Previous atheism thread died

Your logic boils down to presupposition.

You forget that the burden of proof is on you on account you are making the extraordinary claim.

If we assume that X is the answer to how mystery Y came into existence, then you're an idiot for denying X.

Atheist are just taking your entire pre-supposition and saying: "yeh how about No?". then you're stuck back at square one trying to convince someone of your ideology.

It's possible to stop time. In that case, if it's possible to stop time, then Time is just another expression of the universe, and thus you can't roll it back like a clock to an infinity or infentisemal and then say: "Aha, the beginning of the universe".

What now?

What causes a radioactive atom to fiss at a particular moment in time?

Actually, unintentionally
This seems to be ba bot detection thread.
Fascinating and definitively worth more research.

The answer is probably way more legible than the question you posted.

So that's what you do? Ask people to ask you questions and then shit on them when they do? Okay, what's wrong with the question?

‘we don’t know’ != ‘nothing’

LMFAO

So when it comes to the question "What caused the universe to start" why is "lol God did it" a better answer than "we don't know"?

False equivalency, ignorance vs scientific method, “lol no reason” vs hypothesis.

This seems to be an absolute roadblock for anyone claiming to be atheist,

Is atheistm really so retarded that a simple logical progression could utterly destroy it?

Is being atheist literally That reatard?

What??

"what causes radioactivity at this moment?" = "no idea, let's keep learning" and that's cool,

"what causes the universe to start at that moment" = "no idea, let's keep learning" and that's not right?

I have this straight, yeah? What are you saying is wrong with this question?

Who created the creator?

Because it appears the Universe underneath us has practically already created a super-sentient god-like race that's able to recreate it. (us in 100 billion years). And so scientists like to draw lines between things to explain how things work.

So they drew a line from 100 billion years in the future to the mystery before the big bang.

Is it so strange to try to knockout four birds with one science stone by connecting the dots and linking 1 and 4 and 2 and 3?

1. The universe evaporates to nothing, taking all life with it.
2. The universe obviously exists and life isn't the most complex thing in it, since the universe is a life factory.
3. We don't know how the universe began.
4. The universe appears to be a mammal or living thing like we are, and probably procreates like we do.

which means the complexity of us plus a billion years has already happened on the previous cycle. That's god. It's like humans for the first time realizing they can have children. The universe is a life form. It has children.

Attached: rick_morty_escape_monster.jpg (1181x678, 149K)

>Because it appears the Universe underneath us has practically already created a super-sentient god-like race that's able to recreate it.
And your evidence for that is

>Is it so strange to try to knockout four birds with one science stone by connecting the dots and linking 1 and 4 and 2 and 3?
??

Claims and musings are not evidence. Data is evidence. Where is your data?

>That's god. It's like humans for the first time realizing they can have children. The universe is a life form. It has children.
Ahh, nonsense that makes no predictions and cannot be tested. What an easy out.

Learn science.

not sure what you're trying to establish here but what you're getting at is that the universe is uncaused.

by conservation of mass/energy, the universe must have always existed because there exists nothing observable outside of itself that could have caused it.

just because we live in a causal universe does not mean the universe itself was caused. consider the mathematical precept that "set of all sets is not a set". The universe is the set of all things which are caused, and things which are caused are sets of the physical laws which precipitate them, and so by the same logic, the universe is not a thing which is caused.

read more:
churchofentropy.wordpress.com/2018/08/30/big-bang-bullshit/

Premise A1 is flawed because all knowledge is essentially faith-based
>Trustingthechemicalsinyourbrain.jpg

>who created the creator
Thank you for (intentionally?) exhibiting how retarded most people are.

Most 70+ IQ intuitively reason that the creator is above the created. That may be realizing tractors need gas but tractor builders not needing gas.
But you are special. You are so special you think the creator of the universe is bound by or requires the laws of the universe.
Don’t be ashamed.
Actually, never mind, you should probably be deeply ashamed. Like crazy deeply. To your very core.

Attached: F1BE890F-08D1-4555-B3F9-3C9854965B7F.jpg (645x729, 81K)

>That may be realizing tractors need gas but tractor builders not needing gas.
Who made the tractor builder?

A lot of physicists think that some form of quantum reality resulted in the creation of the universe and there's some evidence of this (although no definitive proof). In fact, there's various things that may have proceeded our universe. Regardless, you can use your same argument and say that whatever quantum reality or whatever else that proceeded the universe must've also had a cause. The same argument applies to God. Why should God be able to simply have always existed without a cause but the universe couldn't have? Also, quantum fuckery is really weird... do you know about virtual particles?

