/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12736036
Based, he turned me from an agnostic into an atheist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A

>>12736051
Cringe.

>>12736036
Retard that quickly fell out of academia. Only known because he goes reeee at religion.

>>12736036
This abusive and agressive anti-religionist has set back the cause of atheism a generation with his nastiness and bigotry, hiding behind 'science' .. that science being mostly his own theories (opinions)

very sad that people revere him. he isnt a good role model.

>>12736198
PS Hitchens died too soon. Read his stuff its amazing.

>>12736156
>Based.
FTFY

Ignoring the cringe Bush memes and other retarded things he does say in that talk, he is 100% right in the sense that agnosticism is not being honest to yourself, it's fence-sitting.
You don't need to make a special case for the possibility of God existing, anymore than you do for Zeus or the tooth fairy.
If and when there's signs or evidence of an actual God, then and only then that hypothesis can be taken into consideration and tested.
Otherwise it's not something worth worrying about or meriting special consideration.

>>12736036
>>12736051
Is a fucking retard, listen to actual worthy scientists.

>>12736211
No, atheism is cringe and human arrogance. The christcuck God obviously doesn't exist, but one can never know if A God exists.

>>12736036
Really good evolutionary biologist.

>>12736232
The word God itself is an arrogant Human construct. Atheism is not the denial of God existing, it's the lack of belief in a God existing, which is not quite the same.

Why would we want to walk around carrying a huge host of preconceived notions and biases from unjustified beliefs.

The universe is strange enough as it is, we can take it as face value for what it is and go from there.

>>12736257
>The word God itself is an arrogant Human construct
That's just your presumption stated like an autist.
>Atheism is not the denial of God existing, it's the lack of belief in a God existing, which is not quite the same
That's just cope by atheists trying to make their tiny side bigger by included non-autistic agnostics into their forced definition.
>Why would we want to walk around carrying a huge host of preconceived notions and biases from unjustified beliefs.
Says the atheist with a huge host of preconceived notions and biases from unjustified beliefs on the nature of religion.
>The universe is strange enough as it is,
t. popsci reader
>we can take it as face value for what it is and go from there.
That's so anti-intellectual.

>>12736156
small scull huh

>>12736287
>That's just your presumption stated like an autist.
No, the concept of God is a Human construct, and an arrogant one at that since it discards the possibility that the universe itself could simply be an accident or a side-effect of something else. It seeks to bring special meaning to the universe when there may or may not be any.

>That's just cope by atheists trying to make their tiny side bigger by included non-autistic agnostics into their forced definition.
No, it's literally what atheism is. Lack of belief in a God or Gods, not a denial of God, since the concept is simply not worth considering.

It doesn't help that many meme atheists simply don't understand what atheism is, but you are seeking to reduce atheism to the strawman of the reddit atheist and that's just plain wrong.

>Says the atheist with a huge host of preconceived notions and biases from unjustified beliefs on the nature of religion.
I said nothing negative about religion so far.
Just that it's not a possibility worth considering until there is an actual, empirical something to consider.

>t. popsci reader
t. NPC with no sense of wonder

>That's so anti-intellectual.
How so? Elaborate.

>>12736196
read a book

>>12736198
He just tells it as it is.

>>12736315
Not him but
>discards the possibility that the universe itself could simply be an accident
>until there is an actual, empirical something to consider.
There is nothing empirical that says the universe is an "accident". So why do you even consider that possibility? Ah right, atheism is also a belief.

>>12736451
>There is nothing empirical that says the universe is an "accident". So why do you even consider that possibility? Ah right, atheism is also a belief.
>t. checkmate atheists
That's a retarded take, when I am clearly saying that I am not discarding any possibilities about the nature of the universe.
It would be a belief if I was convinced that the universe was an accident, but I am not.
Simply put, I would entertain the idea of a God when we find something that could be defined as such.
I would entertain the idea of the universe having a purpose / being an accident, if and when we find something pointing towards that.

Until it happens these are simply fun thought experiments and not something we should be overly concerned about as a species.

>>12736464
>I am not discarding any possibilities about the nature of the universe.
Ah but you are discarding the possibility of God being behind it all and yet you consider the possibility of it being an "accident" despite there not being empirical evidence of such thing, why are you such a hypocrite?

>>12736497
>Ah but you are discarding the possibility of God being behind it all
Am I discarding it? Not exactly, I'm simply not taking it into consideration since there is nothing there to actually consider. You want me to make a special case and search for a concept Humans made up out of the blue and for which there is no evidence for. We might as well mount expeditions to search for leprechauns or unicorns.

Why don't you read my post again? You don't seem to be understanding what Atheism is.

>yet you consider the possibility of it being an "accident" despite there not being empirical evidence of such thing
Nope, as with religion, the purpose of the universe is something not worth worrying about in the first place until there is an actual something to consider. It may have a purpose. It may not. It may be unknowable. The best option is not to assume anything about it until there is some meat to either thesis.

>Saint Augustine quote
>shitty ad hominem about atheists being evil
So you are a Christian?
Why are you atheist towards Ra?
Why do you deny his existence?
Perhaps you have a reason to wish he didn't exist? This argument can be used against every religion. What makes yours special?

>>12736549
>You want me to make a special case and search for a concept Humans made up out of the blue and for which there is no evidence for.
Like the possibilities of the universe being an accident or a side-effect of something else you mentioned and considered
>The best option is not to assume anything about it until there is some meat to either thesis.
Alright stop replying and stop assuming bro, just wait some dudes in white coats to tell you what to believe lmao
>Why are you atheist towards Ra?
>Why do you deny his existence?
Ra was refuted by Akhenaten's Aten

>>12736569
>Like the possibilities of the universe being an accident or a side-effect of something else you mentioned and considered
I'm not writing a book, building a temple or mounting an expedition to prove the universe is an accident. It's not a thesis I am considering. It's not something I worry about, the way you expect people to worry about God.
But keep strawmanning.

Atheism is caring about the empirical world.
Not abstract concepts based on nothing.

>Alright stop replying and stop assuming bro, just wait some dudes in white coats to tell you what to believe lmao
You've went full retard with this one.
I don't take anyone's word alone at face value, that's why we have things like the scientific method, experimentation, peer review, etc.

>Ra was refuted by Akhenaten's Aten
Or maybe you are just a bad person with a tainted Ka and you are afraid you'll never get to Ma'at and that's why you wish Ra didn't exist.
Just using your retarded argument against you.

Anyway still waiting for that explanation of what makes Christianity special over the myriad of other Human religions.

