because professional grifters make money debating that

>>18399404
It depends on the context. God the father is incorporal. He is the essence of creation itself. Like, the very concept of creation itself. Logic, and laws of nature, are not created, they are discovered. This understanding of God isnt a physical thing. Ita like a concept, or a law of nature.

God the "Son", is a techton. Sometimes translated as a carpenter. So he is the physical thing that is actually building. He is the incarnation. He is the actualization of the will of God.

The idea is that there is a will that is fundamentally good, and is being discovered, similar to there being a law of nature that are fundamentally necessary, and also being discovered.

The reason these religions focus on will power, instead of laws of nature, is because systematic laws of cause and effect do not require a will, but we know that our will exists, because we experience it. In order to insure that our will continues to be selected by evolution, it needs a purpose. That purpose is to discover the good, and guide spiritual evolution of life, as another form of evolution that is "supernatural" to the laws of physics, and it depends on the universe being experienced by a living being.

>>18399404
>Why does the Universe need natural selection, but natural selection doesn't?
The statement doesn't make sense. Natural selection is the very thing you are talking about.

>>18399404
The universe will have a creator, so that the will of its creator will be selected. The will does not want a creator, because then it would be a slave to an uncaring universe.

>>18399404
>supposedly
Yes. It is put in place by the will. This is to insure the evolution of the living experience is selected. conscious awareness is not selected by unawareness. The laws of physics don't need us to experience them. Our experience is selecting the awareness, and evolving the experience.

>>18399404
The universe is contingent, even if it was eternal that dependence relationship on something external that isn't (or alternatively modal collapse) will never go away. You can't say the same about the necessary being (God)

>>18399404
The universe doesn't look like that retard, also your premise makes zero sense, it's not even an argument.

>>18399613
>>18399768
>>18399592
Sophistry and apologetics

>>18399770
You sound incredibly asspained.

>>18399768
>The universe is contingent
Nuh, uh
The universe is necessary

>>18399781
I accept your concession

>>18399404
Why would God need a creator? She is the one who creates.

>>18399787
You don't provide any argument, just make false assumptions. You're dishonest because honesty disproved you God.

>>18399786
Is it composed of contingent parts?

>>18399788
If anything needs a cause than it logically follows that God does also need a cause. Saying otherwise is special pleading, it is illogical and only dishonest people do it because they need to lie to prove their false God belief

>>18399789
>fagtheist talking about honesty
You don't believe lying is objectively wrong so spare me that bullshit.

>>18399768
>is contingent
>is necessary
literally just re-stating the exact thing that was being asked about

>>18399790
necessary parts

>>18399792
By definition, She is the exception to the statement that anything needs a cause.

>>18399793
>You don't believe lying is objectively wrong so spare me that bullshit
But I do believe lying is objectively wrong. Your claim that I don't believe such a thing only proves you're the liar and are projecting. You Christians always lie and you're hypocrites. You're subhuman degenerates and everyone sees it.
>>18399799
By a shitty dishonest definition, yeah that's god.

>>18399799
So the question was, why that is

>>18399801
Because God is a lie and his lying worshippers need to make false assumptions and argue semantics to prove his existence.

>>18399800
It's not dishonest. That's just how God, the mother, has always been defined.
>>18399801
If everything needs a cause, then there cannot be anything actual, so there needs to be a first cause which is not caused by anything else. She is by definition God.

>>18399404
The Universe had a beginning. The dominant scientific theory suggests it's expanding, and so it must've come from something.
Our understanding of the universe, time and space, is bound by the very laws that govern it. We are a part of it, and are limited by it.
It's not absurd to think a being could exist outside these limitations, beyond time and space, before creation that could be called God.

>>18399805
>It's not dishonest. That's just how God, the mother, has always been defined.
Yes, it is dishonest because it is arguing semantics.
>>18399806
>The Universe had a beginning
That's not what science says at all. Scientists actually admit that they don't know, at least in this case.
Your god is a god of the gaps fallacy and really unnecessary, an impersonal force is a better argument than a conscious being.

>>18399805
>If everything needs a cause
By definition false, when stuff exist for no reason
this is so dumb

>>18399807
>Yes, it is dishonest because it is arguing semantics.
Do you disagree that a first cause exists? If so, that first cause is God, the mother.

