Do Atheists unironically believe nothing somehow made something?

Then something somehow turned itself into such a complex design as life itself?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
youtube.com/watch?v=R3U30wSAV4Q
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis#Evidence
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

explain

Wrong color, faggot.

Yes

It's called evolution

You should read about it some time

so it was god, who came from nothing. makes perfect sense

no. something definitely created god.

I have never seen a valid explanation of how the universe could have come into existence without an original, uncaused caused (that is not itself confined to the parameters of physics as we are) - that is, God

Let alone how such a random and chaotic system like the Universe could assemble itself into life - a formation of matter that goes against the natural gradient of chaos and dissociation to equilibrium to form living things. I.E. The only thing in the world that puts active energy into sustaining its own self is DNA, which programs an organisms structure, physiology and behaviour all in such a complex way so that it is forced to sustain itself and reproduce

How can these things be accounted for if everything is random and meaningless, as atheists argue?

That pic actually still represents a conscious entity creating something from nothing as the result of a willful act; not really a good metaphor for what atheists believe.

>Life appeared from nothing
>Atheists actually believe this is how evolution works.

Stop trying to sound clever and pick up a high school science textbook.

What catalysed the formation of life? And I study Immunology, so I am familiar with evolution and theories behind it

God, by his own definition () is not bound by the same physical parameters we are, and we can only understand what we experience. Therefore, we can by definition not understand the nature of God's existence, but only observe the set conditions of which we are confined as a result of his architecture. You can never empirically prove (or disprove) God because of this - nor the origins of the universe - therefore debunking the claim atheists make
> We will be able to find out the origin of the universe through science

>do atheists believe nothing came from something?
i dunno, why do christ cucks think the same thing? 6000 years of biblical incest and look at were we are now, look at how retarded the muszzies are after 70 years of inbreeding, you think 6000 years of incest starts turning good at one point?

just some bantz

>educate yourself
Good argument mate. Seriously though - if know the answer, then why don't you do the honour of educating me? Or do you not know the answer? Which is it?

Within the realm of philosophy you have to make comparisons, and certainly most theories about the universe are exponentially more realistic than the unproven "God".

If you believe in religion, you do away with logic. You cannot prove God exists, and before you ask me to prove a negative, don't.

This gif is funny as hell, and I'm an atheist.

"My answer isn't bound by logic or reality so you can't touch me!"

Atheists believe something came out of nothing. Theists believe MAGIC, and then something came out of nothing.

>we don't know so you're wrong and debunked
>is not bound by the same physical parameters we are
says who

No, the difference is that we can account for the fact nothing came out of something due to the necessity of there being a first cause (). This is a worldview that distinguishes atheists from theists and is central to many views on ethics. Anyway, a debate on religion is not what the thread is intended for but rather the worldview of creation. Similar yes, but I want to avoid specifics about religion, maybe some one else can answer that

We can't know why the universe was created. Yet.
But I'm inclined to believe in something that was analyzed from a scientific standpoint more than something that wasn't.

says the jews who invented him

The primordial ooze on this planet created organic chemicals

Out of these organic chemicals came biomolecules like proteins, amino acids, lipids, etc.

Out of these came more complex biomolecules like RNA

Out of this came deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)

Eventually very simple single celled organisms appeared like bacteria and algae

This life evolved

Eventually humans resulted.

>What catalysed the formation of life?
Who fucking knows.

>God, by his own definition is not bound by the same physical parameters we are
that
defining something like that can be used to argue for ANYTHINGS existance
it has to be quantifiable which god is not
he doesnt exist

ahmed i like that you at least pretend to have heard of science but your flat earth threads killed any hope of you being taken seriously

go to /lit/ they are all leftist who will pretend that you are right just be sure to inform them your a pedo goat fucker from a desert

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Makes more sense than literal magic

You can't account for anything because you could also believe God created the world 45 seconds ago and there is 0 evidence to prove you wrong. You can play this game about anything.

And that's how the jews got you, by stimulating the masturbatory portion of your intelligence until you convince yourself of retarded shit.

youtube.com/watch?v=R3U30wSAV4Q

You have no clue how science works Czechoslovakia .

christians and atheists are just same shit different mouthpiece
god forsaken faggots who make moral exceptions every breath they take.

>We don't have the answers to everything, therefore God

People like you is what causes atheists to go full fedora instead of allowing them to value religion and the kernels of truth embedded in religious teachings. Kys.

no of course not!
Just paid my monthly tithe too, and planning on making a trip to holy land to stock up on souvenirs its for god of course he needs money too.