>>12736569
Big bang cosmology wasn't made up out of the blue though, it is the current best explanation for our observations of the earliest time we can investigate. It has observational backing and can be altered or downright proven wrong. Magic did it will always be a sufficient explanation that isn't falsifiable.

god of the gaps

>>12736228
holy based

>>12736609
>I'm not writing a book, building a temple or mounting an expedition to prove the universe is an accident. It's not a thesis I am considering. It's not something I worry about, the way you expect people to worry about God.
Those are still human constructs, I never said they are organized religions or something, you are the one strawmanning.
>Atheism is caring about the empirical world.
I have never read a scientific peer reviewed article that says "atheism" is caring about the empirical world.
>that's why we have things like the scientific method, experimentation, peer review, etc.
Sure, see above.
>you'll never get to Ma'at and that's why you wish Ra didn't exist.
I already told you Aten refuted Ra and also absorbed Maat.
>Anyway still waiting for that explanation of what makes Christianity special over the myriad of other Human religions.
I don't care about that so no point in answering this

>>12736620
Yeah I know, the big bang was created by a catholic priest that created it to prove the universe had a beginning.
>god of the gaps
Gaps you aren't and haven't filled.

>>12736651
>Gaps you aren't and haven't filled
You absolute fucking idiot you are embarrassing yourself. That's why it's called god of the gaps, it's a current unknown that is 'explained' by god

>>12736646
>Those are still human constructs, I never said they are organized religions or something, you are the one strawmanning.
You literally said "it's a belief", here >>12736451. It's not. I am not proclaiming the universe is an accident. It's not something I claim to know or believe, anymore that I claim to know about God not existing (That would be reddit meme atheism).

God's existence is simply not something worth considering because there is no evidence for such a concept. The universe having a purpose or being an accident is not something that can be proven at this stage of Humanity either so it's really not worth considering either. It's more of a philosophical question than a scientific one.

>I have never read a scientific peer reviewed article that says "atheism" is caring about the empirical world.
So now I can't have a personal position?
Everything you believe must have been told to you by someone else?

In the simplest terms, Atheism is defined as "the absence of belief in the existence of deities", which is the definition you will find in most dictionaries and the one I've been using in this thread and adhere to.

>I already told you Aten refuted Ra and also absorbed Maat.
That's wrong even from a perspective of Egyptology. You don't even seem to know what Ma'at is. It's an abstract concept, not something that can be absorbed. You either live according to the principles of Ma'at or you don't.

Anyway the fact that you are writing these joke replies and given up on defending your shitty St. Augustine image means you realize it was a retarded argument/quote to begin with. Baby steps.

>I don't care about that so no point in answering this
>I post religious images but I don't care about defending my position logically
Might as well post "I give up".

>>12736679
Why so mad, just pointing out the obvious, I need to communicate slowly to special people like you.

>>12736689
>it's a belief
Yes it is a belief, atheism is an axiomatic belief. Is something that is self evident to you.
>God's existence is simply not something worth considering because there is no evidence for such a concept
Concept of what? Of God? What do you mean concept of God?
>So now I can't have a personal position?
Ah is just an opinion, I thought you were claiming that as a fact.
>In the simplest terms, Atheism is defined as "the absence of belief in the existence of deities"
I don't care.
>That's wrong even from a perspective of Egyptology. You don't even seem to know what Ma'at is
You are the one who doesn't know, Aten absorbed Maat.
Aten carried absolute power in the universe, representing the life-giving force of light to the world as well as merging with the concept and goddess Ma'at to develop further responsibilities for Aten beyond the power of light itself.[9]
>Anyway the fact that you are writing these joke replies and given up on defending your shitty St. Augustine image means you realize it was a retarded argument/quote to begin with. Baby steps.
Nope is just a picture with a quote, you are just assuming and projecting bro.
>I post religious images
God =/= Religion, you don't need religion for God and viceversa, stop being stupid.

>>12736036
>denies group selection
>dedicates senior adult life to group selection of religious beliefs

>>12736705
>Yes it is a belief, atheism is an axiomatic belief. Is something that is self evident to you.
How can something literally defined as "the absense of belief" be considered as a belief?

You are not making any sense. Mental gymnastics because I'm not the strawman atheist you want me to be.

>Concept of what? Of God? What do you mean concept of God?
Any God from any religion you wish. There's no evidence in any of them, as far as I know, to serve as a starting point to formulate a falsifiable hypothesis about a God existing. Thus it's not something we need to believe in or be concerned about, anymore that we are concerned with unicorns or leprechauns. It may have some value in cultural or sociological studies, or some value as a tradition but it's not something I partake in or consider beneficial to humanity.

>I don't care.
Yes I know you don't care because you've been trying to make a strawman of atheism throughout this whole discussion. But it would be good for you to learn the actual definition.

>Aten carried absolute power in the universe, representing the life-giving force of light to the world as well as merging with the concept and goddess Ma'at to develop further responsibilities for Aten
Nice try. The word merge, there, is used from an outsider historian's perspective, in the sense that the Egyptians incorporated characteristics of the concept into Aten. It doesn't mean "Aten absorbed Ma'at" in the cosmological argument you were trying to make. Belief in Ma'at as a concept did not dissappear with the rise of Atenism, by the way.

>Nope is just a picture with a quote, you are just assuming and projecting bro.
So you post quotes you don't agree with?
Is this a variation of "I was only pretending to be retarded"?

>God =/= Religion, you don't need religion for God and viceversa, stop being stupid.
Weirdest take yet.

Your quote by St. Augustine defending God qualifies as a religious image.

>>12736705
>Yes it is a belief, atheism is an axiomatic belief. Is something that is self evident to you.
How can something literally defined as "the absence of belief" be considered as a belief?

You are not making any sense. Mental gymnastics because I'm not the strawman atheist you want me to be.

>Concept of what? Of God? What do you mean concept of God?
Any God from any religion you wish. There's no evidence in any of them, as far as I know, to serve as a starting point to formulate a falsifiable hypothesis about a God existing. Thus it's not something we need to believe in or be concerned about, anymore that we are concerned with unicorns or leprechauns. It may have some value in cultural or sociological studies, or some value as a tradition but it's not something I partake in or consider beneficial to humanity.

>I don't care.
Yes I know you don't care because you've been trying to make a strawman of atheism throughout this whole discussion. But it would be good for you to learn the actual definition.

>Aten carried absolute power in the universe, representing the life-giving force of light to the world as well as merging with the concept and goddess Ma'at to develop further responsibilities for Aten
Nice try. The word merge, there, is used from an outsider historian's perspective, in the sense that the Egyptians incorporated characteristics of the concept into Aten. It doesn't mean "Aten absorbed Ma'at" in the cosmological argument you were trying to make. Belief in Ma'at as a concept did not dissappear with the rise of Atenism, by the way.

>Nope is just a picture with a quote, you are just assuming and projecting bro.
So you post quotes you don't agree with?
Is this a variation of "I was only pretending to be retarded"?

>God =/= Religion, you don't need religion for God and viceversa, stop being stupid.
Weirdest take yet.

Your quote by St. Augustine defending God qualifies as a religious image.

