Is God a feasible theory?

[Anonymous No.10607820]

[Anonymous No.10607822]

You'd have to ask Ba'al.

[Anonymous No.10607830]

Yes. Ja bhole ki. Praise Lord Shiva.
>>10607822
Based

[Anonymous No.10607834]

Orthodox Christian here

I think so. There is nothing that excludes a God from facilitating our universe if hes all powerful and all knowing. Evolution? Big Bang? Universal Life? All can work out in coexistence.

[Anonymous No.10607835]

Aren’t both theism and atheism paradoxical?

[Anonymous No.10607836]

>>10607820
Yes, my sunday school teacher said so herself, and that is all the evidence that I need.

[Anonymous No.10607840]

>>10607835
>prima causa cucks dont realize infinity is causa sui

[Anonymous No.10607841]

>>10607834
But doesn't evolution imply randomness, impersonal & irrelevant/deistic God ?

[Anonymous No.10607843]

>>10607834
Nothing prevents the existence of God, but you picked a shit god to worship.

[Anonymous No.10607860]

>>10607841
Not necessarily.
I just means that the tools being used are different.
The tree of life is like a constantly growing slab of clay.
The natural laws are like extrusion molds and machines which the clay expands into, creating a vast array of shapes.
An infinite mind could know before setting up the extruders/machines exactly what they want the clay to like like over time, and set up the tools so that the intended vision will come true.
But this is purely hypothetical philosophy
t. Catholic

[Anonymous No.10607898]

>>10607820
First off, God is not in scientific terms a "Theory", that implies empirical evidence for what essentially is an inverifiable hypothesis. Thus what you're asking is no longer a question of science, but of philosophy. There is no specific and at the same time intelletually honest reason to think that the universe was created by a consious being, as there is an infinite number of equally valid explainations, same goes for the maintaining and shaping of cosmic laws like gravity and thermodynamics. All of this is just man made structures and categories in what essentially is just a big mess, God is likely nothing but a back-scratcher for humanity's unquenchable itch for explainations and complete knowledge.

Besides, the truth doesn't need temples, cultures, and indoctrination from birth to be believed, the truth speaks for itself. There will always be the question of what lies beyond, and thus God as existed from evrywhere from the top of a mountain, to above the clouds, to beyond space and time, all after the reaches of humanity.

Inverifiable hypotheses are a waste of time because of their very nature, you can debate them ad infinitum but you will never come to a conclusive answer, it's like a dog chasing its tail.

[Anonymous No.10607906]

>>10607834
There is nothing that excludes Unicorns from facilitating our universe either, doesn't make 'em real now does it?

[Anonymous No.10607917]

>>10607820
The only way God can be logical is if the Simulation hypothesis is true.

[Anonymous No.10607918]

>>10607820
How’s “God” a theory?

>>10607835
Causality isn’t real independent of time, and time began to exist, so time is uncaused.

[Anonymous No.10607936]

>>10607918
Time began to be relevant. We don't know if it began to exist. >>10607834
Jesus wouldn't want you to be "orthodox" he thinks outside the box.

[Anonymous No.10607951]

>>10607834
There is nothing that excludes a Unicorn from facilitating our universe

[Anonymous No.10607954]

>>10607936
>Time began to be relevant. We don't know if it began to exist.

Yes we do. Spacetime began to exist 13.7 billion years ago

[Anonymous No.10607962]

>>10607951
>>10607906
>Le unicorns xD
Unicorns also have no philosophical basis for existing

[Anonymous No.10607963]

Theory means it can be used to predict things. Therefor god ISN'T a feasible "theory".

A hypothesis means that you can explain every observation with a specific idea. God is more in this area but still not completely.

You can see god as a hypothesis if the hypothesis is that god caused the big bang or something precise like that.

Problem is that we only consider something a proper hypothesis if it's testable. Which this isn't.

[Anonymous No.10607966]

>>10607962
Nor does the christian god
Might as well worshop Quetzalcoatl

[Anonymous No.10607970]

>>10607954
I gave you the proper word substitution and you still fucked it up. What a lemming

[Anonymous No.10608039]

>>10607962
Let's suppose universe was created by a unicorn - here's philosophical basis for existence of a unicorn.

[Anonymous No.10608046]

>>10607962
Neither does God, unless you think God has a philosophical basis in being the creator of the universe, in which case so do unicorns since they can be invoked to explain that too.

[Anonymous No.10608048]

>>10607936
That sounds tautological. Does time exist if it's irrelevant?

[Anonymous No.10608066]

>>10607970
You’re a retard. Relevant to who?

[Anonymous No.10608188]

>>10608048
You sound like Hawking
>>10608066
You do not.
>>10608048
We are not arguing.

[Anonymous No.10608239]

>>10608046
>>10608039
That only disputes the basis of believing any specific god.
Each person has their own justification for why they believe that their religion is true, whether that be fulfillment of prophecy or what have you.
Is this imperfect and susceptible to bias?
Of course, as are all other unfalsifiable truths.
We cannot know metaphysical Truth, and there is no reason to believe that everything that is "true" would be falsifiable (unless you use a very narrowed down definition of true).

[Anonymous No.10608328]

>>10608239
You could apply the same logic to the entire concept of Gods too.

As for your other argument, "die Welt is alles, was der Fall ist". If something cannot be tested, it inherently means that it does not have a detectable impact on the enviroment, thus it does not have presence, and without presence, there is no existence. That is unless you have a terribly convoluted definition of truth, in which case the destinction between what is true and what is false becomes so blurry that any argument of either side loses all weight because truth has lost all valuable meaning.

[Anonymous No.10608405]

>>10607820
There's absolutely no chance of any of the existing religions being real. However, I do believe the sheer absurdity of our universe points to it having been created, and that there's a different higher reality out there, where the laws of that universe actually make sense.

[Anonymous No.10608411]

>>10608328
>If something cannot be tested, it inherently means that it does not have a detectable impact on the enviroment, thus it does not have presence, and without presence, there is no existence.

We cannot detect it in our current circumstances.
In the BC times, did the magnetic field not exist because we couldn't detect it?
Did gravity waves not exist in the 1800s because we couldn't detect it?
Supposedly, dark matter is a form of matter which only interacts gravitationally with the environment. Who's to say that there isn't a form of matter which doesn't interact with our visible universe at all, but would be easily detectible to something which evolved in the universe where such matter is the primary material?
If that were true, would our normal matter not exist because those aliens wouldn't be able to detect it?
No.
Your argument could hold weight if it were true that from no possible perspective would something be detectable, but that hypothesis would be.. *ahem* unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.10608412]

>>10608405
For something to be absurd, you’d have to have some sort of norm to contrast it to, and there isn’t one, so the universe isn’t absurd.

[Anonymous No.10608420]

>>10608411
>In the BC times, did the magnetic field not exist because we couldn't detect it?

Magnetic compass were in use as early as the Han Dynasty two hundred years Before Imaginary King of the Jews.

[Anonymous No.10608423]

>>10608420
>Haha! I found a flaw in one specific part of the example, so his argument is wrong!
I think this debate is over. Believe what you wish.