Is there any reason to believe God exist ? :/

One thing that those who ask where matter-energy/spacetime came from fail to wonder is if that question even makes sense.

Of course it makes sense. Nothing just pops into existence out of nothingness, that includes the universe itself. Note that nothingness is exactly that. Quantum fluctuations are something, not nothing.

Define God first

Nope. Why does it 'has to be' a being?
The only reason Mankind invented god was so they could tell stories to shut up those who keep asking questions.

Even if it was created, by a being, that being could be dead by now. The God-answer is for retards or ignorant kids only. And still it is horrible wrong to tell kids the God-lie. Biggest conspericy that really needs to die!!

>Nope. Why does it 'has to be' a being
Because we know the universe shows signs of having been designed.

By you logic God can't be real either.
We just can't go back far enough. Take it, and move on user

1. If god exists and you sin then you go to hell
2. If god exists and you do not sin then you do not go to hell
3. If god does not exist and you sin then you do not go to hell
4. If god does not exist and you do not sin then you do not go to hell

What created god then?

Is that so? Just out of respect... Gimme some then

What proof do you have that the universe isn't eternally continuous, outside of your brainlet inability to conceive that.

>By you logic God can't be real either.
Why not? You realize the 'who created God' argument is a fallacy right? You don't need to explain what created something that had no beginning. You do if something had a beginning. That includes everything within the universe and the universe itself.

How did the black hole get there in the first place? Is the black hole eternal?

Does that make the black hole God?

Can... can the black hole get angry?

HAIL THE BLACK HOLE

Because the implication of an eternally recurring universe is that we would have never existed. It's easy enough to prove too. Consider this, if your existence hinged on someone reciting every digit of pi, when would you begin to exist? You can't argue that pi is endless if you exist and your existence is predicted on reaching the 'end' of that infinite string of numbers. It's one or the other, not both.

Because nothing we can observe is eternally continuous and it doesn't make sense with our current understanding of physics.

But if you've developed a theory that disproves entropy, feel free to share.

Only one, but it's a good one: Because you want him to.

>recurring
I never stated this.

Furthermore, you are utilizing a linear conception of time, leading to your "dilemma" of placement within inifinity. You continue to show that your only objection is by your inability to conceive the truth.

Oh but god's not part of the univers. Theists a re so fucking retarded

Considering the nature of universal expansion and the resultant non-conserving energy loss. Why would it be too difficult to assume that all energy in the universe came from nothing? Explaining this phenomenon with an "all powerful being" doesn't actually solve anything

Making up your own concept of reality to dodge the issue isn't a solution. From what we understand of how reality works you're wrong.

Does physics not begin to shift and become odd as we approach t=0?

>Why would it be too difficult to assume that all energy in the universe came from nothing
Because nothing comes from nothing. That's pretty obvious isn't it?

Not really. It's just a construct of an older time. People only really hold on to the idea because of tradition or just societal stubbornness

Why can't our universe be a simulation?

Not really. Conservation laws don't apply to universal scales

Nope. A black hole seems to be a result of a dying star then collapsed on itself. Where that star came from... I will never know, nore will it matter. That was a long time ago. So I live on.

>is that black hole eternal?
Good question. Keep on the septic sharpness. It will help you to survive in this harsh world!

>does that make the black hole god?
Don't talk with adults like you have a brain of a child. Nobody respects that.
But no, it does not. Dumb question.

Has that black hole influence?
Yes and no, but it is indifferent to me. And I don't care about that hole, accept from the fact that I think it is awesome there was one that helped shape this earth. But it has no feelings of memory. It is just an event

It does, but "matter was spontaneously created for a time by absolutely nothing" goes a bit beyond physics being "odd;" it would more mean that we are fundamentally wrong about how our universe works overall.

Which is entirely possible, but until we can figure out how this would work believing it to be the case seems rather foolish. Why have faith that everything we think we know is fucked (with little evidence) when you could have faith that we were created by an almighty being (with little evidence)? Doesn't the latter make you feel more secure?

Probs is desu

I'm not talking about any laws. Simply stating that absolute nothing does not have the power to 'create' anything. It's nothing, by definition. No matter, energy, time or space or anything else. Period. No quantum fluctuations. No fields. No vacuum. Nothing. Nothing, by definition, has no properties by which anything could be created.

Who cares

the main reason people do is because their parents do

Feelings are irrelevant, it is a matter of which falls along known patterns, the latter.