>>12736742
>How can something literally defined as "the absense of belief" be considered as a belief?
It is self evident to you that there's an "absence" to begin with, is an axiomatic belief.
>There's no evidence in any of them
Evidence in what sense? Scientific evidence? The principle of causality is scientific evidence of God.
>But it would be good for you to learn the actual definition.
You are not the absolute dictionary, couldn't give less of a shit for what your defintion of a word is an anime website.
>Belief in Ma'at as a concept did not dissappear with the rise of Atenism, by the way.
Never said it did, everything comes from Aten either way, refuted Ra btw.
>So you post quotes you don't agree with?
I agree with Hitler's good treatment of animal rights, doesn't mean I'm a nazi. Doesn't mean I'm "christian" for posting Augustine
>Weirdest take yet.
Not weirdest you are just displaying your ignorance, you don't need to God for Religion and you don't need Religion for God.
>Your quote by St. Augustine defending God qualifies as a religious image.
Nope, is just the opinion of one guy, far as I'm concerned what the quote says is not a teaching in organized religion.

>>12736765
>It is self evident to you that there's an "absence" to begin with, is an axiomatic belief.
Every philosophical, religious or personal position is based on axioms, from Agnosticism to Islam. Your argument is malicious because you are equating axioms with beliefs, when they are not the same thing. If you follow this line of argument to its fullest then everything is a belief because consciousness may be an illusion. We all believe in the axiom that our senses are not deceiving us. Ultimately this argument is a dead end.

Atheism is the absence of belief in a God or Gods, if you want to be more strict, refer to this chart, where Atheism would be defined as the rational disbelief in God. That's it.

>Evidence in what sense? Scientific evidence?
Empirical evidence.

>The principle of causality is scientific evidence of God.
Not really.

First you should clarify what meaning of causality you are alluding to. In Physics, the Principle of Causality means that causes must precede effects in temporality. It does not mean everything must have a cause.

In Philosophy, there is an ontological argument that states everything must have a cause, but this cause does not necessarily fit the definition of God.

Neither is "scientific proof" of God.

>You are not the absolute dictionary, couldn't give less of a shit for what your defintion of a word is an anime website.
It's not my definition, it's the standard definition.

>refuted Ra btw
Yeah you can refute every religion with that line of argument, that was my point.
There is nothing that makes one more special than the others.

>Doesn't mean I'm "christian" for posting Augustine
No, it means you agree with the quote.

And the quote was retarded because it can be used to disqualify every religion.
Thus you are defeating your own argument thus why now you are trying to distance yourself from the quote.

>>12736036
homosexual and gay

>>12736765
>Not weirdest you are just displaying your ignorance, you don't need to God for Religion and you don't need Religion for God
And how is that related to atheism which rejects belief in both? How is that related to the St. Augustine quote which specifically defends the existence of the Christian God?

>Nope, is just the opinion of one guy, far as I'm concerned what the quote says is not a teaching in organized religion.
The quote, nevertheless, defends the Christian God. St. Augustine wasn't thinking of your personal abstract deist God when he wrote that. It's like posting a Stalin quote and then act surprised that people assume you are a commie.

The quote is fucking retarded anyway, which was my point, and not this branching side discussion you led me to.

>>12736848
>Your argument is malicious because you are equating axioms with beliefs
Everything may be a giant belief, it doesn't mean that there is no truth or that consciousness is an "illusion" or that some beliefs can't hold truths
>It does not mean everything must have a cause.
It means exactly that, that for every effect there's a cause, it inevitably leads to the source of the universe and thus God. God as being the ultimate source of everything on reality.
>Neither is "scientific proof" of God.
Principle of causality is scientific proof for God if you like. It follows from the logic shown above.
>it's the standard definition.
Of who? Based on what dictionaries? Show me 3 dictionaries that say atheism is exactly what you are saying. If we simply go to the etymological root of the word then atheism literally means "without God", so it can easily be defined as the belief that there is no God AKA "without God", it just depends how you interpret it. Your own "standard" definition is only convinient to you because that way you can feel like you can distance yourself from religionists
>There is nothing that makes one more special than the others.
Sure agreed. One may have better things to say, others worse, it depends.
>it means you agree with the quote.
Yes
>And the quote was retarded because it can be used to disqualify every religion.
How so? How does it disqualify every religion. You are looking up to much into just a picture.

>>12736859
>The quote is fucking retarded anyway, which was my point, and not this branching side discussion you led me to.
I never told you to discuss the picture, I just posted it because I feel like it, "Christian God" is meaningless, what matters is that I agree with the quote.

>>12736900
Pt 1:

>Everything may be a giant belief, it doesn't mean that there is no truth or that consciousness is an "illusion" or that some beliefs can't hold truths
Yes, thank you, that was my point. You may stop disqualifying atheism as "just a belief" now. Just because it's based on axioms does not mean you can equate it with a religion. One seeks its beliefs to match the evidence and the other one does not.

>It means exactly that, that for every effect there's a cause, it inevitably leads to the source of the universe and thus God. God as being the ultimate source of everything on reality.
Ah yes, Babby's first cosmological argument... a weasel, coward's argument.

There are at least two big problems here.
First of all, you are deconstructing the word "God" to the point it's stripped of all meaning. Completely defanged. You say "God" but you mean "Cause".

It doesn't necessarily mean that this "cause" is alive, that this "cause" has a conciousness, that you can pray to it, that it shapes our daily life, that is knowable, that it had the intent to create the universe, or that fits any of the properties we associate with the word God. You might as well call it Spoon. Or Jeff. Or Ultimate Cause. It's a meaningless abstract concept.

Secondly, by what we know of the Big Bang, time did not exist before it happened. So without time, there can be no causality, in the Physics sense of the word. As per the Law of Causality every cause must precede its effect in time. So according to our understanding of Physics there is no cause preceding the Big Bang

So you see how your argument fails, both in the realm of Philosophy and in the realm of Physics.

>Principle of causality is scientific proof for God if you like. It follows from the logic shown above.
Nope, see above. In fact the Principle of Causality states that causes must precede effects. Your cosmological argument violates this principle when it comes to the Big Bang.

Great scientist and one of the few people unafraid to say what they think.

>>12736900
Part 2

>Show me 3 dictionaries
Easy.
/SiaT 922 c

Links on the paste bin above to avoid the 4chan spam block

>If we simply go to the etymological root of the word
The original Greek root refers to someone that "does not pay tribute to the [Greek] Gods" or that "has been abandoned by the [Greek] Gods".

You would have been an atheist in Ancient Greece since you don't believe in the Greek Gods.

>Your own "standard" definition is only convinient to you because that way you can feel like you can distance yourself from religionists
It's the modern academic definition, and the one used by Dawkins which is who this thread is about. You may find other definitions particularly in older dictionaries but mine is the current, standard, academic definition.

