God does not exist

Zeus does not exist.

My question is, why specifically is that God though? I've read the arguments, I understand the logic behind the arguments themselves, but why do you ascribe it to being God?

Krishna does not exist.

Creation suggests the existence of a Creator.

don't know about god, but i do think someone 'up there' is meddling with the things here

Odin does not exist.

Ra does not exist.

*tips le fedora*

I am god.

The kingdom of God is within.

i am bigger and better god than you

>Aquinas argument

No, it's built on a fallacy in of itself. He proposes that God is something which doesn't move itself, but causes other things to move. But in the first place there's no reason to think that there's any such thing, and in the second place, if this is meant to refer to the Biblical God, then it's clearly wrong, because he does move: (see Genesis 3:8 and Deuteronomy 23:14, among other verses) -- so if Aquinas is right the Bible is wrong. In fact an object which is merely an 'unmoved mover' has no properties in common with the God of traditional Christian belief, as officially endorsed by Aquinas's own Catholic Church.

Aquinas's approach is an example of a common tactic among apologists; define 'God' in such a way that it seems as though there must be something matching that description, then pretend that your definition actually refers to the 'God' that ordinary theists really believe in. It's as if I were to define a rhinoceros as a 'unicorn', and then claim that all the medieval European romances about maidens and unicorns are true. I might get away with one or the other, but not both. But Aquinas was doubly misguided in that even the thing he thought must exist can be shown to be unnecessary by modern physics.

As a general rule, all arguments which start with: "Everything needs (or does, or has) X", then go on with "God doesn't need (or do, or have) X" are self-invalidating.

Do you exist? Do i?

*tips*

If Aquinas's proof is accepted, the response is 'so what?'

Does that prove a Christian God? No. It proves a first cause. That says nothing about the nature, abilities, kindness, mental well being or interest of the first cause in human affairs. If it proves the existense of God then it equally proves the existence of Vishnu in his place.

>Does that prove a Christian God? No. It proves a first cause. That says nothing about the nature, abilities, kindness, mental well being or interest of the first cause in human affairs. If it proves the existense of God then it equally proves the existence of Vishnu in his place.

Totally outside the scope of this thread, brainlet

Sex is God.
t. modern society

Dark (matter|energy) is god

>if I can't see it, it isn't real

no, it's a belief system

I'd certainly go to church a lot more often.

>if there has never been any verifiable empirical evidence or compelling logical proof for its existence, there is no active reason to believe in it
fixed it for you

i wonder how the idea of god came about first

fear of death most likely

The idea of an unmoving mover only works from a terrestrial perspective now that we know that space due to its frictionless nature, things can just move infinitely on their own without stopping, unlike on earth where anything will eventually stop. Space is wonky, things move simply by being relative to other things, without a need to be pushed.

>demanding empirical evidence
>"if I can't see it, it isn't real"
>unironically believes in atoms and particle physics though
>doesn't see the contradiction

Please tell me you're joking

You can see atoms though with powerful enough microscopes.

Atoms and particles have empirical evidence.

S-Shut up fedora

youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM

Not one atheist has ever refuted this.

No, I'm not. Picture a universe with only a single particle in it. Is the particle moving? The answer is arbitrary, based on what frame of reference you pick: It isn't moving relative to itself, but it is moving relative any hypothetical observer who isn't stopped relative to the particle.

Now picture another universe, one with two particles. Let's say that the universe was empty at first, and now two helium atoms have suddenly just popped into existence. They're a hundred miles apart, and they are, to flatter the prejudices of people who think motion is unnatural, stopped relative to each other.

What's going to happen? They will begin to move toward each other, attracted by the gravity that they themselves are (or create, if you'd rather think of it like that, or which is inexplicably associated with matter, if you prefer that vision). They don't need a god to start them moving. The movement comes naturally, due to physics. They would need a god to keep them from moving, not to start them moving.

So the answer is that no prime mover is necessary. A universe without motion is inconceivable.