The former*
Linguistic recognition bled over.

Gods are entirely human inventions to explain natural phenomenon which they could not possibly understand in prehistoric / early civilization. They did so out of convenience and because they wanted to seek favor for their well-being. They didn't understand what the Sun was, or what the moon was, or what the stars were, they only knew that it was necessary for their well being. When it didn't rain and they needed rain for their crops, they blamed the gods and did rituals, including sacrifices to please them in hope that their fortunes would change. This type of simplistic theism evolved over the years into a complex series of different religions rising and falling until you get to the current monotheistic ones. As the mysteries of our solar system / the universe / our planet continue to advance and unravel due to science, the necessity of religion and gods to explain the unexplained decreases more and more.

I'm talking about science. Not definitions. We observe that energy disappears with expansion. The opposite is plausible.

It was a joke, autismo, and you missed the point besides.

The discussion was "God is probably the best explanation we have as to how matter was inexplicably created," to which you replied "No, a black hole was how matter is inexplicably created." This begs of the question of how the black hole was created, since for there to be a black hole there must have once been a star, which requires matter. To which you reply, "dunno lol" meaning that your belief in the Most Holy Black Hole is equally as foundationless as belief in Our Lord and Savior JC, meaning that you only hold that belief in order to be capable of labelling yourself an "athiest."

Don't start tossing around insults before you consider the logic of your own position.

This is just bagging the question. You just change the question from "who created stuff" to "who created the guy who created stuff". All you did was add a layer of unprovable and unneeded complexity

>The opposite is plausible
No it isn't. You're drawing a conclusion the evidence doesn't support.

Why does God need a creator?

Interesting theory. How do you prove this? How would you falsify it?

I think it's perfectly possible for something to come from nothing in a way that perhaps we do not yet understand.

You can't read. Try again user.

Why does the Universe need a creator?

Any reason why the Universe needs a creator would equally apply to why God needs a creator

Matter being created from nothing does not fall along any known patterns though, it's never been seen through mathematics nor experimentation.

We're really arguing semantics though. Your position is that a force outside of physics created matter from nothing. This describes an abstract view of God perfectly.

>Most Holy Black Hole
Come my brothers of the dark church. Let us convince these Abrahamic heathens of the error of their ways.
Praise be to the Dark Massive One

God also does not fall along any known patters.

You're just saying "my random arbitrary speculation with no evidence is better than YOUR random arbitrary speculation with no evidence.

At least the "no god" theory is less complex.

>It has never been seen through any experiment.
Maybe
>It has never been seen through mathematics.
user... I....

>I think it's perfectly possible for something to come from nothing in a way that perhaps we do not yet understand.
That would require nothing to have some kind of property which allows for some mechanism by which something can be created. At which point it ceases to be nothing. And then you just get into the whole argument about what causes this mechanism that creates anyway?

What you're arguing is that you think one day we might find a triangle with two sides instead of three. I feel pretty confident saying that will never, ever happen because it means you're found a 'triangle' that doesn't have the criteria which we define a triangle. Much like a 'nothingness' that doesn't have the criteria to be a nothingness really isn.t It's not nothing at that point. It's something, and we already know something can come from something. It's trivial. You're just trying to push the question back so you don't have to deal with it.

Why wouldn't it be? Your definitions don't prove anything

>Any reason why the Universe needs a creator would equally apply to why God needs a creator
You sure? I'd say the fact that we know the universe had a beginning to it's existence and God didn't is a pretty big distinction. The universe, as we know it, did not exist at one point. That necessarily means it needed some cause to be created. God is exempt because that which does not begin to exist needs no cause.

>I think our solar system is a result of a outburst of a black hole and is mistakenly thought of as the big bang

This is what I'm taking exception to. Why is a black hole being responsible for the universe more likely than a God-like entity being responsible for the universe? Unless you literally meant that our solar system specifically was created by a black hole, but I'm assuming you're not retarded.

What is considered is that something may not come forth from nothing, but what is not considered is that there is no nothing, nor has there ever been.

> I'd say the fact that we know the universe had a beginning to it's existence

This is false. We have absolutely no idea whatsoever when the universe began. We know when the big bang occured, but saying the big bang was the start of the universe is just speculation

Also, if you are saying "god is exempt from needing a beginning" then I say "the universe is exempt from needing a beginning"

Doesn't that just lead to an infinite regress of what created that something, then what created that something, and so on ad infinitum?