>>18399810
>when stuff exist for no reason
How do you know stuff exists for no reason?

>>18399404
"God" is basically just a tautological stand-in for Physical Laws at this point. They cannot be preceded because one of the most essential laws is cause-and-effect itself.

No idea why theists insist on anthromorphizing this and worshipping it though. I don't think it cares what you call it or how you feel about it.

>>18399813
Literally what it means for something to be necessary

>>18399811
>Do you disagree that a first cause exists?
I don't know. I'm honest enough to admit this. But I do know that the argument for a first cause is bad, because the real premise should be "everything that exists in the universe has multiple causes." And either way a cause and a god are two different things, if a first cause exists it doesn't follow that God exists. It is a non sequitur and all arguments for God are philosophical abominations.

universe being caused, is compatible with atheism

>>18399815
Necessity is a reason for existing though.
>>18399816
>if a first cause exists it doesn't follow that God exists
If by God you mean the skydaddy yahweh/jesus, then yes. If by God, you mean the first cause i.e. God the mother, then no.

>>18399807
>Scientists actually admit that they don't know
The universe expanding is the dominant theory with a lot of evidence, one being heat dissipation and the laws of entropy. What scientists admit they don't know is essentially what theists argue. How it began, was it always there and goes in loops? Did it spontaneously come to being before it expanded, etc.

The impersonal vs personal nature of God is pivoting to another argument. I have no problem with you humbling yourself, and admitting a "being" beyond our empirical understanding of space and time could exist. I see signs of intelligent design everywhere, and am quite appreciate of its beauty.

>>18399798
>bro the phone on my table is vital to all existence!
First off let's see what you have done here. I propose one solution, and you propose an infinite number of solutions instead. Seems like a common theme with atheists, weren't you the people supposedly crying about Occam's razor? Anyway the universe cannot be contingent if it's composed of parts contingent or not. Now that you have multiple necessary beings you also fall into another problem. The identity of indiscernibles states that if two beings have all the same properties (including the property of necessary existence) then they are fundamentally the same being. However, if a being's existence depends on a specific "differentiation" that property is also contingent. Why? The specific property cannot be necessary itself since it's not shared between those two necessary beings proving that it is not fundamental for a necessary being to posses

>>18399820
>Necessity is a reason for existing though.
not how words work

>>18399800
>lying is objectively wrong.
prove it then, oh you can't? then you're a liar

>>18399822
>one being heat dissipation and the laws of entropy
That has nothing to do with the universe expanding

>>18399822
>I see signs of intelligent design everywhere
Can you show these signs?

>>18399828
Sorry for being presumptioua, not my field. The laws of entropy supports it and "by heat dissipation" i meant we have evidence that the universe was much hotter before,
We have the "Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)"
>It's the cooled remnant of a hot, dense early universe Its current temperature (~2.7 K) shows the universe has expanded and cooled over time
The abundance of light elements
>This only works if: The universe was once much hotter and denser Then expanded and cooled
Etc etc

File: 1743588190360173.jpg (705 KB, 1730x1499)

705 KB JPG

>>18399831
are you denying intelligent design exists?

>>18399843
From something other than humans and other animals? No

File: 1764936457364827.png (677 KB, 1007x660)

677 KB PNG

>>18399846
So you're saying machines and alien life forms cannot have design anything with intelligence? What about other forms of life on earth that are not animals?

>>18399850
>So you're saying machines and alien life forms cannot have design anything with intelligence?
I have not seen any alien life forms. Have you?

>>18399851
You're not answering the question. I haven't seen any either but I certainly see intelligence in non-animal life and especially in machines. Why can't aliens exist anywhere else? Is earth special? Anyway it's clear you have no problem with intelligent design as long as it's not coming from God

>>18399855
>Why can't aliens exist anywhere else? Is earth special?
Didn't say that. I just said I hadn't seen aliens so I could not have seen intelligent design by aliens.
>you have no problem with intelligent design as long as it's not coming from God
Yes, that's right

File: 1772672574264264.png (2.61 MB, 2000x2409)

2.61 MB PNG

>>18399866
>I just said I hadn't seen aliens so I could not have seen intelligent design by aliens.
Great that means you are now backtracking. First you implied there's no intelligent design at all, then you shifted to saying that only animals+humans count. Now that you are finally aware that machines and even microscopic non-animal life show that they are capable of intelligently designing things you are backed into a corner.
>Yes, that's right
nice special pleading lol

>>18399870
There's no backtracking. In discussions like these, "intelligent design" usually refers to design by god, not by humans or animals. You weren't using the word clearly, so that caused unnecessary confusion. If you're not discussing intelligent design by god, then you're off topic.

