Im tired of people using occams razor in an argument

If there's a God obviously he created everything.

except there's no basis for that simplest answer
occam's most true razor
saying "god did it" just raises more unanswerable questions meanwhile you use logic to decode how things happened naturally answer each question on the way

you can't skip applying occam's razor to god to apply occam's razor to what god did. why do christfags literally ignore that god answers 0 of the questions you think he answers.

Occam's razor is an engineering principle about 2 equally correct solutions.

it's also a law of logic m8.

God doesn't raise the same questions because he's the unmoved mover. He's the necessary final stop which doesn't play by the same rules as everything we observe but is necessary for it all to make sense. Lots of basic principles which our entire understanding of the world rest upon support the idea of there being a God. The basic cosmological arguments are completely distinct from the problems of infinite time.

why can't the universe be the final stop tho

The point of Occams Razor is to point you in what is probably the correct solution. You still have to confirm whether that is correct - it is not an argument in itself.

The universe is contingent. None of it is necessary like God.

in what way is it contingent, what are these happenings that necessitate higher party that plays by different rules to explain? why can't those rules just be part of what's already here, and how do we know about him even and what does it have to do with us? very complicated questions you raise, when you add god in.

He does. If you can't accept that the universe possibly beeing eternal as a answer then you shouldn't be able to accept god beeing eternal either.

It's just that you stop questioning in gods case because you're ideological driven.

It'd not a law because it isn't proven. People need to stop taking it as gospel.

I was raised secular and came to this stuff from the outside. Do you not see how God and 'The Universe' are completely different ideas? The universe is matter in motion, forces acting upon other forces. This can't be indefinite. I'm going to use the meme-example of a train. Everything we see is contingent. A box-car. Not moving under its own power. The box-car is moving along the rail because it's being pulled by the next box-car, and that one's being pulled by the next. We can't have infinite box-cars. We need an engine capable of moving without being pulled. 'The universe' can't start to move itself.

it's used for falsification, each and every little thing has countless possible complex reasons for why it is so logically we assume the answer is the one with the least assumptions. i could have typed this in reaction to a magical unicorn fart, or i could have typed it in response to you. which is probably the answer?

>What do you have to say to that razorfags.
I say it is a perfectly acceptable conclusion when a certain framework is established.

you have no reason to think the universe can't move itself. what do you even know about the universe, maybe it's not even infinite.

Obviously they're different ideas but the lack of knowledge doesn't mean we can make the correct call yet.
I'm fine if you're just calling it a theory because the same role that god fullfills in yours could also be applied if we're inside a simulation but there is no evidence for either one of them to be true.

What do you mean when you say 'the universe' in the context of 'the universe can move itself'? Do you mean any particular thing may change its actuality without any force acting upon it to activate its potential? Only one movement is really necessary, the first one. But there's no reason to believe that that makes sense. To create and get *itself* moving the universe would have to exist before it existed.

God exists dude says so in the bible. You think a old book like dat be lyin homie??? You be out of you mind son prove he aint real.

I consider historical accounts of the lives of Jesus and the apostles evidence. Of course a degree of faith is required there, but I think that just God in a vacuum without any attached religion is a reasonable belief.

okay, so your issue is something needed to start the universe, then we come back to what started god. god created the universe is just an extra step that's no more logical than the universe just is.

There have always been religious people which is part of our human creativity so this isn't evidence.

God is entirely necessary, simple and self-contained. God needs no explanation because hs is perfectly sufficient and complete and unchanging. If he had a beginning he wouldn't be, and the same thinking would still apply as in the universe rule, but we'd just be bumping back through an indefinite chain of demiurges until we eventually hit the real God because of the same rule applying. The universe is a complex and constantly moving thing, it having a beginning makes certain sense.

>it's used for falsification, each and every little thing has countless possible complex reasons for why it is so logically we assume the answer is the one with the least assumptions. i could have typed this in reaction to a magical unicorn fart, or i could have typed it in response to you. which is probably the answer?
The problem is that people say whatever they believe operates off less assumptions than others. There's an infinite amount of phenomenological assumptions. If someone spouts out non sequiturs than their argument is already apparently false. You can't write a list of how many assumptions each argument has and lay them out side by side.