Is there a mathematical equation that accounts for something being created from nothing (literally nothing, mind you, not something imaginary or not-real)? I'd be curious to see it actually.

You can manufacture paper. You can manufacture a pen. You can write a poem. And then you used some bad grammar, so you scratch it. That stain of ink came from nothing. It was never intended, yet , out of nothing, you created a stain on paper, with no purpose. Just out of frustration, which had nothing to do with the topic of the poem, you made something happen.

We have physical evidence that black holes exist. The theory that something that definitely exists made the universe is more reasonable than a theory that something that probably doesn't exist created the universe

>philosopher tries to contribute to a physics discussion and shits his pants

>the universe is exempt from needing a beginning
But we know it had one. Arguing the Big Bang wasn't the creation of the universe is a cop-out. It was. All the space, time, matter and energy that exists today comes directly from that event. Period.

We have physical evidence that black holes exist, but not that they spontaneously create matter from nothing. Therefore, this does not solve the problem of
>How was matter created when it is impossible to create matter? How did something come from nothing?

Go screw your kids. I hope they read their bible and become good Christianfags, so they will never enjoy free sex, drugs, popmusic and the Disney Channel. Take away from them all that is fun, for the Lord , your God , tells you so.

What you are saying has no basis on fact or reality. You just have the opinion that the Big Bang was the start of the universe and are now acting like it's a fact. The truth is that there is no understanding in modern physics of what happened at or before the Big Bang. A prime example of this uncertainty is the popular theory of the cyclical universe that crunches down then bounces back

You know the difference right between our solar system and the universe?

>A prime example of this uncertainty is the popular theory of the cyclical universe that crunches down then bounces back
That doesn't actually solve anything though. We've already established there have been finite events in the past (See ) so we know there was a beginning. You're just pushing it back a bit further because it's inconvenient to you. If you want to imagine there have been x number of universes, go ahead, no matter how far back you go we still slam into the wall of what created the substance of the universe ex nihilo and that's an issue you can't sweep under the carpet no matter how many theoretical universes you invent.

Yes, but considering the entire thread has been about the creation of the universe at large, and the rest of his post seems to address this, I assume it was a typo.

Much like the typo in your genetic code that made you retarded.

If you can not win a debate, getting personal only makes you look less ... likeable.

And you or whoever can never win from me. Because I don't need to defend a religious idea. I just go with science and logic. Reality matters, not holy ideas.

And those posts are mine. I know what I say. Read again user

maybe god is the source of uncertainty

>infinite regression
this board is overrun by pseuds

There's no reason not to believe god exists, but what does worrying about a god do to help us as people? It's a pointless exercise in "what ifs". Better to focus on what we can observer than pipe dreams about what may or may not be there without any way to gather information.

Look pal, I'm sorry if I've damaged your precious feelings, but I'm not particularly concerned with seeming likeable on an anonymous imageboard and conversating with you has been akin to smashing my head into a brick wall.

I have read everything I can surmise as you having posted. Your argument began as such, as far as I understand it:

"We don't know what created matter but believing it was a God is bad because it causes people to become religious, which leads to negative societal effect."

Firstly, this does not concern the topic of the thread, nor the topic of the post you originally quoted ; the former is "is there a logical reason to believe in God" and the latter is "Yes, because the Universe was created by something and a being that exists outside of physics creating it works."

The reason why it does not concern these topics is that you're arguing on a moral level: what we SHOULD believe in in the context of a better humanity, whereas the post you replied to was arguing on a logical level - what we SHOULD believe in in the context of likely solutions to what created the universe.

You then attempted to argue that a black hole created... our solar system in particular, apparently? Fine. That does not answer the question of the thread nor of the original post you replied to, and is therefore pointless.

Furthermore, you did not give reasoning for WHY being religious is bad outside of "sometimes crazy people become crazy because of religion." Religion also has a fair few positive effects - most of our concept of charity, sharing, being good to your fellow man etc. came from religious ideation, and people who are religious are demonstrably happier (on average) than those who are not.

In summary, your premise is flawed, your argument is flawed, and I'm mildly annoyed that it took me this long to show you why.

I can prove that you can pick a specific point out of an infinite series right now.

The 3rd number in pi is 4

bam. Done. I just plucked a specific event out of an infinite series.