Attached: 1522195883876.jpg (352x395, 23K)

Your argument her is that knowledge doesn’t exist, in any means or form.

Logically Valid, but unconvincing and poorly situated to forge an argument (since you know the conclusion is incorrect)

The question: "Who created the creator" is about as silly a question as: "Who created your great great great grandparents?"

We've nearly teased out a complete plausible theory as to how the universe brings itself back to its youthful state in a clockwork way. And you're hung up on the fact that there are concessions in the equation that are beyond the realm of knowability, for now.

Everyone says they like scientific method, but when presented with it, they shit all over it and go back to their old way of being a parrot and only relaying what sounds good.

There is nothing simple about that logical progression. You've made all those assumptions that you have no way of proving. You assumed causality, you assumed universe had a beginning, you assumed there is a chain of events that you can follow... Atheists say we don't know if any of those statements hold. You say
>muh word of god and bible
Bible also says that Earth is less than 10000 years old. Science proved that statement wrong, which makes the Bible an unreliable source of facts about our universe. Can you logically defend this?

The question is perfect,
What a stupid question.

>you think the creator of the universe is bound by or requires the laws of the universe
This is no better logic then saying our universe is only one of many in a higher dimensional multiverse

Ask me how I know you are significantly removed from blue collar workers.

>We've nearly teased out a complete plausible theory as to how the universe brings itself back to its youthful state in a clockwork way.
Have you now? Because it seems like you're just saying fancy, meaningless words that predict absolutely nothing.

If you get in a huff and declare that every student you teach who fails was retarded anyway, guess what?

>some form of what we witnessed billions of years later tells us about the stuff that occurred fbillions of years before the data reached us.
Literally niggers in white clothing,

Attached: A37A5C6B-C8D5-46DF-BF93-9EDDD3410646.jpg (657x527, 38K)

You get to author a buzzfeed article?
I’m all for chasing your dreams but maybe be slightly less offensively retarded.
See you tomorrow.

there is no reason for time to slow down for an object traveling at light speed other than to accommodate a rendering engine, ala time dilation in eve online.

You are in a simulation, dipshit

You know the answer. And you can't answer my original quesiton or .

Have a wonderful day!

Oh, and nice digits

Your question is so poor that I can, without thought, say
>correct, we are possibly one of a multiverse

And it advances your position zil
And it maybe advances my position but certainly doesn’t detract.

Care to try again? We can even pretend the multiverse is true!
It doesn’t exactly make your position more tenable.

So your answer is "fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you I'm not answering that"?

What causes a radioactive atom to decay at the given time that it decays? Is it random? What is the cause of a random event?

Your original premise was that a god has to exist because of the logic you put up. I gave you an alternative (multiverse). How can you prove that a multiverse doesn't exist and that god does?
Protip: You can't, because humans can barely explain the existing universe let alone anything higher

You don't even need the universe to have a beginning.

In metaphysics you can distinguish two types of causality: accidental causes and essential causes.

Accidental causes are causes that happen once to make something exist and then no longer need to be present. Think about your parents causing you. They no longer need to exist for you to exist.

Essential causes are causes that need to be always present for their effects to exist. Think about a lamp hanging from the ceiling with a chain. The chain is causing the lamp to remain stationary. Cut the chain and the lamp immediateliy falls.

Theists argue that God is both an accidental and an essential cause of the universe. So, even if the universe had no beginning, meaning God wouldn't be its accidental cause, God would still be its essential cause. That is, what would be making the laws of nature stable and the universe keep on existing over time, what would control randomness, etc. would be God.

Fallacious reasoning. The cause/attribute of the parts is not necessarly the cause/attribute of the whole.

1-Neurons are unconscious;
2-The whole brain is unconscious.

Or

1-The bricks of a wall were cut/cooked in order to be made (cause)
2-The wall was cut/cooked.

Doesn't work.

inb4 oh well I have to go now so I'll just slip away without addressing any of your arguments, they were probably shitty anyway hahaha see ya!

You're a coward, OP, and not a funny one.

Hey! I remember you!
You are that guy who pretends an argument was made but instead of pasting it over and over again to the point it becomes a shameful meme that none can recover from you just remind everyone that some argument was made for a few hours despite the desperate please of your opponent to present the argument.

That means you won!

