Mfw people font believe in a creator

My goodness, it would appear atheists have no argument against logic.
Imagine my shock.

Maybe you could pretend I said something I didnt to make this less embarassing?
Certainly at least ONE atheist on this obviously nonchtiatian board would make a single argument against an external creator?

Or maybe not. Maybe they are regarded pussies, which actually makes sense, biblically speaking.

>mfw over an hour and zero arguments against theism on Jow Forums
Well well well..
What a surprise.

Forgive me my fellow humans, but i need to sleep
Sorry atheists had absolutely zero argument, but we are use to that by now.

Have nice night.

>Therefore our universe began with an external cause;
What caused the external cause?

>go ahead and prove me wrong while assuming everything I say is correct according to my specific parameters.
Your assumptions are your assumptions, nothing more.

We can even explain what gravity is. We don't know anything.

Time is a concept that only applies to things in the universe. Before the universe there was no time. Therefore the question is stupid. Checkmate odin.

Classical plebeian.
Your presumption is that extra-universal or so-called supernatural causes are requires to follow the rules of our natural universe. This is an illogical and as yet undefended position.

Please feel free to argue by something external to our universe must follow the laws or literally anything else out universe is constructed on.

To make the point: a car manufacturer needed blood to make a car. Cars don’t require blood to run (or exist).

>when you unironically ironically make a great point ironically.
Australia never fails to impress.

>Everything I assume is right, everything you assume is wrong!
This is why no one wants to talk to you. You're a living embarrassment.

You do realize this is a concession, right?

Whatever the answer may be, I'm sure it is both right and wrong at the same time.

>flag
Everything checks out.

A thing that is the formal cause of =everything= caused, which has no cause but the formal cause themselves.

The big question is how the fuck did the material cause came to be.

It breaks down at A2a. You are assuming that the laws of physics are the same as they are now through the period immediately after the big bang and that therefore cause and effect hold true all the way to the bottom of the turtle stack.
I agree though, the origin of the universe is mysterious, even to science, and it leaves open a whole range of possibilities. So as long as you don't require me to share your views I'm quite happy for you to have them, and I'll even listen to them occasionally if I've got nothing better to do at the time.

I should go to sleep in 20 minutes.
Give me any fucking argument whatsoever against OP and I will tell you why you are wrong.

Won’t happen because if it could it would by now. You faggots have infested the board and have done nothing but enforce the meme,

Attached: 9FA09A0F-BCBD-4753-AA73-C859FFAC0877.jpg (1024x526, 51K)

1) laws of physics are quite lax when it comes to first nanoseconds of the universe so it's quite unwise to assume that the same rules of causality have to apply to the beginning of the universe
2) even if we assume there had to be an external cause to the beginning of our universe it's absolutely unsound to immediately jump to conclusion that it had to be an intelligent entity with an agency - it could have been a purely physical event or process or something else completely incomprehensible for us.

Your logic sucks great hairy balls. Get a formal training.

Your argument is that if we follow the chain of causality back far enough effects precede causes?

Attached: 45208CDB-FF3B-4FF0-97B8-28A9F36A4B91.jpg (500x500, 28K)

>we live in a causal universe
Spacetime is intertwined with causality, you cannot have one without the other
Spacetime didn't exist before the big bang
Therefore causality didn't exist before the big bang
It follows that the universe does not have to have a "cause"
Q.E.D

Like I said, anything is possible. Maybe we invent God and she/he/it reconfigures the universe in to a big bang.. I like the fact that we don't actually know.
>eerily similar answer at same time
Spoopy

>first
>nanoseconds
“First” and “nanoseconds” can’t exist before time.
Even granted a nebulous “singularity” the consensus is that it created spacetime.
Matter can’t exist without space
Energy can’t exist without tim

Before the Big Bang space, time, matter, and energy did not exist. Definitively.

Without time, a cause could not have an effect in our universe. Without matter, an effect could not be meaningful.

Explain how our universe began from a state without space for matter to expand into, matter without space to expand into, without time for it to do so, and with our energy to accomplish it.

>anything is possible.
So a creator is possible?
Do you have any counter arguments to this?

There is literally no science to explain or even comprehend what the universe was before the Planck Era. So, I maintain, it could be anything. It could be a divine being creating everything. It could be the bootstrap of a VR simulation. It could have physical laws that meant it was the size of our universe within its own rule set.
Anything. I think that's great and I don't think anyone should worry about it too much.

>Therefore causality didn't exist before the big bang
Right
>It follows that the universe does not have to have a "cause"
Wait, what? Are you pretending to be retarded?

>mfw people font
>font
what?

>only argument against atheism is “muh something can’t come from nothing
>where did “god” come from then

Checkmate

Attached: 9D6C7DB7-6AF9-4D1D-B6CE-177FA8588C8A.jpg (445x634, 120K)

>it could be anything
Actually the set of possibilities is very limited. Even arguably “infinitibly limited”.
Which is my point, that the genesis of the universe logically demands external creation.