>>18399875
No there is absolutely backtracking. You excluded multiple classes of beings at every step. Until you were finally made to admit your only problem is a specific intelligent designer. Again special pleading, pathetic argumentation.

>>18399879
What backtracking? The only design I have seen is by humans and animals that I have seen. I have not seen aliens or gods, so I have not seen anything designed by them either. This is not very hard to understand.

>>18399880
And backtracking once more.You specifically said you have no problem with any sort of intelligent design as long as it's not God here >>18399866 "Yes, that's right"
>I have not seen X therefore anything designed by X is automatically invisible
lol, if I show you a piece of software written by Claude must you see the LLM itself before it actually exists?

>>18399822
>The universe expanding is the dominant theory with a lot of evidence
No shit, i never denied this.
Theists always make the god of the gaps argument and by definition God is personal, an impersonal force cannot be God
>I see signs of intelligent design everywhere, and am quite appreciate of its beauty.
No, you do not. You delude yourself into believing it but such things don't exist which is why you resort to apologetics and sophistry instead of evidence. >>18399826
>prove common sense to me because I'm too stupid to accept it otherwise or algo you're a liar

>>18399881
There's no backtracking, you're just having trouble understanding simple things.
>if I show you a piece of software written by Claude must you see the LLM itself
Obviously, I must know the LLM exists in order to conclude that it wrote the software. Why is this controversial?

>>18399883
>I-it's just common sense, trust me!
so you have no evidence? thanks for yet another concession

File: 1771834455811706.png (445 KB, 785x532)

445 KB PNG

>>18399884
You made a point that it is impossible to see anything designed by beings you have not personally seen. I haven't seen these people either but only retards like you atheists will automatically conclude that there must be no intelligent designer behind the object because of it. And anyway there's no running now you said specifically the only problem you have with intelligent design is God. If it was aliens intelligently designing human beings/life/etc you'd be 100% okay with it. This is exactly what your deity Dawkins believes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

File: words_that_end_in_gry.png (122 KB, 740x538)

122 KB PNG

>>18399886
That's a lot of cope to say you don't have any examples of intelligent design by a god.

File: 1764607937307983.jpg (61 KB, 627x680)

61 KB JPG

>>18399887
>hurr I can make stupid claims ad nauseam as longs as I post xkcd comics!!
Fuck off back to where you belong. Nice to see you're now running. By your own admission any example that demonstrates intelligent design will be accepted as long as it's attributed to anything else other than God

>>18399807
Do u believe in abiogenesis? Isn't abiogenesis, abiogenesis of the gaps? Don't you say "it must"?

When you say the universe is contingent, don't you say it must? Godless universe of the gaps?

>>18399888
Damn, no need to get so upset just because you don't know any examples of ID by god.

>>18399404
how does the universe maintain the laws of physics without god? how do the algorithms keep running and for what reason without intent?

>>18399892
Who says the laws have to be "maintained" by anyone? How does your god maintain the universe without supergod? How does supergod maintain god without supersupergod?

File: 1756203422976520.png (33 KB, 1188x512)

33 KB PNG

>>18399891
The atheists only refuge is the straw man argument. Fair enough, we all know the only reason you're an atheist is because you like gay sex

>>18399897
I don't think you know what a strawman is, or what sex is.

>>18399907
You're attempting to refute an argument nobody ever made. And sex is most certainly not what your diseased buddy is doing when he is defiling your loose leaky hole

I see you re dodging abiogenesis and godless universe of the gaps on the gaps still. Can you answer this >>18399890
or not? How is your argumentation any less" of the gaps ?"

>>18399911
Why do you have images of sleeveless men in shorts holding condoms dripping with semen stored on your computer?