Hell, in the series 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc even if it goes forever, the number 500 still exists. You can still point out 500

Almost.

And then we carry on.

But don't worry about my feelings. They are not for the internet.

Again, is there any reason?

Nope. Why would there be?
Because you can't convince your kids on the importance of empathy?
Why would someone believe those retarded religious stories? They are funny, but so wrong on so many levels. ..

>Again, is there any reason?
Because there literally isn't any other good reason for the fact there is something instead of nothing?

So you know
I do like meaningful conversation

That does not make the God-answer a valid one. Not at all. Only dangerous, like you pointed out already.

climate change skeptic posts get deleted but "Does god exist" threads are allowed to proliferate

Veeky Forums mod is a fag, and so are the fucking pussies reporting those posts

Because of religion you need reason. I don't need a reason for the universe to be there. I only enjoy the fact it is.

I don't need a reason for why you're a retard, I just enjoy the fact that you are

>so butthurt that he's been brainwashed about climate change that he lashes out in completely unrelated threads

Listen shitfuck, here's what matters.

>the climate is changing
>polluting the environment is bad. Not JUST because it changes the climate overall, even though it does, but because it has demonstrably bad effects on local climate conditions such as air quality and noise pollution.
>we do not want the climate to change

So, regardless of the source of climate change, we should still stop polluting and look for solutions to keep the climate from changing.

Even if you disagree with the fact that the climate is changing, which is pants on head retarded, you can't possibly argue that polluting your local environment is desirable.

So fuck you, and fuck off.

Good for you. Please tell me again why God is the only answer. .. . And what God for that matter. And why not tell us his gospel too. And why we should take it for a fact. Can you do that? That would be great.

>unrelated

no, you missed the point stupid fuck

the point is moderation on this board, not the climate change debate specifically

Veeky Forums is moderated/self-moderated like reddit, a bunch of fucking pussy snowflakes who report and delete anything that intrudes upon their safe space

fucking cowards

>regardless of the source of climate change, we should still stop polluting and look for solutions to keep the climate from changing.

the source matters. if it's largely (up to 50% in the latest study) natural process, then it makes little sense to fight against those forces. you can't win

furthermore, your premise is fatally flawed. you can't stop it. the political will does not exist. the economic will does not exist. we've heard these alarm bells for years, decades? and warming continues, aye, it's accelerating

meanwhile, ww3 soon. that will bring climate change on a level that will make these meager scientific pronouncements look like a walk in the park

you're barking up the wrong tree. you have no idea what's actually going on

#DENIAL
#IRONY

No, you're missing your own point you stupid fuck. They delete the threads because arguing climate change is stupid, not to promote an agenda. Now, I'll grant that many threads on Veeky Forums are dumb, but I would call this a failure of the mods to delete dumb threads unequivocally and not a failure of them to remain unbiased.

>it makes little sense to fight against those sources
>you can't win
>most people don't care
>ww3 soon because people on /pol/ keep saying so

So your argument here is that if something is hard we should just give up, and that widespread societal change is impossible?

That's retarded. Very few things are impossible, and outside of your opinion there isn't much to show that reversing climate change is one of them. We can't say it can't be done until it's tried in the first place.

Your pessimistic attitude makes me think you're underaged, or mentally handicapped with depression. Seek a therapist either way.

Also, I'd love to hear your reasoning for why WW3 will bring climate change on an unprecedented scale. I hope it's nukes.

>>ww3

You missed some wars user. We are way passed that already

wrong. the thread is up. there are a ton of posts arguing climate change, including political aspects of climate change, from your side

there's an entire thread on the politics of climate change from the OP on down but again, it's the acceptable opinion so Reddit doesn't downvote or censor that one

you people are fucking hypocrites and cowards

>>ww3 soon because people on /pol/ keep saying so

no, ww3 soon because government sources, military sources, intelligence sources, and credible news organizations are saying so

educate yourself

>if something is hard we should just give up

no, if a cat 5 hurricane is coming you don't waste your time trying to stop it. you get the fuck out of the way

>Your pessimistic attitude makes me think you're underaged, or mentally handicapped with depression.

wow, so scientific

so mathematical

protip; I'm optimistic, you just misunderstood my argument. just because we can't do the thing you're suggesting doesn't mean we can't do anything positive

you're just in denial

> I'd love to hear your reasoning for why WW3 will bring climate change on an unprecedented scale.

easy;

>two secret Soviet programs, "Mercury" and "Volcano", aimed at developing a "tectonic weapon" that could set off earthquakes from great distance

>US Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, said..."Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_weapon#Reports

>According to state-run Rossiiskaya Gazeta, the destructive power attributed to the new torpedo's warhead would fit the description of a cobalt bomb.

