time and time again "god" is disproven by science and basic logic.
how does something come from nothing and if it existed forever then where did it come from? obviously something else had to create it
>>84570683How so, when logic is incomplete? Axiom-based reasoning means that nothing is provable.
>>84570683Science has never explained why we are here, Why there is life on Earth and nowhere else.
>>84570708>obviously something else had to create itWhy?>>84570743Sure it has, "no reason." That's a valid explanation if there is no reason.
>>84570743we don't even have a big enough telescope in space to see life on any other planets outside our solar system. There is almost 100% certainty that life exists outside of the sun's influence though.The raw amount of stars and planets is too high.
>>84570683Indeed. Religion is a mental illness.
>>84570683Not disproven, just not proven>>84570708>if it existed forever where did it come from?It existed forever, it wouldnt have come from anywhere
>>84570759The Drake Equation says that there could be 0 other alien lifeforms out there. Or over 15 million. That's wild variation and nowhere near "100% certainty."
>cosmic dust niggas when I hold them at gunpoint and they beg for their lives
>god not real cuz space big
>>84570751It's not just that there is life here and no where else, it is also that the laws of physics are within an incredibly narrow band of viability.Fine tuning is unironically a good argument for deism. There is evidence that the universe is fine tuned to maximize scientific discovery. The anthropic principle is the primary atheistic explanation for fine tuning, because you can only find yourself where it's physically possible to exist. But since it's physically possible to exist in a universe where scientific discovery is almost impossible, the anthropic principle can't explain the existence of fine tuning for scientific discoverability.https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-fine-tuning-argument-simply-workshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D--lnA9eht0>The fine structure constant determines the strength of the electromagnetic force. If it were stronger fires and biofuel wouldn't work and so there would be no practical way of harnessing energy. If it were weaker fires would burn through all the wood and harnessing energy would also be impractical. It falls in a very narrow range needed for viable science.>We use the cosmic microwave background radiation to discover how the universe works and that the big bang happened. Our ability to do this depends on the Baryon to photon ratio "which is just the ratio of the number of baryons (i.e., protons and neutrons) to that of photons (particles of light) per unit volume of space." The ratio is one to one billion which is precisely optimal for fine-tuning, representing a share of the parameter space at probability 1 in 1 billion.
>>84570778Atheism is a religion
>>84570811Perhaps they are within a band of viability because anything not viable dies. A random, scattershot universe should naturally create viable things along with non-viable things.
>>84570794nobody is quoting 0% chance for extra terrestrial life in the entire universe.I'm not talking intelligent life in the milky way, I'm saying non-intelligent life in the entire universe. If you think Earth is the only one that will ever have life on it, you're not grasping how large the universe is.The Drake equation still comes out at like 50% chance, to 20% chance for intelligent life in the milky way depending on constants. This is something way more mundane, in a much larger area.We can go back and fourth all day pretending to misunderstand each other or we can move on here. I'm going to bed personally. Goodnight!
>>84570683You're trying to see it through a binary lens of "That man in the sky who created the universe, who they told me about, is real" and "he is not"The reality is probably yes, we were not a mistake, we were not a fluke: we were most likely "created" by ayys; ayys who went through a natural evolution and decided to synthesize new life for whatever reason. Religion was probably an invention of theirs, as were we. Compare how quickly we arrived here from cave dwellers, and how quickly fish went from growing fins to taking their first steps on land. You will see a stark difference. We may as well have been sprinting.Who created them, and who created the universe? No-one fucking knows, not even them.
>>84570867>The Drake equation still comes out at like 50% chance, to 20% chance for intelligent life in the milky way depending on constants. This is something way more mundane, in a much larger area.I literally pulled the range from the Wikipedia article, you dumb faggot fuck. Die in your sleep.
