There are ONLY 4 possibilities

Where did everything come from?
(1) from nothing
(2) always existed
(3) it's all an illusion
(4) supernatural Creator

The first 3 choices are unscientific and irrational. Nothing stays nothing according to the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. Neither could the universe be eternally old because of the Law of Entropy that pulls everything to equilibrium. If the universe was eternal it would have burned out and stopped moving long ago ("heat death") - but it hasn't. Nor can the equally unscientific "illusion" theory be taken seriously - hit the person who espouses it over the head with a 2x4 and see how he reacts.

So we have eliminated 3 of the possibilities as being contrary to natural scientific laws - leaving only 1 solution: the world was created by a supernatural Creator.

Other urls found in this thread:

jstor.org/stable/184270
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

How are the first three unscientific and the fourth not? None of them truly follow the scientific method.

>what is process of elimination?

jstor.org/stable/184270

>(1) from nothing
>(2) always existed
>(3) it's all an illusion
>(4) supernatural Creator
>this flag
>knows nothing about main questions of Catholicism
fuck off LARPer

Or option 5)
Everything evolved/settled over an immeasurable amount of time resulting in our current universe.

Logical truth. Most simple. Why not plausable?

Option 4 is merely a step removed from 1, 2 or even 3 which means 4 isn't an option from a logical stand point.

If anything the movie arrival put OP's type of thinking in perspective because OP lives in this dimension OP experiences time an existence of a to b or a caused b which caused c.

If another higher dimension that existed outside of time bled into this lower dimension how would it be experienced? If consciousness, intelligence and life is the immaterial of higher dimensions would it be perceived as we perceive it? Is that why it almost appears to be illusionary? What if we are simply complete thoughts that have popped into existence from another dimension.

Trying to extrapolate from your own time linear enslavement as to what existence is seems to be very glib desu.

>evolved/settled
the technical term is "magic"

this faggot hasnt even played illusionary universe simulator 2017 wow get off my board

>merely a step removed
Options 1 and 2 assume natural laws and fail. Options 3 and 4 assume natural laws were suspended - but #3 denies present existence while #4 doesn't.

Where did the super natural creator come from?

>Where did the super natural creator come from?
That requires a supernatural answer.

really makes you go hmmmmmm

Supernatural creator doesn't resolve anything, it just pushes back the question of origins one step further.

If you say that a god created the universe, then you have to ask where that god came from, and you're left with the same "always existed" or "from nothing" possibilities. And since one of those two has to be correct, the initial premise that drove you to seek god (that it doesn't make sense for the universe to be eternal or spontaneously created) is clearly incorrect and you're back where you started.

>the same "always existed" or "from nothing" possibilities ...you're back where you started.
The only one correct statement on origins is:
>"In the beginning God created..."
anything else has to be discarded as unscientific. Science can't study the supernatural. Further inquiry delves into religious questions and the need for the supernatural creator to reveal himself in supernatural ways.

4 is the only correct answer

>law of conservation of matter and energy

If only earth had a gigantic, massive, unfathomably powerful source of constant unending energy... By golly that sounds like science fiction! No way something that powerful could exist, let alone at all times 24/7 .

Here you claim that the idea of a supernatural creator is not contrary to natural scientific laws,
and here you say that "Science can't study the supernatural".

How do you know that the idea of a supernatural creator is not contrary to science if you can study it scientifically?
Also, how do you know that there aren't more than 4 possibilities?

>the idea of a supernatural creator is not contrary to natural scientific laws
Rather, natural laws contradict the existence of the universe so we must conclude that it was supernaturally created. Once we venture into the supernatural science has nothing further it can do to offer explanations.

>more than 4 possibilities?
Those are the possibilities, although attempts have been made to frame new ones out of those 4. For example, the "big bang" posits an eternal ball-bearing that suddenly exploded into the universe - this is #1 and #2 together. It fails for the same reasons. Or, theories of multi-universes, or negative matter - which are equal to admitting natural laws are contrary to the universe's existence and a proposal of supernatural science fiction (i.e., religious) ideas instead.

t. nigger that knows nothing about physics
Look up quantum tunneling. There are many ways that the universe could have formed an/or recycle itself.

I was a total fedora 4 years ago, got /fit/ abandoned vidya, lurked the christian general threads, started reading a KJV bible, realized I believe, depression disappears, start going to church now, actually have friends now, but most importantly salvation.

...