>A cobalt bomb has never been tested because of the devastating radiation it would unleash.

bbc.com/news/world-europe-34797252

>The United States possesses more space weaponry than any other country

blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/09/the-u-s-military-is-preparing-for-the-real-star-wars

>Russia reveals new generation satellite to fight war in space

dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/476182/Russia-developing-star-wars-space-weapons

>Russia lost all of its early warning satellites in the spring of 2014.

spaceflightinsider.com/missions/defense/russian-soyuz-2-1b-rocket-successfully-launches-tundra-satellite

etc. those are all in the links I posted here

What the fuck does any of this have to do with this thread? Take this shit elsewhere.

Actually, I'll give you that first one. Any thread that starts with a frog has no place on Veeky Forums.

However -
>accuse you of getting your opinions from /pol/
>you argue this by linking a bunch of /pol/ threads at me

This is hilarious. I suggest examining those things in the threads you linked without consider the opinions of your fellow /pol/acks, because they are certainly biased, reactionary, and prone to draw inaccurate conclusions on the scant evidence they collect (see: Pizzagate). Do for yourself what you're telling me - examine the sources and decide, for yourself, if you think they show adequately that we're on our way to a war with Russia.

>no, if a cat 5 hurricane is coming you don't waste your time trying to stop it. you get the fuck out of the way

Ideally you would have predicted the hurricane ahead of time and fortified the place you live against hurricanes, so you don't HAVE to get out of the way. I cede the point though - but it doesn't work in the context of climate change. How the fuck do you get out of the way of climate change? Flee the planet?

So you want us to invent space ships that can take us to a better planet? Better find a better planet first. Also, FTL travel is impossible, so we'll have to do it through cryogenics (probably centuries away) or self-sustaining colony ships (would rip themselves apart probably, also good luck getting congress to approve this). It's not really feasible. It's even possible that there's not another planet that we can reach that would support us, necessitating the invention of terraforming - also known as climate change, bringing us back to square one.

The weak point of the cosmological argument is that it tries to argue for a universal cause from particular ones
>Everything that begins has a cause
>This process can't go on ad infinitum
>Therefore we need a first cause
>This first cause is God
It is a sound reasoning, but if you analyse it you can see its flaws. First, as the effect is the extension of the cause, so the latter needs to be always contiguous at least in time, and it needs to cease the moment its effect starts. Moreover, it only makes sense to talk about causality if only changes can be causes and effects, for example, it is not actually "fire" that causes "heat" but the changes in fire create changes in the temperature, and these changes will provoke other changes and so on. So if there was a first cause, it would need be finite and have ceased the moment its effect began. If we call this first cause "God" we would need to admit that God is finite and died the moment the universe was born; not only this, but that God is actually just a part of the process of the universe and not actually its cause.
But as I was not satisfied with refuting that argument for the existence of God, I created another myself:
>Everything happens for a reason
>Every particular happening has its particular reason
>God can't be proved just from a chain of particular reasons, for he would need to be a particular reason himself
>But he can still be proved by the universal fact that there are things happening to begin with
>And the universal fact that there are things happening needs an universal reason to be
>This universal reason is God
Well, only talking about particular things it makes sense to talk about reasons, if we want a reason for the sole fact that there are things happening we would need to specify what we mean by reason here. If we can't then God will be just a useless idea that adds nothing to our understanding of the world.

Does god exist?

Reasonable person: There isn't a way to know and it has has no bearing on existence as we know it

Person with fear of the unknown or impermanence: Yes because without one there would be no answer or meaning.

>If we call this first cause "God" we would need to admit that God is finite and died the moment the universe was born

Not necessarily. You could also argue that God is, in fact, infinite but ceased to interact with our universe entirely after the moment of creation. This is equivalent to God being dead from our perspective, but if you accept God as an entity it does not require that that entity is dead, only that he has left our perception.

>God is actually just a part of the process of the Universe and not actually its cause

Could you rephrase your reasoning behind this? I don't understand it.

>God is a useless idea
Correct, but we don't have a better one and unsolved problems make our brains upset - unsolvable ones can cause serious mental health issues.