>>18399918
Is there anything objectively wrong with that in your paradigm?

>>18399920
Of course not, I will support you if you come out as gay.

>>18399782
You should kill yourself

File: 1768397301963255.png (724 KB, 1052x1392)

724 KB PNG

>>18399922
Why are you using your sexual orientation as an insult? The gods of atheism do not say there is anything wrong with it, in fact it is approved by your sick fucks

>>18399927
There's no insult, it's just that you are giving off gay vibes. Homosexuality is approved among smart and civilized people.

>>18399895
well in here life laws have to be enforced to be maintained, without enforcement there is no law right?

why does the law keep being enforced? is ti written somewhere? can you tell me where are foudns the laws of physics, where they are situated and which power do they use? GOd's will can enforce something over time through will, but without will, you will have to show that the universe can memorize a configuration, store it somewhere, draw from it and then apply it with some kind of force?
If you re going to do that, oyu would be describing sometihng awfully close to god (memory = conscience, force applying= gods power, eternal).

You basically desire a sleeping unconcious god that somehow behaves like he was conscious but its a pzombie god and we just got really fucking lucky.

I agree than an engineer than can make DVD players is more complex than a DVD player, but a DVD player spawning by itself sounds less likely than an engineer who made it. thats why people say there must be a god.

because a DVD player fully built spawning sounds fucking insane and unnatural, but a god, is by definition supernatural and crazy, so it fits more the bill and is more inline with whats going on. It implies a breach of causality, some kind of miracle, more likely to be performed by a God than a DVD player.

a godless universe is basically a spaghetti monster. Looks at this thing that is just like god but not god. a doppleganger ersatz god. If it looks and sound and smells and tastes like an omelet...

File: 1761650443773699.png (341 KB, 1536x864)

341 KB PNG

>>18399935
Ah of course an atheist would think having his asshole ripped open with smelly cock is the greatest honor imaginable. My bad for not respecting your culture. But you see to respect mine then you must know that not only is it the worst of insults, it's actually even a sin that got cities ruined

>>18399936
>why does the law keep being enforced?
There is no scientific metatheory about scientific laws, so the question is meaningless.

>>18399953
the thead's topic isn't scientific either, stay on topic

>>18399966
It was on topic and answered the question you asked.

>>18400033
nvm you re retarded

>>18400035
I see. You should learn how to write because your post >>18399936 is mostly incoherent nonsense.

File: pepe-are-you-serious.gif (85 KB, 638x616)

85 KB GIF

>>18399883
>common sense

>>18399613
Even in a determined system, your choices are still your choices. It's that simple

>>18399404
The god of Aristotle is so vague and generic and impersonal that you can really just defy it as the universe. When atheists and theists debate whether God exists it really doesn't matter, because theists have reduced the definition of god down so much has to mean being itself

It doesn’t need a creator, likely has one though considering that there was rapid expansion from an initial singularity
Outside of that the creating entity could very well have no need for a creator itself

>>18399404
It doesnt.
You take a look at the magnitude of the universe, and then take a look at silly creation talk and you'll be in awe at cost eficient religion burning the literal infinite forever for the shake of a few goat herders

>>18399609
Natural selection is not "God" you dumb atheist. Natural selection is contingent.

>>18399404
>but God doesn't?
The order is intentionality vs non-intentionality. How can non-intentionality spark intentionality? There's your answer.

>>18401321
>considering that there was rapid expansion from an initial singularity
the big bang was just the earliest expansion event we can reliably measure, as there was no matter before the recombination epoch, and anything before this we only have a few leftovers from like the CMB. We don't actually know enough about what happened before the big bang to make that call, it could've been a single creation event, or there could've been another universe and the universe is just in some endless loop for all we know. There's even some theories as to how our universe could eventually lead into another big bang given an unfathomably long time after the heat death of the universe

>>18401374
>it could've been a single creation event
Your other proposals add unnecessary ones for no real reason. All we can observe are those leftovers and they point to that first measurable moment.