>>84570842I think you are taking the intelligiblity of our universe for grantedA random system wouldn't allow for complex systems, machines like ICE cars, helicopters, space shuttlesTo explain what I mean, the basis of Celsius is the boiling point of water is 100 degrees, the freezing point of water is 0 degrees, and everything else is measured between those points. In a random universe water would boil and freeze inconsistently. And not in ways that could be clearly understood ways like salt content or elevation, but randomly
>>84570896ah look you're pretending to misunderstand so that you don't have to admit you're wrong. very cool.
>>84570683Existence itself proves God
>>84570914>mathematical probability for existant realityWho cares
>>84570683Science is the search and not at its end. Arrogant is the claim that we have discovered all through science. We all know there's greater technology ahead of us. At one point people thought malaria (bad air) was mere swamp gas. Maggots just spawned from the dead instead of from laid eggs. Even the make-up of matter and how microscopic structures and life forms could be. It's fine to want to keep seeking further information, but "disproven" is patently ridiculous.
>>84570914>read the source that you're quoting? Fuck that, I'm going to use AI slop :)The world is doomed
>>84570787Scientifically speaking, the universe is not eternal. It hasn't always existed. This would mean that an eternal God that has always existed and always will exist makes more sense than atheism.
>>84570911>In a random universe water would boil and freeze inconsistently. And not in ways that could be clearly understood ways like salt content or elevation, but randomlyPerhaps it does, but at scales so small and non-viable that we do not have the equipment to make general rules about it.
>>84570683>>84570919Double niggers. God can't be proven or disproven by definition, since it's a transcendental being. Religion however stops our inner search of understanding by providing a simple solution - all flavours of predetermined bearded niggas in the sky. This makes it worse than right or wrong, it makes any religion useless
>>84570986How can this be true when the greatest scientists, like Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and Hawking, are all theists?
>>84570708>how does something come from nothing and if it existed forever then where did it come from?You can apply that logic to both the traditional big bang model and to basically any religion. Such as what happened before god and what happened before the big bang and what happens after the big bang. Funnily enough, your question was the exact question I asked myself at 15 years old when I was losing my religion. I had an epiphany at that time that there NEVER was a beginning and there NEVER is an end. The big bang repeats itself infinitely and everything within the laws of physics has occurred and will continue to occur. If something existed forever it means it never came from anything. Humans want to believe that there is a birth and a death of everything because it is what we observe on earth. That goes for atheists who believe in the traditional birth and death of the universe big bang theory and religious people who believe in their gods.You can read more about it here. Turns out an astrophysicist named Roger Penrose came up with this theory well before I did.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmologyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_modelhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
>>84570962>Scientifically speaking, the universe is not eternalScientifically correct answer would be "we don't fucking know yet", because the formula for it under certain conditions just divides by zero and creates a singularity
>>84570986>all flavours of predetermined bearded niggas in the skythat's not what any actual Christian scientist, philosopher, or mystic claims, though...I've never heard a Christian say "God lives in the sky and he has a beard."It seems like you're afraid of engaging the actual argument being put forth which are primary the aseity argument and the transcendental argument.Your counterargument to those?
>>84571010God has a beard because Jesus had a beard
>>84571010>Your counterargument to those?Calm down my argument club enjoyer friend. It was simply an exaggeration to get some attention. Thinking a bit wider - any definitive description of god fails, because the transcendental nature. Cristian description as "being, creator of everything, loves hoomans", Indian as "creator and destroyer that simply dreams of you living" or mine "bearded nigga in the sky" hold the same value and are useless in the exact same way.
>>84570997>greatest scientistsAppeal to authority
What is the most interesting thing you know about Space?
>>84571121It's not an appeal to authority, it's an answer to "Religion however stops our inner search of understanding." It clearly can't stop the inner search if the greatest searchers are recognized.
