Telelogical reasons for 'God's exsistence'

youtube.com/watch?v=3Yt7hvgFuNg

If the odds of the universe being the way of it is are so astronomical, logically, we have to believe that a creator/designer of this universe is more likely.

>Muh Multi verse
Fuck off, the chances we be in this universe are also astronomically high, if multiverse theory is even true. Occams razor says a creator is more likely.

>b-but this universe isnt perfect
Faggot, perfect to who? Not only is the completely subjective, whose to say it isnt perfectly created in the vision of the designer.

'God' as we know it may not exists, but its ridiculous to think that the universe wasn't created by someone or something, the odds are astronomical.

Prove wrong.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Fuck off, the chances we be in this universe are also astronomically high, if multiverse theory is even true

I'm assuming you meant low? It's not. The odds of a human-forming universe existing at all in terms of probability is fairly high if not absolute, and the odds that humans would form in that universe instead of a non-human-forming universe is 1.0. Guaranteed. It's fallacious thinking if you believe we ended up in this particular universe by 'accident' or 'luck'.

Then what created 'God' but not as we know it? yadda yadda... You know where this circle jerk is going, why start it? Why am I replying to it?

Although maybe that's how it started.

In anycase, have an hour of pop-sci with introduction by fedoraman:
youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Out of a sample size of 1 universe, we have 1 universes ideally suited to human life. The odds seem pretty good

The odds of this universe being suitable for life are astronomical.

Ideally suited my ass, we could be wiped out by the cosmological equivalent of a flea sneezing.

The odds of this universe being suited to life is 1, because it is.

You know what i mean dont be an autist

Well, it is rather key to the argument, that a universe that was designed for us, would be a hell of a lot more friendly to us (or at least, visa versa).

Taking a intro philosophy class, thought it would be helpful to talk about it.

There's valid arguments for the existence of a god.

The teleological argument is not one of them, the universe as an absolute shitshow and biological life even more so. The very fact that the human body is so plagued with malfunctions and poor design choices is a massive point against the argument from design.

If there is a god, humans sure as shit aren't his favourite species.

Sure but i'm arguing against the universe being designed for us on other grounds, the distinction between possible and ideal is irrelevant to my point

>Humans exist on one planet in the entire universe, therefore my post hoc rationalisation is that the universe is ideally suited to human life.

If there was a universe with even one more planet with a separate additional origin of human life, wouldn't that be more ideally suited to human life than this universe?

Well, the teleological argument is a dead end, so if they cover it, it'll be brief. You might wanna look up Thomas Aquinas's proofs of god, as they tend to start there - even though he's been pretty thoroughly plowed as well. Plato's first mover, and other such high school phil stuff that is now Phil 101, because hardly any high schools have phil. Usually Phil 101 covers the big names in historical order, from Socrates to Sartre.

Wew lad.
God's got a great sense of humor by putting us on a collision course with another galaxy.

>even though he's been pretty thoroughly plowed as well
what did he mean by this?

He means Thomas Aquinas' work has been very extensively critiqued.

If you remove the creationist rhetoric, you have no objective for the universe, and thus there is no design to be had. Without that, it's merely a series of cause and effects that lead to us as a matter of a lengthy, inexorable, and inevitable chain of events.

Unless you have some other specific purpose for the universe in mind, and can demonstrate it unerringly follows that purpose.

I suppose a sci-fi writer like Asimov might argue that the universe created us to prevent its inevitable demise by somehow inventing a cure for accelerating expansion coupled with closed system entropy, but as we were going to happen as a result of its formation anyways...

>If the odds of the universe being the way of it is are so astronomical, logically, we have to believe that a creator/designer of this universe is more likely.

What odds? The odds of a universe we barely understand ourselves?

For a faultless argument, you sure rely a lot on things nobody know or anyone probably ever will know.

So in other words, your idea falls in the 'not even wrong' category. It can't be verified nor falsified by anything

What do you say to somebody who is unfulfilled with the lack of answers, then?

Religion fills the void in some way. Be it traditional religions, hippie spiritualism, scientism, or people who just say 'fuck it' and go agnostic, people want to feel like they have a grasp on this complicated reality.

Ignorance doesn't help you win stupid internet arguments though.

Yeah. But only losers win internet arguments.

>What do you say to somebody who is unfulfilled with the lack of answers, then?

That making claims of knowledge about things we can't possibly know is a complete waste of time?