>"Everything needs (or does, or has) X", then go on with "God doesn't need (or do, or have) X" are self-invalidating.
Why? It's a perfectly valid argument that there needs to be an exception to start the chain of causality.

>he thinks mover literally means someone shoving something else

Wew lad

If you read the very beginning of Genesis, it reflects the Egyptian Ogdoad and the Enuma Elish. It talks about moving the "waters"(in Sumerian and Babylonian it's referenced as "deep waters" or "primordial waters") and the darkness. Sometimes stillness and infinite without reference point are cited(those overlap between Ogdoad, Buddhism, and Hinduism). Ultimately, it's a rationalization of what came first, before everything, and initiated everything. So all it's doing is painting a picture of what was before in the beginning. The same kind of thought experiment behind the Orphic mysteries(if any of you faggots care to read the Hymns you uncultured dogs) and Hesiod's Theogony. But where the Greeks stopped at what they could anthropomorphize, Monad-worship doesn't. Religion is an exercise in rationalizing beyond the senses, and morally restraining oneself beyond the need for instant gratification and higher moral achievement. None of you unwashed dogs will understand that or read anything that isn't a shitpost or web related deconstructionist article though so I'm the real fool for wasting my time on you degenerates.

Ignoring the fact that quantum mechanics research suggests that yes, things do appear to happen spontaneously without cause, why is it God?

>doesn't know the difference between an observation (naked eye) and a superobservation (requires an instrument)
>doesn't realize that the two have completely different philosophic differences
>doesn't realize that something being superobservable doesn't mean it has been observed
>doesn't realize that you can't say something exists without having an actual observation and not just a superobservation

eye is an instrument

Atoms if you use the Rutherford Gold-Foil experiment. Meanwhile rationalism taught us atoms existed over two millennia before you could empirically prove it, and the empiricists were so stupid they accidentally named the wrong things atoms(atoms means indivisible, and they can apparently be divided so they misnamed it).

you're out of your depth here. I gave a short summary of what those terms mean. to say that "eyes are an instrument so you're wrong ;)" is exactly like telling marx "haha so if I just spend more time making my product it will be more valuable ;)".

The unmoved mover has nothing to do with motion though, it has to do with causality which is one of the most fundamental laws of the universe. It's so fundamental that the speed of light is limited by it, it's more accurate to say that it's the speed of causality and the reason light can't go faster is because you can't transmit information faster than that.

Given that causality is basically THE underlying principle of our universe which cannot be violated by any means (Half the weird shit in Quantum mechanics is directly attributable to this) the fact that we can trace back a chain of cause and effects to the beginning of the universe is a big deal. Now since we know there is a chain of causality that stretches back in time the question is who set off the chain of cause and effects in the first place?

To this date no atheist has ever given a suitable response. It always comes down to "Uhhhh, how do you KNOW there was a beginning to the chain of causality"

See

>Therefore it's God
No, therefore something before the universe created it. See the second paragraph in my post

>No, therefore something before the universe created it
Something which by necessity has all the properties by which defines God, yes. You realize that Christians don't actually believe God is a guy with a long white beard, right? The idea of a being that exists outside the physical universe unbound by the laws of nature kicked off creation actually fits perfectly with the Christian conception of God the Father.

In death lies salvation.

>You realize that Christians don't actually believe God is a guy with a long white beard, right?
No but they do believe that he has specific tenants set forth for us to follow and has actively interfered with human affairs, or at least the literalists do.

my only real fear in life is that things don't end after it

So how does that affect Aquinas arguments in any way? All he set out to do was prove that there must be a being responsible for creation which has the traits associated with God, and he did that. Logically is there any reason an extradimensional being couldn't interact with our universe? Is there any reason such a being couldn't have influence human history? No? Then what relevance does it have

Atheists deserve to die in concentration camps

Find out, report back.

>All he set out to do was prove that there must be a being responsible for creation which has the traits associated with God, and he did that.