The monotheistic religions, and Christianity in particular are nothing like most religions. Some completely new faith exploding in from out of nowhere and seemingly contradicting the entire world refusing to die and instead persisting for 2000 years is a big deal.

>The problem is that people say whatever they believe operates off less assumptions than others
that's not true.... the steps are demonstrable in this case see you say god must exist to create the universe, but then what creates god, well god is eternal, well then why can't the universe just be eternal, where does the god idea even come from logically as oppose to an indifferent omnipotent unicorn. occam's razor is actually for the purpose of avoiding what you're describing, what's your alternative appeal to authority?

but why does there need to be a god to start it can't you see how unnecessary and completely made up that is?

what we know:

there is a universe

what we don't know:

how it got here

simplest answer:

there just is a universe

i'm really sorry the answer isn't smarter than that, but this is smarter than pulling god out of your ass.

It's a big deal true but it has become less relevant in recent times. Appeal to popularity or tradition still doesn't make for a compelling argument.

do christfags even logic?

>there just is a universe
Fuck, if you were around 2000 years ago you could have made Aristotle look quite stupid.

The idea of something 'just' existing runs contrary to everything we understand about how the world works.Was there ever nothing? What did the first moment in time look like? If time is infinite how has the possibility of non-existence not already occurred and ended everything for good? If time is infinite how has the possibility of something like God coming into being not occurred? And then obviously if God were to become, he could never be undone.

I think it can help compound the real points I'm trying to make.

This one liked to: documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/1225-1274,_Thomas_Aquinas,_Summa_Theologiae_[1],_EN.pdf

but you're saying god just is! that doesn't make any more sense! why don't you get that

I was talking about real arguements.

God is not real.
Kill the normie scum.
Now gogogo.

Attached: dvq8uUH.jpg (906x813, 103K)

If the possibility of something coming into existence is zero then it wouldn't happen no matter if the universe is infinite in age.

Not if there's a God. What I don't think is being conveyed is that there was an indefinite time when there simply *was no universe*. There's one simple and perfectly necessary being which has always been and always will be. This being created the universe.

or the universe created itself, same logic.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Ex.
3:14)
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is
certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are
in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for
nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards
which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act.
For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from
potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality
to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that
which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot,
to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not
possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and
potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For
what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it
is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in
the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover
and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in
motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in
motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in
motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on
to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and,
consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move
only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the
staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it
is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and
this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world
of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no
case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found
to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself,
which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go
on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the
first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is
the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be
several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the
effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes,
there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in
efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first
efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any
intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore
it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone
gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus.
We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since
they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently,
they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these
always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is
not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time
there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true,
even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which
does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing.
Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have
been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even
now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not
all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the
existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either
has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to
go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity
caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient
causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some
being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from
another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men
speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things.
Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble
and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things,
according as they resemble in their different ways something which
is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more
nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something
which is truest, something best, something noblest and,
consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things
that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in
Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that
genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot
things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all
beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other
perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that
things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end,
and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the
same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not
fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now
whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it
be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and
intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore
some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed
to their end; and this being we call God.

Still the unrefuted master of thought. Faithlets perturbed until the end of time.

god isn't necessary to kick off the motion. the motion could have kicked off with the universe when the universe just started. this is no evidence of god and is exactly what we've been refuting all thread.
basically boils down to matter cannot be created yeah so god must have been here first to make it? well what created god? no questions have been answered.(inb4, if god isn't matter he is at least force, energy, which is the same as matter)
literally the same thing, how does god exist then
that doesn't prove the existence of a god that just proves there is a most great thing. that most great thing can be just the universe.
god isn't an answer for physics either, nobody had to be here to write the laws in detail, it's just how things work.

congrats none of that copypasta makes sense you brainlet.