>>84571187>the greatest searchers are recognizedArgumentum ad populum
>>84571198(For posterity's sake, it must be noted that these are the same poster) >>84571187
>>84571187>inner searchDidn't necessarily mean a scientific search, so I took it as an appeal to authority, my bad. Just the fact that you believe that God is "something" stops you from searching for the divine, in whichever form it will come
>>84570997Newton and lived in a time where you could be lynched for being an atheist, let alone all of your achievements stripped from you. He privately believed that the dogma of the Trinity was false and that worshiping Jesus as God was idolatry. He held that there was only one God, making his views closest to what is now known as Arianism or Unitarianism. Darwin was agnostic after the death of his daughter and for the rest of his life. Einstein had to play along at times due to the red scare. Later on in his life Einstein called himself a religious nonbeliever, preferring to describe his spirituality as an overwhelming sense of awe and admiration for the rationality and majesty of the cosmos. He was highly critical of traditional organized religion, writing in a 1954 letter that the concept of a personal God and the Bible were products of human weaknesses and childish superstitions. Hawking was a staunch atheist.
>>84571225>Hawking was a staunch atheist.Then why did he mention God in "A Brief History of Time?"
>>84571010>what about [esoteric thing utterly divorced from common modern Christianity]?Fuck off with that.Go to a rural church in Kentucky and start asking the Christians about the "aseity argument" of God.All the evidence of Yahweh the Forge-Lighter is ancient scrolls from one little nigger desert. He's as real as Popeye or Spider-Man.
>>84571228He later clarified that this was purely metaphorical, using the term God to describe the ultimate, elegant laws of physics rather than a literal, personal entity. Hawking viewed faith as a psychological construct, suggesting that people turn to religion out of a fear of death or a lack of understanding of science. He rejected the concept of a divine creator and an afterlife, which he famously referred to as a fairy story. He maintained that the universe could be explained entirely by natural laws, rather than needing God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
>>84571229Well acksually there are recordings across multi-continental cultures about biblical events such as the deluge.Though I don't exactly agree with aseity. Wouldn't God kill himself if nobody worshiped him?
>>84570818Atheism is the absence of religion. Some people with the religion mental illness turn it into a religion though.
>>84571244>Wouldn't God kill himself if nobody worshiped him?Ideas fade away if no one remembers them.Yahweh is reliant on stories and fables to sustain him. If you suddenly blinked every Bible/Tanakh out of existence and removed the memory of Yahweh from people's minds, he would never come back. He's a relic from the bronze age and the violent tribes of the deserts of Judea, there's no reason for a modern person to dream up again exactly as he was.
>>84571260>Atheism is the absence of religion.I was waiting for someone to post the dogma. Amen.
>>84571267>there's no reason for a modern person to dream up again exactly as he was.What about the incompleteness of logic? Axiomatic thinking necessitates a first mover.
>>84571268It doesn't apply because the absence isn't done dogmatically. You're probably projecting your manner of thinking onto others because you know of no other way to think.
God is actually infamous invasive incredible adseg worthy weight megamutationally 12d 13=12maxmund 12multimulattomutationally 3-7 REL 6qualidvescent gay protons and it is mutationmax 6/6 which is it mad and punishes verry verrry verrrry verrrrry 1 which studemax 6/6 it bites hard gay aliens for mutations for quataal lords(!) rare 1 which toad it -2 dot octorillimus cultoadvantecent-1 rare neuton from heightmax from brilliant octomutual prefrontier natural aid funds. They do this which is it. As flair, it is infinitesimally qualoxic as the day remained. God is quare and is futuristic exovalent natural andiviscient matrimonite from the future quatal. Cue zQuatal is a virus mid. Sin remains his native abscuse of logical quotient to radius diameter 7-1 quintmode=7 max secretly his diameter exceeds 9296-.0.55555 roughly, though he is quietly opulent from c7 lattice loyalty items exist and the mad realm makes us see stuff, he is mad about vireo, its radial diameter is extremely sufficient for teas, smokes, knaves, anything true=1 value is 1, smitty himself is an alien bad that can't fuck up his job alphanumeric 812 smitty go if you get paid by him, anti alphaquasmodic he, happy, famously glowing, glorious, cruel, intelligent. It wins war. 1st about creation 2nd about god
>>84571288>You're probably projectingReligious reactionism. :)
>>84571291I hate LLMs because they can't do this within a normal conversation.