I’m sorry, I happen to have brain damage,

Did you actually respond to OP or were you just pretendeding?

Thanks in advance.

Sorry pal, this is my first time in your thread here. Feel free to call me a liar and say whatever you want because we're anonymous though, whatever you need to make yourself feel better.

God is defined to be whatever is necessary. There is something at the end of that chain. That something is what God is.

You are suggesting that the universe itself is necessary. This cannot be because the universe has parts and it changes. You cannot have a necessary being changing over time because whatever is changing in it is making it contingent.

Id rather spend my time reminding you that copy-pasting the ignored argument is way more effective than insisting an argument was made (unless of course, no argument was made, in which case insisting it was is definitively a better strategy)

Anywho. Feel free to actually present an argument, it really hits home with the viewers much harder than just pretendeing it already happened.

Attached: 84B79052-09DA-4826-8EFA-573D62F0F408.png (746x512, 99K)

I'm sorry you cannot think of an answer. Your hour is up. Try answering some of the other poster's questions next time instead of wasting all it your time on an idiot like me, yeah?

I'm still yet to receive an answer to

user, do you not recognize the futility of responding when your debate opponent is literally begging you to present an argument?

Is this some script error you can’t ignore without being fired?

Again, I’m literally begging you to present the argument you insist exists. Not presenting it makes everyone thing you are retarded and I am correct even if that isn’t the case.

Please, present the argument you claim to possess. It isn’t a good look if you won’t.

I didn’t respond because you were disingenuous ( or retarded.
I didn’t claim “god” must exist because I know you faggots have sever hang ups over those three letters.

The claimed our universe logically necessitates an external cause.

You won’t address this because you can’t, and would prefer arguing about skydaddies.
>how can you prove x doesn’t exist and y does?
Serious question, are you actually this fucking retarded?

>Therefore our universe began with an external cause;
>Can you logically defend being atheist without denying the validity of logic?
hmmm it's pretty obvious you're implying god here but whatever you can backtrack

>we live in a causal universe
this is not known to be perfectly true but rather an assumption based on the evidence we have so far

It seems you are still unable to address the OP in any way and wnt to focus on the creator of our universe being “god”
Which is frankly, hilarious.

>The claimed our universe logically necessitates an external cause.
>You won’t address this because you can’t, and would prefer arguing about skydaddies.
Exactly, because it's impossible as you assumed:
>we live in a causal universe
>the beginning of our universe
>if we follow that chain back
>If an in-universe cause preceded this
Your argument is based entirely on things we don't have any proof for.
>premise A2 is a tautology.
It's not:
A2a can be T/F, A2b can be T/F. A2a/A2b in itself are already tautologies.

>we don’t have proof for causality
See axiom B you predictable retard.

Shit I almost missed this:
>premise A2 is not a tautology
Please defend this insanity.
Reminder of A2:
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”
Is your argument that if we follow that chain back far enough we don’t reach the beginning of our universe?

You must be 13 yrs old or 75+IQ to post on the internet. Atheists, aka people that don't see or have a "god" to worship, make more sense than fantastical Harry Potter magic retards that fill in the blanks of reality with an insurmountable amout of bullshit. And no, claiming the end result does not add to the veracity of the supernatural claims.

>inb4 LE FEDORA

You do realize how embarassing for you and how helpful for me your post is, right?

Attached: 9E9EAC80-ABC0-49C4-BC19-159712D9ACC3.png (560x329, 168K)

You're backtracking now that I gave you a counter example
Which is frankly, hilarious.
You can be an atheist and believe the universe had an external cause buddy ;)

The religious are mentally ill herd animals.

I’m backtracking by indicating you haven’t even attempted to address the OP?

Doesn’t that mean you were avoiding the subject from the onset, and imply you want me to ignore that you were avoiding the subject?

"Universe" isn't properly defined.

Is there any fundamental difference between "our universe" and other universes?

How do you draw the line between "in-universe" and "out-universe"?

>""""axiom""""
>B1: premise A1 is foundational to discerning truth through science
But it's not. Time travel is still not disproved by current physics. Most of the models work well with causal and non-causal systems.
>Is your argument that if we follow that chain back far enough we don’t reach the beginning of our universe?
My argument is: is there a chain and beginning? A2a is either ture or flase. You assume there is a chain of events and you assume beginning, yet those things are in undefined state. How can you construct premises based on uncertainty and argue with them as if they were certain?