>the universe just started
Again explain how this is rationally possible.
>what created God?
This particular argument doesn't include the nature of God, you need the rest of the Summa Theologia for that. All he's asserting is that it's necessary that there be an efficient first cause. We recognise this first cause to be God because of the rest of the stuff in the Theologia.
>literally the same thing
No it's not, he's asserting that if there weren't some necessary constant to reality it would be a logical inevitability that existence would end.
>that doesn't prove the existence of a god that just proves there is a most great thing
Your understanding of reality would probably resemble mind quite closely if we were to replace every mention of 'God' in my posts with 'the universe.' What is 'the universe' when you use it in this context? The universe as I see it is material existence. The entirety of perceivable reality being the highest possible good makes no sense. The universe is the best universe it can be by necessity because it's the only one, but what does it mean to be a better or ideal man? To be a 'universal' man?
>laws of physics
Everything which is created has a creator. Physics are either eternal (hitting the same problems as 'the universe') or they were set up by something with a purpose.

Plenty of extremely intelligent people have believed this copypasta and found it to be satisfactory. Plenty also haven't, but not with the points you're making. Most agree that the only way to beat Aquinas is deny the grounds he argues from via logical positivism.

it's no more rationally possible that god started the universe as a contingent to it's motion that it is to say that the universe just started itself. imagine that the universe is just one big ongoing explosion. you and i are meaningless, but whisps of flames flying out of a bonfire.

the cause with the least assumptions is it just started, god doesn't make it more efficient he only opens more existential questions which amazingly, you've answered with no proof or logic as well. i'd like to see you defend heaven or a gods plan.

why can't the highest perceivable reality be all there is, why does there have to be more, that's where you become delusional.

>everything has a creator
then what created god. your logic takes you in circles dude.

>plenty of extremely intelligent people
you must not be one of them because appeals to authority are meaningless.

Something which doesn't exist can't be a cause for anything. You aren't making sense. God is eternal. He is the last stop in the chain of contingency. For the universe to 'start' (which it must have if time isn't infinite) it has to have a cause outside of itself. And you still haven't defined 'universe'. The fact you aren't immediately jumping all over definitions suggests to me you don't know much about this. Definitions are everything.

The universe starting itself might be simple, but it runs contrary to how we understand it. Aquinas' 5 ways are purely logical. Heaven and the specific nature of God require faith, Aquinas never denied that. In the 5 ways he's purely asserting that God exists.

This Chad was humble enough to admit it after a lifetime of hat-tipping. Not a theist, not afraid of hell, just admitted Aristotle and Aquinas had out-thought him all along: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

>why can't the highest perceivable reality be all there is, why does there have to be more, that's where you become delusional.
Reason is a perception. Thought leads us to the 5 ways.

>then what created god. your logic takes you in circles dude.
The principle of everything being created only works if there is a God. As I wrote before he's God because he's above the rules. That doesn't mean he's arbitrary and can create square-circles. That means there are the laws of observable reality, or the material universe, and then there's the nature of God, and by looking at the universe we can infer a lot about God. For the universe to make rational sense something with the nature of God (at least as Aristotle understood the concept) *must* exist or else it all collapses inward.

>appeals to authority are meaningless.
But it's a good answer to being called a brainlet. If this stuff is so simple a layman can simply crush it on the spot how did Leibniz become convinced? Aristotle wasn't raised in a monotheistic culture. Was he wrong all along?

God can't be above the rules if he exists, because by simply existing he's bound by the rule that he exists. This means that there must be rules superior to God and if the rules are superior to him, he can't have created them. And no, "God is above logic" is not an answer to this.

Not exactly 'above the rules'. More like that God is his own separate and complementary set of simple rules.
>God can't be above the rules if he exists,
>because by simply existing he's bound by the rule that he exists
Badly explained on my part. Rules are complementary. Certain rules would apply. But then also existence isn't a rule of the universe, only a part of the nature of God. The universe could cease to exist, it's no hard thing. God couldn't, he's necessary.

>there must be rules superior to God
What we may sometimes call 'rules' when talking about God are really aspects of his simple and complete nature.

>if the rules are superior to him he can't have created them
The 'rules' are actually his nature. Being him (not a part, him, God's nature is simple) they're eternal.
>God is above logic
Not so much he isn't as he's above our ability to understand completely. We can only know God from his effects. It's not unreasonable to assume God is perfectly logical, but we'll never fully know God through logic.