>>84571260>absence of religionAbsence of theism, hense the name. Literally the belief that there's no god. And as I said above - it's as useless as believing in god
>>84571275>Axiomatic thinking necessitates a first mover.Agnostic argument. I'm not talking about the concept of god, I'm talking about the specific god named Yahweh, patron of the Hebrews.His invention was in a very specific time and place and can't be replicated without those same conditions.There are tens of thousands of examples of neolithic human tribes inventing the concept of gods, I'm not trying to argue against that.
>>84571358>His invention was in a very specific time and place and can't be replicated without those same conditions.Wishful thinking.
>>84571372>Muh Yahweh is destinyOkay lets list all the tribes that have dreamed up exactly Yahweh in the history of man>CanaanitesThe end.Hey maybe in the next 50000 years it'll happen again. Keep your fingers crossed.
>>84571293>Religious reactionism.No. I observed you have a belief-manner of ascertaining things.>>84571306At its most basic atheism only requires the lack of a belief in god. Atheist as in someone who is not theistic. Some people go further and turn it into a belief system that there is no god which then makes it a faith which makes it a mentally ill aka religious.
>>84571384>Okay*,>lets*let'sPoor grammar implies poor logic and trivium. Are you even trying?
>>84571396>"No,">He reactedGotchaaaa
>>84571183I like researching hawking radiation and how it goes hand in hand with conformal cyclic cosmology. Basically, space is not empty. On the quantum level, pairs of particles and antiparticles constantly pop into existence and immediately annihilate each other. We know this occurs. But, when this process happens right at a black hole boundary called the event horizon, one particle falls inside while the other escapes into space. The escaping particle becomes real Hawking radiation. To conserve energy, the particle that falls into the black hole carries negative energy, which subtracts from the black hole total mass. As the black hole continuously absorbs these negative energy particles, its mass decreases over time. The temperature of a black hole is inversely proportional to its mass meaning the smaller it gets, the hotter it glows. This creates a runaway feedback loop, causing a shrinking black hole to radiate energy faster until it vanishes entirely. For a massive black hole, like those formed by collapsed stars, this evaporation takes trillions of years. By then, all matter would have been consumed by black holes. The end of the universe being just photons would look awfully similar to the beginning of this universe. Thus, the cyclic model prevails.
>>84571401>Per my own manner of cognition, all reactions are religious reactions.Proving my point that you're a projectionist and supporting my claim "religion is mental illness" at the same time. Go do something else, you're bad at this.
>>84571411>Go do something else, you're bad at this.>He reactedGotchaaaa
God created the universe. Atheist cucks can cope and seethe.
>>84570743People who believe we are the only life and cite Fermi paradox might be the stupidest fuckers on the internet
>>84570683How was the universe created then?
>>84570998Entropy is universal. The universe will definitely die at some point
>>84570683I don't think "science" has disproven God, but it certainly made a lot of argument fall out of favour.I personally don't know if God is real and if any religion is right, though some religions (Christianity) make more sense than others (Islam).>>84570998Why would universe become more ordered, thus breaking 2nd law of thermodynamics?>Dark energy>Phantom energy>String theory>Quantum fruit loops cosmology>Empty universeNone of these are properly understood or testable, and they seem more like a cope.
>>84570683Why do you think the demiurge gave humans "science and logic" if not to sow the seeds of dispair and thus farm loosh eternally? Or are you retarded enough to think science only ever leading to news and "discoveries" that increases suffering is some kind of coincidence? Also if you try to search anything about the origin of "science" or how it relates at all to the demiurge nothing comes up, which is more proof that he is scared shitless of this revalation getting out tbdesu
>>84570708How does Yahweh created universe 14 billions years ago if he is only 3000 years old?