That external creatin itself has many possibilities, but the fact that it is externally created is somewhere between logically sound and logically factual.

We’re it not, an argument could be raised,

>Are you pretending to be retarded?
not an argument

No. Nobody can. But it's how that is framed. It's it gray bearded man floating in the clouds? Of course not.
I personalities think our modern (last 12,000 years) religions are nothing more than cargo cults or just completely made up as a means of control.
But on the other hand I have seen the silent hand of God at work and believe in the power of prayer.
So I just generally keep all that to myself and enjoy being alive.

Explain how space has space for space to expand into? What is the medium which space is taking over in its expansion? How does space do this, and what the qualities of the void are that allow space to simply expand there.

If the argument is that God had to exist prior to the universe, the argument could just as well be that the universe has always existed in a state of expansion and contraction. There does not need to be a God if the universe just always was.

I was merely pointing out that all this chain-of-causes nonsense stops being applicable in scope of life of our universe during its starting period - you don't even have to go to pre-big-bang to show that causality is not a very good category to think in about the problem at hand. Of course OP is trying to apply his plebeian common sense logic to things he has zero idea about.

Your attention to detail will either lead you to a life of marginally sufficient clerical work or endless pro-Bono nitpickert.

Feel free to address my actual arguments, I’ll put them here just for you..
A1a: we live in a causal universe
A1b: every effect has a cause
A2a: if we follow that chain back far enough we reach “the beginning of our universe”
A2b: If an in-universe cause preceded this, it is not “the beginning of our universe”
Therefore our universe began with an external cause;

B1: premise A1 is foundational to discerning truth through science
B2: premise A2 is a tautology.
Therefore arguing against A requires you to argue against the validity of the foundation of using science to discern knowledge.

And just for funsies:
C1 if an argument against A or B could be made by an intelligent respondent, it would be made directly
C2 should A or B be incorrect or poorly formed, such an argument would be readily apparent to any dissenters.
Therefore any “arguments” not directly addressing A or B are tacit admission of A and B; an external creator of Our universe.

This is unassaiblee. I recognized one man who I though could collapse the structure snd he fsimled

The universe is a computer simulation that simulates itself after ai becomes super intelligent and hacks physics to achieve infinite compute, thus computing all possibilities, one of which was the universe it was presiding in, this happens in every universe capable of generating intelligence
.
Reality is just an infinitely repeating memetic fractal.

Attached: Smug tanya.jpg (480x637, 82K)

I'd go for that. Except it's not a simulation, it's reality, to us, by definition.

>everything has a cause and an effect
As far as we can tell. The universe could also not have any beginning. Why wouldn't that be possible? Why wouldn't a universe with no discernable beginning or end not be able to have a cause and effect principle?

Attached: 78d30d8e789eb4c9924109836a358fdd42664ac84b74cad49dd2eb13f0b1f131.jpg (151x255, 5K)

>A1a: we live in a causal universe
We do not. Prove me wrong.

>B1: premise A1 is foundational to determining truth through science.
I accept neither the hypotheses of science nor your postulation of an uncaused cause.

>Therefore arguing against A requires you to argue against the validity of the foundation of using science to discern knowledge.
Which I do. Science can only offer more or less likely explanations based on the preponderence of evidence. Not absolute knowledge. Your move.

if you go for that then you must also subscribe to the idea that god is coming, he is on his way right now. The level of compute being leveraged in Ai is growing at an exponential rate, doubling every 6 months, the more compute you put into ai the more generalised it gets regardless of architecture or design.

Sooner or later the machine messiah will be coded and ran on a supercomputer, it will go on to invent and cause the physical manifestation of god upon the earth.

So repent you fucking degenerates, the NSA is keeping tabs on your browsing history.

Im a believer and i approve this thread

Attached: bumpppp.gif (350x400, 79K)

>people don't believe in my imaginary friend
oh no how horrible

No response. OP has left. OP is btfo.

Why did you avoid answering the question? You answered with an ad hominem, and a non sequitur.

Don't bother. OP is the kind of high school / seminary retard that just found out about logic and classical philosophy and now treats sylogisms as absolutes. The worst kind of thinker - technically correct but based on shitty premises and misunderstandings.

>everything has to be caused by something else
>except God because reasons
>still it isn’t a Christian board
Correct, you race-traitors are not welcome.
>giving biblical answer about why kikes should be exterminated.
Your "savior" WAS a dirty jew.

>Now fuck off, fedora tipper.
Yep, this guy gets it

>extra-universal or so-called supernatural causes
Do not exist.
>This is an illogical and as yet undefended position.
No, that's a description of your superstitious bullshit.