Aussies need to rectify their muslim problem, this is getting out of hand.

so fucking true.

based portugal

see:the burden of proof lies on theists to justify why there is a first cause. My question is, how do atheists account for the fact that the universe exists and that life made itself, if there is no intended design and everything is therefore a random series of events?

You failed to answer any of my questions. Read what I wrote in the lines above

No one can prove or disprove God empirically, therefore debunking the claim that science will ever prove or disprove God (Which a lot of atheists tend to make)

If this closed system Universe was created (which science has shown there is a point of origin and we are expanding, not infinitely big), then the cause would have to not itself be affected by the same parameters we are in order to set said parameters (laws of physics)

>nothing

no one but young-earther tier imbeciles bandy that about

its "we dont know yet"
asshole

and this is what religion believes.
;[];[;=---=;;;'];][;];';';][;][;;',/'/'/,./,.,./,=/.=,.,'.,[.,[.,'.,'./,'./,'.,=.,.-,=.,.,['.],'.,/.],/.],.[,].,=.=.,.]
,'.,
.',
.',
.
,.',.,.=,.\\,.\,\.,.,-.,.,-.,;.,;.,'.,/.
in a nutshell

not falling for this bait again

>Religious arguments on Sup Forums
Honestly nothing pisses me off more
These threads always have the same arguments and no one is ever convinced
Why not focus on what we do agree on?

Religious debate threads are a suboptimal use of autism
/diy/ for example, is a fun and productive outlet for autism

>universe appeared out of nothing
No, the Big Bang theory already presumes everything exists, it just exists in a very, very small point in space, a singularity of all matter and energy, and it exploded and spread outwards, and still does.

>life appeared from nothing
No, evolution already presumes matter existing, so building blocks can bind and create sophistication, since you need some level of sophistication to begin evolution.

>the rest of the thread
Same thing, stop creating armies of strawmen to crusade against and read a book.

>debunking the claim that science will ever prove or disprove God
more evidence he doesn't exist though

>very small point in space,

correction:
spacetime entirely WAS that small seed

my digits confirm I speak the truth

let this thread die, and go to /diy/ instead

If we are going to get technical, spacetime doesn't exist in such a condition. Spacetime is created after the expansion, at least the way we define it.

You are repeating what I've said - we can't empirically prove God

So where does the Universe come from and how did life originate?

The earth is not flat, and that can be proved empirically. No thanks, I just want an answer. So far I haven't got any other than "I don't know"

So where did the universe come from then?

We have both existed for longer than 45 seconds, so therefore the universe has existed longer than 45 seconds.

Jews hate Christians by the way

Could you give me a summary user?

Because timelines of millions of years allow for a build up of random chance events. Life itself is not an issue, you should be arguing about reality itself because it at least is defensible (assuming you think YOU DON'T KNOW SO THEREFOR GOD is a defense).

If God exists, he's fucked off and his existence doesn't matter. It's a masturbatory exercise you're doing to feel good. Stop pleasuring yourself and go do something valuable.

go to hell

>how the universe could have come into existence without an original, uncaused caused (that is not itself confined to the parameters of physics as we are)

What is a quantum fluctuation?

The Russians hacked God into existence

Jews invented Christ.

And no, we might not have, because God could have structured reality in a way to convince us the world is older than 45 seconds. If he's God and made the universe, can he not have made it at any instant?

so the principle of causality has exceptions?
you're not helping atheists very much are you?

>Then something somehow turned itself into such a complex design as life itself?

Christians unironically believe that God just came into existence from nothing.

Nobody knows what is actually the truth. We fight and kill each other over our theories on how the world was created and our place in it, because we think our theory is superior to others. The truth is, nobody knows for sure, which is why I've taken an agnostic standpoint.

no
it was part of it

> Spacetime is created after the expansion,

it was always part of it
ffs
"matter and energy existing BEFORE spacetime"

be serious

If you don't even know what "ironic" means, why would I listen to your retarded opinion?

his argument is based off the fact we have a reality, with energy (and mass). The only way to prove him wrong is to go full-Owlman and james woods all of reality.

our closest chimp relative has too many chromosomes for us to have evolved into humans with fused chromosomes in such a short time

What does causality have to do with atheism?
Its like the free will argument. What relation in any way does it have to atheism?
Causality can exist or not exist in a creationist or non-creationist universes, they don't relate.

The "laws of physics" or whatever acted differently, you can't say time existed if theoretically time stops with so much gravity, or all exists simultaneously. The definitions don't work.

> The only way to prove him wrong

is to go "non-falsifiable" (not testable)
i.e. meaningless vanity

why can no one answer my question without just vomiting their shit opinions?

