Inevitability of God

Ah yes, sorry I rushed to comment without fully reading your post.
I think there are questions that are probably in principle inaccessible to science. Why is there a universe at all, rather than nothing? I don't see a way for science to tackle such questions. It is a matter for philosophy or spirituality. So yes, indeed at the bottom of the glass there is still something mysterious and spiritual.

You do realize that this is both wrong for various reasons(first among those being, we evolved to live in world we live in, the world did not evolve for us, if physical laws were different, that doesn't necessarily mean life wouldn't exist), and also not something that points to a christian deity rather then a deity or group of deities that set the universe in motion and then fucked off, right?

How can anything tackle this for which you have no information? What's the point of guessing when you have no foundation.
Human spirituality is (literally) a social construct, created withing the framework of our reality and thus cannot be used to explain the exouniversal, which is unknowable. People, like, are just trying to push their goatfucker cult of personality as something deserving to be taken seriously, when that's not the case.

plebs first dive into metaphysics.

Why would this god or entity be the bible god?

Has anyone claimed it is?

>by the way when i say god i mean literally anything and everything

The anthropic principle is circular logic that was created to avoid inevitable conclusions. It doesn't answer anything, it just states that because we are it had to be so. Nothing more.

OP's pic containing a christian cross seems to hint towards that.

I think you need to get your eyes checked friend because that is a question mark, not a cross

Basically this.

All religions -- from pagan/shamanist folk religions on up to the major faiths of today -- are psychological projections of this 'mystery'. What happens after death? We know we will die. What is our past? What is our future, our 'destiny'? Why? Why anything?

Religions provide answers to these mysteries for the era that they are strong and successful in. That's why paganism was once right for many humans. Then Roman/Greek pantheism, later Christianity or Islam, or Buddhsim, etc. Hinduism and Judaism are just codified cultural practices of a specific group that has been around so long it gets called religion.

But eventually, as certain mysteries are answered and knowledge increases, a religion (codified and """eternal""" as they are) fails to accurately answer the 'project' that adherents have. Thus, the decline of Christianity. Something else will replace it. No, not Islam or any other current religion -- not unless we slide backwards. Some other 'all encompassing' belief system.

Assuming that science is VERSUS religion is silly. They are just two threads woven in the same rope.

Shit, i meant 's pic

>begging the question

Thomas Aquinas's Five Proof of the Existence of God:

The First Way: Argument from Motion
1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in 5.another).
6. Therefore nothing can move itself.
7. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
8. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
9. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
1.There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2.Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3.The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4.Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
1.We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
2.Most natural things lack knowledge.
3.But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4.Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end, and this being we call God.

I always see people saying "But what are the odds of things being exactly as they are now, uh?"
Why is that line of reasoning so common?

>proof
>it's actually a definition

idk blame wikipedia or whoever started calling them proofs, who I will assume is wikipedia until defined otherwise.