said that there was a benefit, but that benefits were not relevant to whether it was true.

>All the things you've mentioned are theories that trying to explain already existing phenomena
No, not all of them are. You clearly don't know what those things are. But for those that do seek to explain, explaining is entirely different than finding a use for.
>so that we can understand the way they work and put 'em to good use.
Clearly you've never dealt with people in the field, because this couldn't be more wrong. In fact, many absolutely detest your way of thinking.

>God is just adding a layer of fundamentally unexplainable stuff to an already complex structure for no clear reason.
You must be trying to troll me rather than have a real conversation, because each part of that statement is different than my position, even with things I've explicitly stated multiple times and which you haven't attempted to refute.

I think you'll find that when you engage in such dishonest argumentation tactics, you will be neither respected nor liked by rational people.

There's nothing to refute here. 'cause all you've said here is that you've found a neat way to fit two narratives together. You're even saying that it doesn't matter if any of it is true here:

>No, I clearly said that there was a benefit, but that benefits were not relevant to whether it was true.

What else is there to discuss?