Nice strawman. I am saying that the closed system of our universe must have come from somewhere, unless you agree that 0 + 0 = 1. The idea of an uncaused cause is plausible. How do you account for the existence of the universe? Why don't you engage in the debate rather than just misrepresenting what I'm saying?

..and you know this because you've seen it happen how many times?

>Could you give me a summary user?
No, you fucking faggot

spacetime is what happens when energy is dispersed over a vaccuum. you can't have space or time prior to the bang (whatever youre gonna call it)

what bait? I am curious. No one has given me an answer other than "I don't know" or attacked theistic beliefs instead

>The "laws of physics" or whatever acted differently,

they acted as they act were those same conditions satisfied again

>you can't say time existed

had to, or nothing could "happen"

> time stops with so much gravity

wrong
that takes "infinite" density, which is not possible after moment "zero", from which it started dropping

very high density, but not infinite

that is to even entertain the notion it was necessarily infinite at any point in its progression

Why are you people so concerned about what others do or do not believe? Honestly. Just go jerk off or something. Relax a bit. Most atheists honestly don't give a shit. That is what not believing means. Religion is not a part of their life, and not something their concerned about. With the exception of a vocal minority of atheists (like all groups), Christians are the ones flipping their shit about religion.

probably wasting my time here, but it can be unrefutably shown that whatever caused the universe to exist must necessarily have the following traits:
uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, extremely powerful, personal

again, each and every one of these points is a necessary trait of whatever caused the universe.

i will expand on this if asked to do so. just you heathens know that logic and reason are NOT on your side.

>Personal

We have. Multiple times. You just keep arguing with the dumb people because the rest all are aware of how non-falsifiable claims work and have had this stonerific argument with our friends for 20 years.

You both say WE have to be bound by physical rules but YOU don't. Your arguments get to be "MAGIC" and you don't have to back anything up.

This is how you know you've been Jewed. You cannot defend yourself, but you believe something incredibly convoluted on 'faith' despite it's flaws according to all scientific models.

Fear not, this is one of the oldest of the Jew tricks. You'll grow out of it eventually.

You are definitely wasting your time. But so am I.

>spacetime is what happens when energy is dispersed over a vaccuum.

thats a theory-model, and not even complete description

>spacetime is what happens when energy is dispersed over a vaccuum.

non-falsifiable
we cannot test for that yet
i.e. cannot be proven true or false (yet)
and besides, that not what i said
rather, that it's origin cannot post-date the "detonation" by any time, whatsoever
the same bait we have dozens of times a week honey buns

*as they WOULD act

>my time here, but it can be unrefutably shown that whatever caused the universe to exist must necessarily have the followi

no
it cannot be shown, none of that
as i have said several times here, that is all non-falsifiable
go learn what that means

This

To prove Swede user's point:

Golgoth the 3 headed leprechaun who has 93 dicks, who created the universe and and likes mayonaise - is not bound by the same physical paremeters we are , and we can only understand what we experience. Therefore, we can by definition not understand the nature of Golgoth's existence, but only observe the set conditions of which we are confined as a result of his architecture. You can never empirically prove (or disprove) Golgoth because of this - nor the origins of the universe - therefore debunking the claim atheists make

Discussing something you can't falsify is a pointless discussion

it logically follows from the other traits.

the only immaterial "things" that exist are numbers, abstract concepts and -of course- minds. since numbers and abstract concepts possess no agency and can't cause anything, this only leaves us with a mind.

since this mind is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, uncaused and extremely powerful, we can safely call it God.

anything else you need to be spoonfed?

>I am saying that the closed system of our universe must have come from somewhere,

again, non falsifiable
we have no means to even theoretically model for cause without effect or vice versa

to say nothing of the fact that if spacetime started there, the very concept and direction of cause->effect are ENTIRELY meaningless "outside" of it

go look up what a deductive argument is.

oh and pro-tip: induction is a lie.

If you think that empirical evidence is the only form of proof, then yes

I agree with the life one - there is a fair answer (although very small chance happening I admit). God's existence does matter because if you believe the unvierse is designed or not is literally the foundation of all ethical view points

kek

No, Jews hate Christ, it is explicit in the Talmud

Even if it is 45 seconds, to you, me and every other human it has been longer than 45 seconds, and this has no bearing on ethics in anyway so its not a very central issue to argue

No, its that we can't understand the Nature of His being because we can only understand what we experience

relax

Well, when you finally prove energy dispersion causes spacetime, hmu. Your claim is also non-falsifiable that spacetime existed prior. Quid pro quo faggot.