>How so? How does it disqualify every religion.
Every religion has defined its own deities, sins and bad deeds, as well as the punishments for breaking its rules. The childish argument that people denying a certain God exists must be doing so because they are afraid of the consecuences of being wrong, applies to every religious person in the world, since every religious person effectively is denying the rules and deities of the other religions. Thus something that applies to everyone applies to no one. It becomes meaningless. The quote is not indicative of which one is the real religion.

>>12736902
Good for you, it's still a retarded quote. I thought we had left the "nonbelievers are evil" arguments in the Middle Ages but apparently not.

>>12737014
>You say "God" but you mean "Cause".
The Cause, sure Aka God.
>It doesn't necessarily mean that this "cause" is
God has no attributes, the ultimate force of creation cannot be reduced to limited human concepts.
>Secondly, by what we know of the Big Bang, time did not exist before it happened. So without time, there can be no causality, in the Physics sense of the word. As per the Law of Causality every cause must precede its effect in time. So according to our understanding of Physics there is no cause preceding the Big Bang
That's only if you take General Relativity into account, in reality neither General Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics as they are atm cannot provide a description of the initial second of the BB. So there being no "time" before the BB is only a hypothetical belief spread by people like Hawking and yes that was just his opinion and take on the BB, nothing more nothing, it is a hypothesis.
>Philosophy and in the realm of Physics.
Nope, you just failed at basic cosmology and common QM and GR knowledge, on top of the fact that you have a wrong common misconception of the BB, the BB is merely a description of what happens after it, it never says what caused "time", space and energy.
>Nope, see above.
You see above, you think you are fooling anyone on with those misconceptions of the BB lmao.

>>12736196
that's true, theology is like debating star trek

>>12736228
>Krauss
Fucking hell that twat I had forgotten how fucking insufferable and midwit he is.

>>12736232
lol God is human arrogance it's the most fucking human centric concept ever

>>12737048
>You would have been an atheist in Ancient Greece since you don't believe in the Greek Gods.
Plato's and Pythagoras's Monad is the source of it all, doesn't change a thing and is not atheism.
>The original Greek root refers to someone that "does not pay tribute to the [Greek] Gods" or that "has been abandoned by the [Greek] Gods".
There's many translations from "Godlessness" etc, anyway it is very clear it refers to someone who rejects the idea of God.
>It's the modern academic definition, and the one used by Dawkins which is who this thread is about
Dawkins? See>>12736228 I only care about opinions of scientists that are worth something.
>You may find other definitions particularly in older dictionaries but mine is the current, standard, academic definition.
I don't give a shit what academia says, that's just a poor argument of authority.
>The quote is not indicative of which one is the real religion.
I never said there was a "real" religion, if there is one "religion" which is the true one then it is truth itself.
>Good for you, it's still a retarded quote. I thought we had left the "nonbelievers are evil" arguments in the Middle Ages but apparently not
Why you keep seething at such simple quote? If anything the quote is directly psychological, those who don't want God to be a thing it must be because for instance they don't believe there is nothing higher than themselves on the universe, their egos are on their way if you may, but that's just an opinion.

>>12737088
Atheists do believe in God. It's literally just naturalistic pantheism. Everyone believes in God, its just a matter of defining what God is. Atheists like to play shitty word games though in order to appear smart and appeal to brainlets so as to appear like they're some kind of underdogs dispelling misconceptions of their poor little oppressed group (their "boo hoo wook how put down we awe by those dawm cwistians!!!" victim mentaility) don't let them fool you. Atheism is as much of a belief as anything else that relies on a series of philosophical worldviews and which isn't anymore reasonable than any other set of philosophical worldviews.

>>12737109
Of course is just yet another belief, there's nothing special about atheism, atheism has existed for thousands of years, they are not new or original, they are the same shit from since the dawn of known time.

>>12737116
There were atheist schools of thought in ancient Greece and India, yet they want to act like they're somehow new because they want to characterize religion as regressive and themselves as progressive whilst ignoring how relative those notions are anyway. All of the arguments these "new atheists" put forward are not new either, but its as if they think there hasn't been thousands of years of endless debate on this very topic with responses to each and everyone of their objections like "IF GAWD REAL WHY BAD THING HAPPEN!!??? HA! CHECKMATE THEIST LOOOOOOSER!!! LOLOLO
OL" Most atheists on the internet never grew out of their cringe teenage rebellious phase. There is a reason why serious metaphysical atheists who actually understand how nuanced the debate over God is laugh at tards like Dawkins and his followers whose characterization of religion is nothing short of simplistic and which seeks to sideline an entire area of human thought.

>>12737109
not me

>>12737063
>The Cause, sure Aka God.
This is so childish, I'm surprised this argument is still being pushed around.

Aristotle came up with this original argument, his thesis was twisted by St. Thomas of Aquinas, I learned this shit in school back in 2005 and you are pushing this as if it was some masterful argument.

Yes you can call "the cause" as "God" if you want, it doesn't automatically inherit any of the properties we associate with God no matter how you name it. And you still would have the problem of who created God. If everything has a cause then who caused God? And if the answer is "no one" then the premise that everything has a cause becomes false.

A long line of thought experiments that is ultimately meaningless to Humans and that does not prove the existence of any actual God.

>God has no attributes, the ultimate force of creation cannot be reduced to limited human concepts
Then it's unknowable and it's pointless to believe in it. You are making my case for me anon.

>That's only if you take General Relativity into account, in reality neither General Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics as they are atm cannot provide a description of the initial second of the BB.
I am aware of that.
Surely this is scientific proof God exists!

>So there being no "time" before the BB is only a hypothetical belief spread by people like Hawking and yes that was just his opinion and take on the BB, nothing more nothing, it is a hypothesis.
I was not referring to Hawking's no-boundary proposal. The fact is that in order to prove causality you would need to explain how there was time before the expansion of the universe got underway.

The fact is that time is an emergent phenomenon for internal observers just as Wheeler-DeWitt predicts, and it was proven in 2013. It basically means that "our" time does behave as we understand it in GR, while reconciling this with QM as the universe would seem timeless for an outside observer.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4691

>>12736036
I dont realy like these pop sci personalities. The function of getting people interested in science is understandable, even commendable. But i just find these people anoying. Their scientific achievements are small, and their egos large. Argument should be in good faith, and civilised. They just seem like kind of cuts. I have far more respect for my genetics prof who has one or two paper that got published in nature and one in science, who is otherwise unknown, than i do for this shithed.
I'm an atheist, but i hate the title and i hate the cringe associated to it. It is possible to argue for or against religion without being a cunt.

>>12737088
>Plato's and Pythagoras's Monad is the source of it all, doesn't change a thing and is not atheism.
Good, I know it's not atheism. YOU are the one who brought the "original etimology of the word" into the debate when I was only concerned with the modern meaning.

You keep getting BTFO and you are having trouble keeping your arguments straight. Do the Greek origins of the word matter or not anon? Make up your mind.

>There's many translations from "Godlessness" etc, anyway it is very clear it refers to someone who rejects the idea of God.
Yeah, the Greek Gods. It has nothing to do with the modern concept of Atheist.