I'm not mentally ill like you so you need to speak in healthy mind terms, thanks

That includes atheists. I’ve been you and among you,you are the most homogenous NPC.
There are thousands of sects in one branch of one religion. And all of them are wrong and all of them agree with this 99.9%

Ever heard of an atheist telling another atheist they are slightly misguided?
You are part of a powerful manufactured religion.

>Therefore our universe began with an external cause;
>Can you logically defend being atheist without denying the validity of logic?
>atheists almost never realize they are retarded
Atheism is a lack of a believe in god. From your statements you say atheists are retarded because they don't believe in god, which goes against the logical proposition you made. However your logical preposition, if all axioms are assumed to be true, only deals with the universe beginning with an external cause, and nothing about god

Since it is settled that your logical preposition only deals with the beginnings of the universe, you will now say that atheism is not retarded, correct?

>still won’t present the argument
Seriously, are you absolutely retarded or are you contractually bound to pretend to be this retarded?
Again,I beg you: PRESENT THE ARGUMENT SO THAT IT MAY BE ADDRESSED.

But you won’t. You will avoid any sort of argument and pretend you won anyways. Then I will beg, again, that you actually present an argument and you won’t.
Because you have no argument and are obligated to insist you do, when any reasonable person would simply present the argument until it is addressed or the thread is abandoned.

Is no one else see this?

Attached: E96F8207-F493-4424-A90C-C5B996446FC4.png (700x819, 318K)

What if our universe is just a bubble in another bubble?
Or that we don't understand most of the matter in the universe.

In the future stuff we say is scientific fact now, will be looked at the way we look at people thinking the earth was flat or everything orbited around us.

The closest thing to that claim I made is that atheists tongue my anus,
I can’t actually prove that, but it is beside the point.

Do you have an actual argument against the OP or will you spend your time trying to kike the argument rather than addressing it.

With either answer, please wonder why you chose it.

Attached: 4A9F0882-E15B-4A68-A845-F2F4C4F72C4F.jpg (250x250, 6K)

>Can you logically defend being atheist without denying the validity of logic?
>you can’t.
Are you going to go back on this false statement of yours?
I'm in entire agreement that the universe began with an external cause otherwise.

Alright buddy pick your poison:
You can have the last word, or you can address the OP.
I can’t put up with this faggotry all night.

Attached: 335ECC46-92FA-437B-B135-9139AFD43348.png (645x773, 20K)

You imbecile. If you deconstruct your unfounded religious arguments all the way back, Socratically, you'll either say "the way the universe is, supports my dogma", or that "a man much like me 2000 years ago talked to the creator of the universe and was told about everything'" I understand directing your life around a school of philosophy but to literally believe in supernatural religious bullshit is fucking LAUGHABLE.

Will you just ignore me? I'm waiting four your counter-argument.

I addressed the false claims in your OP. Are you going to address them too instead of being a jew and avoiding the question? I understand it is shameful to admit you were wrong but no one is going to judge you on an imageboard user.

Gonna throw out this as more evidence that atheists hate exactly one god.

Reconsider the thread, and wonder why you came to the conclusions you did.
Hint: you hate exactly one god and internet that hatred andnimpose that god on anyone who dares speak of a creator.

Attached: 05235991-E23D-4CF7-B868-9F45B66753C4.gif (181x292, 2M)

>pay attention to me
Ok
>timetravel has not been disproven by current physics
Oh yeah, now I remember why I ignored you,
Sure you did buddy. You win,
See you tomorrow.

Attached: 69FE1597-30B8-41AC-B431-BEA8820A30CC.png (413x549, 138K)

>ignore the truth
How very religious of you.

There we go. All can now see you were a good boy and admitted you were wrong even if you put it in a sarcastic tone. Protip: study some physics before philosophy

wtf is this "god" you speak of? If someone says they believe in a grand CREATOR of the universe, I can kind of accept that faithful jump to conclusion. But taking it beyond that is mental illness levels, (e.g. cut your dick skin, eat an ancient dude body magically at a gathering, etc)

I'm drunk and replying to bait as practice. Hit me bitches.

Kek.

Attached: 68E4F252-242F-4A4B-BFCB-4F71C880CD23.png (644x644, 936K)

Damn I miss Scrubs, need to rewatch that shit.

I was not pretending, I used a reductio ad absurdum.

Skip season 1
Goodnight

I was under the impression the last season or two were crap, but I'll consider what you said (once I find a "source" to download them)