Did you know that mitochondria & chloroplasts evolved from ancient symbiotic bacteria which established symbiotic relationships with other cells?

it's true! here's the evidence:


>New mitochondria and plastids are formed only through binary fission, the form of cell division used by bacteria and archaea.[38]
>If a cell's mitochondria or chloroplasts are removed, the cell does not have the means to create new ones.[39] For example, in some algae, such as Euglena, the plastids can be destroyed by certain chemicals or prolonged absence of light without otherwise affecting the cell. In such a case, the plastids will not regenerate.
>Transport proteins called porins are found in the outer membranes of mitochondria and chloroplasts and are also found in bacterial cell membranes.[40][41][42]
>A membrane lipid cardiolipin is exclusively found in the inner mitochondrial membrane and bacterial cell membranes.[43]
>Some mitochondria and some plastids contain single circular DNA molecules that are similar to the DNA of bacteria both in size and structure.[44]
>Genome comparisons suggest a close relationship between mitochondria and Rickettsial bacteria.[45]
>Genome comparisons suggest a close relationship between plastids and cyanobacteria.[46]
>Many genes in the genomes of mitochondria and chloroplasts have been lost or transferred to the nucleus of the host cell. Consequently, the chromosomes of many eukaryotes contain genes that originated from the genomes of mitochondria and plastids.[44]
>Mitochondrial and plastid ribosomes are more similar to those of bacteria (70S) than those of eukaryotes.[47]
>Proteins created by mitochondria and chloroplasts use N-formylmethionine as the initiating amino acid, as do proteins created by bacteria but not proteins created by eukaryotic nuclear genes or archaea.[48][49]

>Sauce: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis#Evidence

i laughed at that one too
proved it was bait

atheists are so dumb they think humans were born out of monkeys randomly

Trolling for soup?

you cannot deduce what cannot be proven true nor false by ANY means due to complete non-testability

any notions are either religious, or pure entertainment/fantasy

imbecile

see Why can't some people see the light? it's right in front of you.

the topic is completely philosphical. No answer is the truth. It is faith for a reason , something cant be made out of nothing i do agree on this but there is no need or a reason for a grand design as well. Both atheism or theism are purely subjective in their core you cant really find the ultimate answer ever

Just curious, and I am relaxed

We can only understand what we experience - so we cannot rationalise the Nature of what is beyond what we can experience - only observe what we can and induct the Nature of the uncaused cause (as you listed)

No it's not. Even if God made it, why would he ever care what we did inside it?

>God caring about ethics
>God being related to ethics at all

Shit nigga. Why would he care once he proved he could do it in the first place? If we're talking ontological statistics we're almost certainly just a petri dish left out too long.

>we can't understand the Nature of His being because we can only understand what we experience
Why this caveat only applies to your god and not everything else we cannot understand, in your opinion?

either you're trolling or you don't understand what a deductive argument is.

let me show you:

>everything that begins to exist has a cause
>the universe began to exist
>the universe has a cause

>Well, when you finally prove energy dispersion causes spacetime, hmu.

i never contested that either way
>your claim is also non-falsifiable that spacetime existed prior

never said that
again, from post you linked:
"rather, that it's origin cannot post-date the "detonation" by any time, whatsoever"

ive only dealt factually with time/point zero and later, nothing before or outside of, except to show that such is meaningless discussion

are you reading entire posts?

You can't prove it's not been longer than 45 seconds. You can't prove that god didn't instill this world at the point the post you're replying to already existed. I didn't even write it, God wrote it, and now you're arguing with me because I was destined to fill the role laid down for me.

This is why you and the faggots who can't imagine dinosaurs are the exact same.

>everything that begins to exist has a cause
Proofs?
>the universe began to exist
Proofs?
>the universe has a cause
Proofs?

not so sound like a smartass, but I didn't induct it, I deduced it.

No, I'm not. I'm reading just enough to shittalk the retarded aussie. Good catch.

But your gif shows a creator user... This is actually what theists believe.

ive refuted all that

read the thread

>everything that begins to exist has a cause

non falsifiable because we cannot test for "otherwise"
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

and again, read last line here:
your favorite words are meaningless, at best, in the realm in which you are trying to use them here

Why is his name Golgoth? Something beyond the parameters of the universe is not physical so no, he does not have heads, let alone 3, or dicks. He could not consume mayonnaise, so why would he like it? Just like the flying spaghetti monster, you can actually argue against it.

...

perfect post
but he will not get this

just "well duh proof is that you cant disprove it"

and that is somehow "proof"

>le ebin skepticism

literally fedoras first philosopheh

note that skepiticism gets you nowhere, since you can't even rely on the soundness of skepticism.
for instance, i wouldn't even have to adress your demands for proofs, since nobody asked the question. or do you have proof you asked?

>If you think that empirical evidence is the only form of proof, then yes

oh wow
just.... wow