>>18401383
you're missing my point, a single creation event is just as likely/unlikely as anything else, even if you take the big bang entirely at face value, all it'll tell you is that the universe was in a hotter and more dense state in the past that cooled as it expanded. It still leaves the ultimate creation of reality itself a mystery. If you still want to believe it was God that's still your prerogative

File: 1742903064161167.png (92 KB, 685x823)

92 KB PNG

>>18401389
>a single creation event is just as likely/unlikely as anything else
No my point is that there is no other reason to suggest anything else unless we find some form of evidence of the universe being stuck in a loop, multiverses, etc. That's all complete science fiction. All we can 100% knows is that the universe was in a much hotter and (infinitely) denser state. It's nonsensical to even speak of anything else really as Hawking pic rel also clarifies later
>In their new paper, Hawking and Hertog, whose work has been supported by the European Research Council, say this account of eternal inflation as a theory of the Big Bang is wrong. "The problem with the usual account of eternal inflation is that it assumes an existing background universe that evolves according to Einstein's theory of general relativity and treats the quantum effects as small fluctuations around this," said Hertog. "However, the dynamics of eternal inflation wipes out the separation between classical and quantum physics. As a consequence, Einstein’s theory breaks down in eternal inflation." - https://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/features/taming-multiverse-stephen-hawkings-final-theory-about-big-bang
At this point we are not even talking about God. Just that single creation event as you put it. I don't see any reason to suggest another thing beside what is obvious

>>18401341
You're making the argument, you have to prove that it cannot
no just suggest it and ask a question
else, there is no argument

>>18399938
God is a man with holes in his hands

>>18399792
The claim is not that everything needs a cause, the claim is that there is no uncaused energetic state. It is the laws of classical mechanics and the laws of thermodynamics.

So since the universe is an energetic state, it must have a cause, which is the previous energetic state of the universe. But this is the problem of infinite regress. So we end up with a simple logical formula.

1. If the universe exists then the problem of infinite regress exists.
2. If the problem of infinite regress has no resolution, then the universe doesn't exist.
3. The universe exists.
4. The problem of infinite regress has a resolution.

>>18401571
>the claim is that there is no uncaused energetic state
Whose claim is this? It is a nonsensical pseudoscience.

>>18401581
>Whose claim is this?
Isaac Newton

>>18401584
Can you show where he made that statement?

>>18401587
Yes.

Why does this stupid question have so many replies?

>>18401597
So, where is it?

>>18399404
And if the universe necessarily needed a creator which it does not, then why does that creator necessarily need to hate shelfish and buttsex lol.

>>18401597
>>18401600
No source?

>>18401600
in his arguments about defining absolute motion and reference frames in De gravitatione or the Principia, where an infinite chain of relative motions would fail to ground "true" motion without a stationary reference

>>18401632
Ok, apart from the fact that this is still unsourced, it is not even related to the claim you originally made. It is talking about reference frames, not about causes, which was what your original claim was about. It also makes no reference to vague terms like "energetic state", which don't mean anything. I can conclude from this that you are incompetent and/or lying.

File: 1768078387589611.png (716 KB, 1200x1203)

716 KB PNG

>>18399953
There's Occam's razor, and a universe that appears to obey laws is going to be simpler than a universe that doesn't because you can describe it with less information. So the question of why there are physical laws can be boiled down to the question of why we have something simpler rather than something more complex. But that's coming at things from the opposite direction of Occam's razor, an anti-Occam's Razor. It starts with the notion that we should prefer complex theories, so any apparent simplicity must be explained in terms of something more complex. And evidently the way to do this is to propose God as the most complex thing imaginable and say that he must be the one enforcing simplicity. But why would you prefer anti-Occam's razor over Occam's razor?

>>18401706
(cont.) In fact as the complexity of theories increases (requiring more information to describe), you just get more and more different theories, so there is no "most complex thing imaginable." There are infinitely many things that require infinite information to describe, but there are only a finite number of theories that can be described with any given finite amount of information. So if you want to have any reasonable way of deciding between theories, you have to prefer simplicity over complexity.

Believing there needs to be a creator is to claim you know the laws of nature lol.

>>18399870
>presuptard tries to do a gotcha, fails miserably
you LOVE to see it

>>18399886
>I haven't seen these people either but only retards like you atheists will automatically conclude that there must be no intelligent designer behind the object because of it.
Retard. And then you complain about strawmen.