Because it's taking an extra step based on supposition. I mean staying within existing theology, his argument proves just as much the existence of the Demiurge and not God.

tibetan book of the dead. someone already did.

His argument does not prove the existence of anything at all.

I will prove that atheists die slowly, like rats on a ship we call ideology.

God you can basically interpret however you want, but you can't take the Bible 100% literally, only a "more literal" interpretation, because there are things that contradict other things. In there are two passages that give different orderings to creation, one that says humans were created at one point, and another that says Adam was created, and then later after some other things Eve was. Now you can argue that they're true because of the existence of Lilith, but the only mention of Lilith in the Bible itself is a passage in Isaiah 34:14 where she was a demon that helped destroy the kingdom of Edom. Hell, of the eight unclean animals, she's the only one that gets mentioned once, Or the fact that two gospels give two different accounts of what Jesus's last words were. Now the explanation to this I can accept, that Jesus probably had a lot to say while he was up there, it's not like he had anything else he could do.

Or hell, let's go a little more modern. You know that idea that the end of the world is gonna come and everyone that isn't a believer is proper fucked? That doesn't actually appear, it's a belief created in the 19th century by cobbling together passages from Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Matthew. And even then if you decide the Bible in this instance is like a choose-your-own-adventure book where you flip through 100 pages to get the passages you want, unless you genuinely expect a 7-headed beast with 10 horns is going to rise out of the ocean, you're not actually taking the bible literally.

>there are only christian Gods
you are intellectually shallow and a philistine when it comes to religion

I don't understand why there has to be an argument between religion and science. Religion has one question science can never answer: why is there anything instead of nothing? So what if there's an effectively infinite number of universes that makes life a statistical inevitability, why do strings exist? Why do they vibrate the way they do? Why does anything exist? There is space for religion no matter how much we learn about the universe.

I never mentioned God outside of the first sentence, but I should note that Christianity does specifically say that God is the only God that's real.

How is that impossible for science to answer, and in what way does religion answer it? It seems most religious simply make baseless claims.

The thing is religion doesn't have a set answer for it either, as many religions have different answers. It's more that science can't answer "why is there anything instead of nothing", because there isn't really an answer, we just have to accept that things exist.

I should note that I'm not religious, I am agnostic, but I do acknowledge that it is the one question you can't give a scientific answer for.

>there isn't really an answer, we just have to accept that things exist.
pure ideology

If god did not exist it would be necessary to invent him.

Yeah it is kinda ideological, because we don't have all the answers.

>we don't have all the answers.
Im not you don't speak for me

The truth is between Deism and Agnosticism. Prove me wrong

the truth is not one thing over another, but both things at the same time

>but both things at the same time
can two objects occupy the same space?

two objects aren't really two but one just in a different form

you just put words in my mouth you intellectual deadweight

Because it's fucking stupid. You people are just too deluded by your religious beliefs to understand that not everything needs to follow the cause-effect pattern.

A good arguement for statement would be that we have yet to find a process in nature that exclusively needed devine intervention

Yes, he does.

abiogenesis

What do you mean?

>if there has never been any verifiable empirical evidence or compelling logical proof for its existence, there is no active reason to believe in it
fixed it for you
You are going to hate post modernity my dude

Most theories that I know do not include a deity. Therefore devine intervention is not explicity needed. Try again!

Most physicist (as well as scientist in general) don't think much about philosophical implications of their theories and don't take part in those discussion. Sadly most of them are complete illiterates when it comes to philosophy/nature of science. Therefore the most popular (philosophical) interpretations of QM are popular due to constant repeating without critically reflecting about it. Plus the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is generally shortened in a completely absurd fashion.

TL;DR: Copenhagen interpretation (most anticipated interperation of QM) doesn't suggest something like that. QM ist "just" a formalism. Further there are alternatives of the Copenhagen interpretation, e.g. Bohm mechanics.