And as stated before I don't give a shit about the Greek origin of the word, anymore than I give a shit that the word for dolphin comes from the Greek word for "womb". Who gives a shit?

>Dawkins? See>>12736228 # I only care about opinions of scientists that are worth something
Then why are you posting ITT?

>I don't give a shit what academia says, that's just a poor argument of authority
Dictionaries were provided.
If we can't use dictionaries as authoritative sources for word meanings then we might as well end this discussion here because it's like arguing with a flat earther.

>I never said there was a "real" religion, if there is one "religion" which is the true one then it is truth itself
>Truth is a religion
Holy mental gymnastics

>Why you keep seething at such simple quote? If anything the quote is directly psychological, those who don't want God to be a thing it must be because for instance they don't believe there is nothing higher than themselves on the universe, their egos are on their way if you may, but that's just an opinion
It clearly implies non believers are bad people.

>>12737142
You believe his is a cunt?
No I would be a cunt cause I would calculate the total number of life's superstition kills every year.

>>12736765
Atheism is a religion just like not collecting bibles is a hobby.

>>12737116

>>12737142
>without being a cunt
cite him being a cunt once

>>12736646
>holy cope

>>12736651
big bang is the consequence of general relativity. Right now it’s a place holder because we don’t know how gravity works in high energy situations. It still has evidence for and against it. It is a testable hypothesis, unlike any manmade book about any religion where when faced with a challenge you go “muh this specific part in this specific circumstance is to be taken methaphorically”

>>12736765
> The principle of causality is scientific evidence of God
it is scientific evidence of Noether’s theorem and conservation numbers. Also, determinism has been btfo by Bell. Also, even if there was no problem with the classical concept of causality, it doesn’t imply a deity, even less a specific one.

>>12737109
we already have a word for “universe”. Why use a retarded one like “god” when you mean the same concept? “Universe” implies a neutral description of all that exists, “god” has thousands of descriptions and definitions, most of them requiring the belief of offering sacrifices to not be treated badly by “god”, which, according to you, doesn’t even necessarily have a will.

>>12737124
>cringe at samefagging strawman without argument

>>12736036
Based Midwit

>>12736036
Based retard

>>12737420
>>12737421
Spooky

>>12737432
Limited possible opinions + Popular meme format = Similar answers

>>12736036
He has a circumcised demeanor. On looking into it, one intactivist woman contacted him regarding why he would not condemn circumcision (at that time) and he stated he was circumcised and it was totally fine. He also got along with Rabbis better than others, but this isn't entirely surprising given that Jews are quite formal, structured, and logical, so the dumb goy would mistake style for substance and submit to the fact that the correct language and social rituals are being employed. The same as he would with a scientist he viewed as a colleague.

Overall it's hard to say whether it's true, but he has since condemned genital cutting. Though I don't know that he's addressed non-overtly religious cutting.

>>12737467
They are not wrong though.

>>12737528
>He has a circumcised demeanor.
And to add, I think there are 3 elements that contribute to the demeanor.

1) The mere fact that the glans is constantly exposed. This hypersexualizes / hyperaggresses and irritates the mind. The foreski sliding back and the glans being exposed to the air signals the beginning of arousal, orgasm and or sliding the foreskin forward signals the end. Without this mechanic, the individual is trapped in an unstable limbo state.
2) The trauma of the surgery itself and the brain activity changes it entails.
3) Psychological coping mechanisms employed after the fact. Anger towards the mother, a diminished self image, rage, loss of empathy, and so on, were observed in psychological studies in the early 60's.

>>12737178
dilate

>>12736497
That's a hell of quote

>>12737583
NO U

Do not associate Satanichia Kurozawa McDowell with trannies ever again or I will personally find you and choke you with my belt.

pedophile maniac
not a fan

>>12737141
>This is so childish, I'm surprised this argument is still being pushed around.
Ad hominem, if there is anything childish is you using pictures of anime girls lmao
>Yes you can call "the cause" as "God" if you want, it doesn't automatically inherit any of the properties we associate with God no matter how you name it.
The supreme source of all creation, yes I think that's God, there's no better definition.
>If everything has a cause then who caused God?
AHAHAHAHA, God is proposed as the source, there is no thing as the cause of the ultimate source itself.
>Then it's unknowable and it's pointless to believe in it. You are making my case for me anon.
Then I guess electromagnetism and gravity are pointless theories to believe in just because they have infinite range and we'll never known to full extent just what gravity and electromagnetism are.
>Surely this is scientific proof God exists!
Yes, the principle of causality is scientific, since all of physics is based upon it.
> It basically means that "our" time does behave as we understand it in GR, while reconciling this with QM as the universe would seem timeless for an outside observer.
Nope it is not, quantum gravity refutes this garbage assumption, quantum gravity is incompatible with GR and current QM.

>>12737178
>Do the Greek origins of the word matter or not anon? Make up your mind.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/atheism
"the doctrine that there is no God;" "without a god, denying the gods". In other words, the belief that there is no God or the denial of the existence of God. Simple as, anything else is just someone trying to make you believe their very own definition.
>Then why are you posting ITT?
I do what I want
>Dictionaries were provided.
Sure like the one above.
>>Truth is a religion Holy mental gymnastics
That is hilarious coming from you because according to modern academia the word "religion" has no consensus on its meaning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[2][3]
>It clearly implies non believers are bad people.
You are most likely a bad person anyway, is the truth.

>>12737910
>pedophile
Source. I don't like him either, and want more reason to dislike him (more on Krauss than the Epstein connections would also be nice).

>>12737339
> It is a testable hypothesis, unlike any manmade book about any religion
Sure, agreed. Doesn't mean everything inside those books is completely false, but mostly agreed, yeah.

>>12736036
Brain got broken by 9/11.
Will eventually become a hardcore christian to own the libs.

>>12736318
read a textbook, popsci-fag

>>12736036
His very existence upsets religitards, so he's based.

>>12736036
I’ve never seen Dawkins display a mature understanding of what God as a concept and idea even is. His conceptualization is on the same level as brain dead evangelicals.
>>12736196
This only proves my point. Total dipshit

>>12736036
Based man is based.

>>12736196
>We Are All Africans
Cringe

>>12737412
God could be the universe you dumb brainlet, you just said it yourself that god has thousands of descriptions and definitions. Pantheism, the idea that God is the universe and vice versa is one of many.

>>12738174
There's a picture of him and other new atheists inside the lolita express airplane of Epstein look it up.

>>12736036
great writer and partial father of chan culture given he coined the term meme in the 70’s

>>12738861
Figures, just look at the guy. Like a lot of these sorts the core of his defense is alloplastic, ie, he projects like mad.

>>12738154
>Ad hominem, if there is anything childish is you using pictures of anime girls lmao
How is calling the argument itself childish an ad hominem? Learn what ad hominem means pls.