What you're talking about is stuff that firmly falls into the black swan category. It's stuff that no one on the planet by definition can know anything about. Discussing it is an utter waste of time

I don't claim that talking about the unknown in constructive, but it is inevitable. People are always going to invent god in some form or worship an idol they claim has the answers.

the argument from contingency is as solid as they come

No it isnt, all it does is prove that causality itself is flawed

>yee bro just dont bother lik 420 blaze man live ur laif xDD

actually kill yourself

the argument doesn't claim that everything has a cause.

Go back to /pol/, you tedious alt-right faggot

I knew it, another rebbit cuck. Veeky Forums is being infested by your kind.

You have to go back.

Well then why don't you go back to your safe space containment board then? There you can le red pill each other and le blow peoples mindz

Further proof that the universe is nothing but chaos and suffering.

Because a couple of neckbeards get autistically mad at each other, that doesn't mean the rest of the universe is soiled.

PROVE ME WRONG!

>...please...

what if it does

>it just werks

What if all existence rests on /pol/'s shilling?

Because parts don't equal the whole.

The moment you stop confusing "belief" and "knowledge" is the moment you realize that religion is meant to be.

I know that there is water in the glass in front of me.
But if I believe that there isn't any, I can choose to act as if there weren't any, regardless of the fact.
Religious people choose to act as if there is a God, and thus they "believe" in the God. It doesn't matter if the God exists or not. They act as if he existed, and thus to them he might as well exist.

Of course there is always imbeciles who try to use religion as a substitute for physics, chemistry, history, politics and so on.
Thats not its point. Its point is to aid your discipline. You want to do A, B and C, because they are ethical and traditional, and they are easier to do if you believe you MUST do them.

Maybe he doesn't know.
Maybe he doesn't care.
Maybe thats the best he could do.
Maybe its to test us.
Maybe he knows it will work out in the end, we just havent figured out how.
Maybe it isnt true, and our flawed knowledge of the universe is leading us to a false conclusion.

Precisely

So would that imply deism or pantheism?

Literally nobody has ever made the argument your pic is trying to say happens.

It implies that causality is wrong and nothing else

Not challenging you at all, honestly, but what are some of these flaws? Im curious what you mean.

No, it's perfectly in harmony with causality.

Odd, OP just made it.

Literally every configuration of the universe has astronomical odds. It just happens to be like this. Furthermore, you cant even argue that the odds are astronomical for a universe to contain life. How would you know? There's a sample size of 1.

Not him, but here you go
>The human spine is a vertical S shape, literally the worst possible shape for a load bearing structure
>Human knees are a mashup of incredibly fragile bones and non flexible cartilage leading to many knee problems and injuries
>Pelvis is too narrow for non painful/deadly childbirth
>Appendix and gallbladder only serve one function which is to potentially kill you out of nowhere
>Wisdom teeth growing in wrong or rotten due to our jaws being too small
>Bad circulation
>Reversed retinas
>food pipe and wind pipe too close causing accidental choking
>Numerous brain defects, depression, schizophrenia, ect

We are basically one of the worst "designed" beings ever. There's a quote how if God exists, then he must have much greater interest in beetles than us, since they are all perfectly fit and come in all shapes and sizes while we look like a cobbled together shit heap in comparison

>'God' as we know it may not exists, but its ridiculous to think that the universe wasn't created by someone or something, the odds are astronomical.
No OP did not claim that a religion was correct because of teleological evidence for the existence of a creator god

Because of how humans have a flat face compared to the muzzled faces of most other mammals this causes unique problems like having teeth that don't fit and poor sinus drainage. Humans, unlike most other animals, can't synthisize their own vitamin C because the enzyme for it is defective leading to a host of diseases.

There's more but probably the most glaring of all is the very existence of the appendix. Not only is it useless but when infected it will for certain kill you if not treated.

Oh, you meant the second part of that argument... Which is only made by every creationist museum and preacher ever.

Proof?

They are sponsored by individual churches claiming that the "true" archeological evidence matches their particular church's interpretation of the Bible.

Like this guy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Not like the argument in the first frame, or that OP was making - which is just as false, but at least it isn't so with such clear ulterior motive.

You'll notice the figure in the first and second frame of the comic are not the same person.

>Manlets exist
>The universe was intelligently designed

lel

>Not like the argument in the first frame, or that OP was making
Then I was right

I'm confused, I thought you said no one ever made that...

...Oh, you meant that no one in *this thread* made that argument... Okay then, as you were. I was just using the comic to point out the usual path this takes.

No you admitted that the argument the YEC crooks were attempting wasn't the argument OP was using.
I was still right in saying nobody uses it the way that comic strawmans.

I just linked you a whole organization that makes that very argument, and it isn't the only one.

The first frame is reflective of OP's argument.

The second frame is reflective of how some other assholes abuse that argument to further their fundamentalist agendas through pseudo-science.