>The supreme source of all creation, yes I think that's God, there's no better definition.
It's an illogical thought experiment with many issues (as explained above) and you giving the name of God to a mecanicist view of the universe is not scientific evidence.

>AHAHAHAHA, God is proposed as the source, there is no thing as the cause of the ultimate source itself.
And what's the proof of this being true?
It's literally an idea, it's not based on anything.

>Then I guess electromagnetism and gravity are pointless theories to believe in just because they have infinite range and we'll never known to full extent just what gravity and electromagnetism are.
No, we have evidence these forces exist, we can confirm their existence through experimentation, we don't have any evidence "God" exists.

>Yes, the principle of causality is scientific, since all of physics is based upon it.
The Principle of Causality does not mean what you think it means, you were corrected yet you insist upon this mistake.

>Nope it is not, quantum gravity refutes this garbage assumption, quantum gravity is incompatible with GR and current QM.
Please explain how QR refutes the paper I have just cited to you.

>I do what I want
So you do care.

>Sure like the one above.
One dictionary of etimologies provided by you, versus three modern definitions from reputable dictionaries (Oxford, Merriam-Webster, etc) provided by me


>according to modern academia the word "religion" has no consensus on its meaning
So? This doesn't mean you can define it however you want in your mental gymnastics

>You are most likely a bad person anyway, is the truth.
See? This is an actual ad hominem you dumb hypocrite.

>>12738154
>>12738172
>Ad hominem, if there is anything childish is you using pictures of anime girls lmao
How is calling the argument itself childish an ad hominem? Learn what ad hominem means pls.

>The supreme source of all creation, yes I think that's God, there's no better definition.
It's an illogical thought experiment with many issues (as explained above) and you giving the name of God to a mecanicist view of the universe is not scientific evidence.

>AHAHAHAHA, God is proposed as the source, there is no thing as the cause of the ultimate source itself.
And what's the proof of this being true?
It's literally an idea, it's not based on anything.

>Then I guess electromagnetism and gravity are pointless theories to believe in just because they have infinite range and we'll never known to full extent just what gravity and electromagnetism are.
No, we have evidence these forces exist, we can confirm their existence through experimentation, we don't have any evidence "God" exists.

>Yes, the principle of causality is scientific, since all of physics is based upon it.
The Principle of Causality does not mean what you think it means, you were corrected yet you insist upon this mistake.

>Nope it is not, quantum gravity refutes this garbage assumption, quantum gravity is incompatible with GR and current QM.
Please explain how it refutes the paper I have just cited to you.

>I do what I want
So you do care.

>Sure like the one above.
One dictionary of etimologies provided by you, versus three modern definitions from reputable dictionaries (Oxford, Merriam-Webster, etc) provided by me


>according to modern academia the word "religion" has no consensus on its meaning
So? This doesn't mean you can define it however you want in your mental gymnastics

>You are most likely a bad person anyway, is the truth.
See? This is an actual ad hominem you dumb hypocrite.

>>12736036
Eors Szathmary, Lynn Margulis, John Maynard Smith, Stuart Kauffman >>>> Dawkins
Dawkins is only more well known that someone like Szathmary or Maynard Smith because his work is more simplistic and philosophical, so even educated normies can understand. Don't get me wrong, it's interesting work, but the extended synthesis and group selection are definitely on the right track. His insistence that group selection is entirely, completely, categorically nonexistent is retarded, and to most people it's obvious that he's being dogmatic.

He's only based insofar as he triggers SJWs and christfags. His brand of Atheism is basically tantamount to logical positivism, which is taking things a bit to far. He also supports globalism and Wars for Israel AFAIK, which is pretty cringe.

Based and redpilled. Triggers christcucks and mudslimes

>>12736287
t. 16yo

>>12737083
Correct

>>12737124
This is some severe cope. You got scammed champ. Your favourite god is just as fake as the thousands of other gods that you know are fake, and for the same reasons.

basted and selfish genes pilled

>>12738224
>display a mature understanding of what elves
fuck off

>>12740093
>How is calling the argument itself childish an ad hominem
Calling an argument "childish" is a form of ad hominem, is an insult to an argument, if you may.
>It's an illogical thought experiment with many issues (as explained above)
Nope, is not ilogical, the only ilogical thought is to believe the world is a sourceless accident, that is truly ilogical, see>>12737116 pic which is what you are literally what you believe in
>And what's the proof of this being true?
>It's literally an idea, it's not based on anything.
Principle of causality, there is nothing that denies causality in physics, the only thing that denies causality in physics are the tachyon particles, and tachyons are only hypothetical particles. So ultimately it is based on scientific observation, saying is an "idea" is not argument, everything is an idea, everything you are writing is merely an idea too.
>No, we have evidence these forces exist, we can confirm their existence through experimentation
Yes and they are infinite and thus we can't ever say what those forces are in the end, that's the same principle God has, since it is an ultimate force which is beyond human concepts and capacity, God is all of those forces, they are infinite and beyond human comprehension. They(God) has no attributes in the end.
>The Principle of Causality does not mean what you think it means
Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect, that's all it means. Moron.
>Please explain how it refutes the paper I have just cited to you.
Your paper cannot make predictions at Planck lengths.
>So you do care.
Yes, about Truth, not atheist stupidity. see>>12736228
>One dictionary of etimologies provided by you, versus three modern definitions from reputable dictionaries
Argumentum ad populum and authority, mine is the original etymological meaning.
>So? This doesn't mean you can define it
All "religion" means etymologically is "something that is binded to", one can be binded to truth or untruth, simple as.

>>12740466
I think those are his favorites, the univere is fine tuned for us to exist ;)

>>12736036
complete retard

>>12740622
>>12740622
>>12740622
>Calling an argument "childish" is a form of ad hominem, is an insult to an argument, if you may.
No, "argumentum ad hominem" literally means "argument to the man" as in "insulting the person making the argument".
I never attacked St. Thomas of Aquinas, just the argument and proceeded to explain why.

>The only ilogical thought is to believe the world is a sourceless accident, that is truly ilogical, see>>12737116 pic which is what you are literally what you believe in
I have said a dozen times already I don't believe the world is an accident, I refuse to make assumptions about things that are obvious unknowns, that's what religious people do, you keep straw-manning what Atheism is even when I have explained my position already.

>Principle of causality, there is nothing that denies causality in physics, the only thing that denies causality in physics are the tachyon particles, and tachyons are only hypothetical particles. So ultimately it is based on scientific observation, saying is an "idea" is not argument, everything is an idea, everything you are writing is merely an idea too.
The Principle of Causality means a different thing in Philosophy than in Physics. You keep bringing the philosophical definition, to the field of physics, where it doesn't belong.
Principle of Causality in Physics simply means that "an effect must be preceded in time by its cause". That's it. It doesn't assume everything in the universe to have a cause. That is the work of Philosophers.

As for causality in Physics, you gave the example of tachyon particles yourself, CPT symmetry also implies a lack of causality, and no Lorentz violations have been proven so far. Spacetime causality holds only within the light cone.

>>12740622
>that's the same principle God has, since it is an ultimate force which is beyond human concepts and capacity, God is all of those forces, they are infinite and beyond human comprehension. They(God) has no attributes in the end.
So it's not really "God". It's not the Muslim, Christian, or Jewish God. It's not a personal God. It's not something out of any Earth religion. It doesn't have commandments, it doesn't hear prayers, it doesn't provide an afterlife. You are imagining a hypothetical original cause of the universe (which is unproven) and then you are calling this abstract origin point "God". It's frankly sad, even moreso when this argument is used by people to justify creationism, intelligent design and other religiously-motivated bullshit.

How do you explain the leap from the "first cause of the universe" to "God"?
And how do you explain the leap from "God" to "Christian God who divinely inspired the Bible" (or replace with whatever the God of your religion is)?

>Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect, that's all it means. Moron.
In Philosophy not Physics. You mix fields and definitions with malicious intent.

>Your paper cannot make predictions at Planck lengths
You sound like a bot, with a few talking points you repeat endlessly. Why does this matter in relation to the paper?
Did you read it? The paper doesn't make "predictions", it's literally an experiment.

>Yes, about Truth, not atheist stupidity. see>>12736228
I could make images with stupid things Christians have said, why this is an argument? Are you twelve?

>Argumentum ad populum and authority, mine is the original etymological meaning.
The etymological meaning of something is not the actual modern meaning of the word. Otherwise we would call all animals that give birth through a womb, "Dolphins".

>All "religion" means etymologically is "something that is binded to", one can be binded to truth or untruth, simple as.
See above.

>>12740937
>As for causality in Physics, you gave the example of tachyon particles yourself, CPT symmetry also implies a lack of causality, and no Lorentz violations have been proven so far. Spacetime causality holds only within the light cone.
No, causality is a fundamental, and not denied by anything current in physics, as I already mentioned, the only thing that denies causality is tachyons, and tachyons are hpothetical nonexistent particles. Causality holds in all levels of physics since all physics is based on causality. There no such thing as an effect without a cause in physics.
>I refuse to make assumptions about things that are obvious unknowns
Then stop replying is you aren't going to assume anything at all lmao

>>12740941
>So it's not really "God". It's not the Muslim, Christian, or Jewish God.
Ah yes God has to be religious with my very specific characteristics to be God, you sound like a theist lmao
> You are imagining a hypothetical original cause of the universe (which is unproven)
The only unproven shit here is you saying anything denies causality, causality is an absolute fundamental law of physics. Causality leads inevitably to the source of the universe, Aka God.
>And how do you explain the leap from "God" to "Christian God who divinely inspired the Bible" (or replace with whatever the God of your religion is)?
I don't care what religious books say, even less on a literal sense.
>In Philosophy not Physics. You mix fields and definitions with malicious intent.
Dude, you literally said causality is "an effect must be preceded in time by its cause" and I said "Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect", don't you see is the exact same definition just structured differently? Why is it so hard to get it to you. I agree with the definition you gave because is the exact same thing I said.
>The paper doesn't make "predictions", it's literally an experiment.
Experiments are done to test potential predictions(aka theories/models) in science... And the paper really doesn't say anything that is already known, yes photons don't experience time, massless particles can't experience time, that's correct.
>I could make images with stupid things Christians have said, why this is an argument?
Is not intended to be an argument, I'm merely showing a picture.
>The etymological meaning of something is not the actual modern meaning of the word
Sure I agree, the thing is what constitutes a "religion" is also something that is not established in modern scholarly sense either so my point still stands. What is "religion" or not is certainly not limited just to organized religions but rather the term is broader than that, a bigger picture if you may.

>>12740953
>No, causality is a fundamental, and not denied by anything current in physics
Just because it's not denied doesn't mean it's proven or assured. There is nothing in physics that precludes possible breaks in causality. You tried to bring your philosophical thought experiment into the realm of physics, but it doesn't stick. There are no laws in physics that require an initial cause for the whole of existence.

St. Thomas Aquinas argument is simply a philosophical thought experiment. It's not scientific proof that God exists.

>as I already mentioned, the only thing that denies causality is tachyons, and tachyons are hpothetical nonexistent particles.
Hypothetical =/= Nonexistent!

>Then stop replying is you aren't going to assume anything at all lmao
What? No.

>>12740973
>Hypothetical =/= Nonexistent!
Usually in physics anything that is hypothetical can be considered nonexistent, because is something unobserved
>There is nothing in physics that precludes possible breaks in causality.
Agreed
>You tried to bring your philosophical thought experiment into the realm of physics, but it doesn't stick.
No, I did not try to do that really.
> There are no laws in physics that require an initial cause for the whole of existence.
Well the BB is definitely a requirement for fundamental physical laws to have manifested.
>St. Thomas Aquinas argument is simply a philosophical thought experiment. It's not scientific proof that God exists.
If you are talking about Aquina's Five Ways, they are scientific since Aquinas did not base his 5 ways in religion, he based his Five ways in laws of cause and effect alone. He did not "twist" Aristotle views I don't know why you mentioned that couple of posts ago
>What? No.
It is unknown according to you, why bother talk at all, I mean is just a way to shutdown the conversation

>>12740968
>Ah yes God has to be religious with my very specific characteristics to be God, you sound like a theist lmao
And you sound like you are dodging the issue.
What's the point of religion if you cannot define what God is or what its attributes are? Your belief in an abstract "God" is irrational, empty and pointless.

>The only unproven shit here is you saying anything denies causality
You said it yourself when you brought up tachyons. I never said causality was proven to be broken.

But
>causality is an absolute fundamental law of physics.
It's not. Not assured, not broken (so far).

>Causality leads inevitably to the source of the universe, Aka God
You are assuming there can't be an infinite chain of causation.

>Dude, you literally said causality is "an effect must be preceded in time by its cause" and I said "Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect", don't you see is the exact same definition just structured differently?
It's not the same definition. Re-read them carefully. The Principle of Causality, as used in Physics, does not imply everything has a cause, just that those effects that do have causes, must be preceded by them in time.

>Is not intended to be an argument, I'm merely showing a picture.
So, arguing in bad faith then backtracking.
Got it.

>Sure I agree, the thing is what constitutes a "religion" is also something that is not established in modern scholarly sense either so my point still stands. What is "religion" or not is certainly not limited just to organized religions but rather the term is broader than that, a bigger picture if you may.
It sounds like you are smart enough to recognize Human religions are nonsense but not brave enough to go one step further and actually call yourself an atheist. You are attached to some untested possibility of a creator existing and hold this irrational belief because it gives you a sense of comfort that the universe has an order to it when in fact it may not.

>>12740981
>Usually in physics anything that is hypothetical can be considered nonexistent, because is something unobserved
With this logic you just BTFO yourself. All proof of God you have brought forth so far has been a theoretical thought experiment. God has not been observed.

QED as per your definition.
Thank you I'm done here, don't expect any more (You)s.

>>12736315
>the concept of God is a Human construct
The absolutism in this paragraph is literally anti-science

>>12740986
>What's the point of religion if you cannot define what God is or what its attributes are?
I'm not really arguing for religion if you haven't noticed already, but God having no attributes is an actual position even inside religion is called Apophatic theology, it's been there since ancient Greece times at least.
>Your belief in an abstract "God" is irrational
Can't be irrational if comes from observation (causality) and why would be "empty" and "pointless", it would make "empty" and "pointless" religion maybe, not God itself.
>You said it yourself when you brought up tachyons
I know, and I know they are hypothetical, if they would ever be proven then everything would stop making sense, at least to me because it would imply that things like retrocausality is possible, and I can't picture a universe like that so tachyons are at least undesirable particles to the area of physics so better if they remain hypothetical forever.
> just that those effects that do have causes, must be preceded by them in time.
"Effects that do have causes" you are really twisting the language here "that Do have causes" and "an effect MUST be preceded in time by its cause" are incompatible definitions. You are proclaiming that there are effects without causes in one and that effects must be caused in the other
>You are assuming there can't be an infinite chain of causality
I certaintly don't deny the possibility of things like the for instance the Multiverse, the word here "infinite" gets tricky, I'm just gonna say that an infinite brush cannot paint without a painter, so an engine(source) would still be required for infinity to be a thing.
>You are attached to some untested possibility of a creator existing and hold this irrational belief because it gives you a sense of comfort that the universe has an order
I'm attached to it because I enjoy defending the things I have attempted to defend so far in this conversation. I consider Deism and Agnosticism neutral and balanced

>>12740986
>You are assuming there can't be an infinite chain of causation.
Time literally cannot be infinite. By its very nature it must be eternal, but not infinite. It had to be alongside the universe during the entire 'time' the universe existed. However, because of causality, something had to exist that created this motion, there had to be a movement that set other bodies into place.

If time were infinite, there would be no initial movement, but we know that in reality in order to move something that is still, there must be an initial movement. How else could you explain something being the object of a motion? It comes from outside the object that is at rest.

In fact, this principle is so important, it occupies the thoughts of some of the greatest thinkers of all time. The Greeks thought that there were periods of stationarity with regards to the entire universe, simply by virtue of the fact that if time WERE infinite, eventually motion would have to cease.

If we are moving, it is many times caused by the physical manifestation of our surroundings anyway, we are moved in a certain way because of our beliefs and ideas, different physical motivating forces like food and sleep, etc. Our need for these things are not separated but determined by our distance from the sun, moon, and other stars in our solar system. To say otherwise is ridiculous. Every single thing influences and sets in motion every other thing.

Reducing this all to a prime mover is an example of decent logic, it does not take a genius to think or comprehend that something must have set this in motion.

>>12740991
>With this logic you just BTFO yourself. All proof of God you have brought forth so far has been a theoretical thought experiment. God has not been observed.
Nope not all, if causality holds and points towards the source of the universe aka God, then all of the effects of the universe are evidence of God. Btw indirect observation is a core in physics. Nice gotcha try though.
>Thank you I'm done here, don't expect any more (You)s.
Yeah I see you feel butthurt already, and don't want to try anymore, pathetic.

>>12741050
Most things have existed since Greece times. A lot of the principles you are describing could be the physical manifestation or logical deductions necessary to believe in a God. A God that has attributes similar to those described in The Holy Bible or Quran.

Besides that, it seems that various religions reference God. The Republic, the Tao te Ching, and various other religious texts all mention God and Hell/punishment as well. All of these religious texts describe something very similar (and even similar events like the Flood).

This is evidence of divine intervention happening, and God existing.

>>12741068
>Besides that, it seems that various religions reference God. The Republic, the Tao te Ching, and various other religious texts all mention God and Hell/punishment as well. All of these religious texts describe something very similar (and even similar events like the Flood).
Sure, there's all sorts of correlations all over the world of ancient traditions/cultures have very similar depictions, the flood is a common one, one my favorite is the Chaoskampf which is about the hero slaying the serpent/dragon(chaos) which is found pretty much all over the world in all main cultures/traditions. I find religious texts more as allegories and moral lessons.
>This is evidence of divine intervention happening, and God existing.
Though I don't believe God has an interference in human affairs, God lets Nature run(I subscribe more that Nature and God are one and the same), and humans will do whatever they will within our field of reality.

>>12741145
It's funny because my belief is not that different to yours, except I do believe that God intervenes. I think that there is a specific movement to all of life as we know it, similar to the kind of movement directed by the prime mover, the force and generator of the world.

However, transcendentalism is also important. It's interesting to note how often trees and birds are used as proofs of God in the Quran.

>>12741150
>However, transcendentalism is also important. It's interesting to note how often trees and birds are used as proofs of God in the Quran.
Interesting, if you look at the word for God in ancient egyptian, you will find that it was the word "Netjer" and the symbol that represented this word was literally a flagpole, this basically meant that the flag which we are observing is moving because of a invisible force we call wind, wind has a source, and that source was God/Nature.
There's more info about that in this site http://www.sofiatopia.org/maat/netjer.htm

>>12741173
For sure, wind is a method of God to communicate.

What is even the point of engaging thiests?
It's insanity to try to reason with the unreasonable.

>>12741178
Yeah, the divine intervention would be nature itself already, but I have to admit I do think there's meaningful coincidences which occur in our reality, is called Synchromysticism or synchronicity in psychology, which is basically God speaking to us more or less we could say that, you should look it up

>>12740829
>it werks on little scale so why would it werk on big scale DUHHHHHH

>>12736497
Retarded quote, it works far better like this:
"He who clings to God, has some reason to wish for His existence"

>>12737063
>God has no attributes, the ultimate force of creation cannot be reduced to limited human concepts.
Exists is an attribute.

>>12738224
>brain dead evangelicals

What makes you any better than them? Answer the question and be specific.

>>12736497
based Augustine

>>12740466
Science is yet to find any aliens, so it's pretty consistent.

>>12740829
We didn't evolve from monkeys, retard. We evolved along side them. God, you're dumb.

>>12743873
It's time to accept that we are Great Apes.
There's nothing wrong with that.

Every time Human taxonomy has been revised we have ended up closer and closer to Chimpanzees.

>>12743915
Meant to post this.
That gibbon is cute tho.

>>12741186
Sometimes people can become less retarded.

Religions are useful for organizing societies around a common fiction, establishing morality, and assuaging fear of death / uncertainty. Even though god probably doesn't exist, religion will continue to be useful for maintaining order and social cohesion. We can already see this with wokeism acting as the unifying ideology for racially diverse plutocratic republics.