>MUH PHYSICS
>brings up pseudo science quantum theory

What about a pre-existing condition which we simply can not grasp because the degrees of organization are beyond our current horizon of understanding. Let's suppose there is, under certain circumstances (e.g. prior to the start of what we call time and space), a state of matter and energy which logically has to construct the patterns whose formation our theories already try to describe.

I do firmly believe in God and higher purpose but I do not agree with the given extremes.

And from where did come the supernatural creator?
From nothing?
So its more logical to think that a super creator that created the world come from...
nothing.
I dont mind religious people as long as they dont try to make sense.

Praise your kike overlord god, good goy

If you want to be religious belive in a pagan non kike god

>(1) from nothing
>(2) always existed
>(3) it's all an illusion
>(4) supernatural Creator
2 and 4 are the same thing and 3 is not an answer to the question.

Relative physics as we know it is turned on it's head at the quantum scale - would it be so hard to believe that something similar happens at the "universal" scale? Also, the answer is most likely (2). The fact that the spiritual goalpost has been moved back over and over and that God is now ONLY needed to explain the precedent of the big bang does not bode well for the "supernatural creator" theory. Even if your assessment is correct, then you are basically saying that god lit a fire and promptly abandoned the campsite. If he does exist, then he doesn't give a fuck about you.

>any science above high school physics is pseudo science

Who created the supernatural creator?

>quantum theory is science now
Ever seen the show Rick and Morty? Something tells me you're just smart enough to truly appreciate it.

Good point
watch > watchmaker > watchmaker's parents?

>Let's suppose there is ...
Speculation about the supernatural is endless - any imaginary thing is possible. The ultimate truth of what or who supernaturally created the universe won't be understood unless that Being decides to make itself known to man, and we won't be assured that 'He' has spoken except by supernatural proofs.

Well, that's why I tried to keep it as abstract as possible.

(5) its a giant time loop, doesn't need a creator
(6) its a simulation created from beings in another dimension/universe
(7) its just one of the infinite quantum universes
(8) not a simulation created by some force/unknown being

what it isnt. based on any man made religion, esp. islam, christianity, hinduism etc.

Most likely a combination of (7) and (5), if I had to guess.

>Nothing stays nothing according to the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. Neither could the universe be eternally old because of the Law of Entropy that pulls everything to equilibrium. If the universe was eternal it would have burned out and stopped moving long ago ("heat death") - but it hasn't.

Science says the laws of the universe as we know them only began to exist slightly after the moment of the big bang.... before that point, the laws of the universe could have been anything. We don't know what the situation was at all.
2nd law doesn't apply. Conservation of matter doesn't apply.

>(5) supernatural
>(6) supernatural
>(7) supernatural
>(8) supernatural
The supernatural is the only correct answer. Which supernatural theory is correct cannot be a scientific inquiry because science only concerns itself with what can be measured and tested naturally. The investigation must be a religious and spiritual one.

Something tells me that you're too retarded to read the OP.

Not necessarily.... It may be that the most parsimonious theory predicts an initial state of the universe.

Even though we couldn't absolutely discount other possible theories, we have principles of parsimony that could lead us to scientifically prefer one initial state to the other.

>before that point, the laws of the universe could have been anything
In other words, "supernatural" once again. Honesty requires that experts in natural sciences back away from religious/spiritual speculation that is beyond their purview.

(5)leprechauns did it

This is interesting. So scientific laws of the universe are laws except when they are not?

Isn't this a Deus ex Machina? Do we have other examples of the scientific laws of the universe (laws as fundamental as the 2nd law of thermodynamics) failing?

>The investigation must be a religious and spiritual one.
Why? Why should we discard the scientific method in the investigation of the greatest question ever asked?

>parsimonious theory
Means the theory that requires the fewest assumptions in order to justify it. The assumption necessary to make #1 or #2 correct is that there exists unknown natural laws that contradict the known natural laws such that known natural laws were violated without resorting to anything supernatural and that for some unknown reason such latent exceptions exist undetected despite all evidence that would indicate that the known natural laws prevail. These convoluted assumptions are not parsimonious. The simple explanation that only assumes a Supreme Being is the parsimonious one.

#3 and 4 have nothing to do with the subject. There are only 2 possibilities to discuss.

Also, what does this have to do with politics?

There's a lot more than 4 possible explanations

The most complicated and improbable of them all is that there is a supernatural creator

What a fag.
The real answer is so complex, we don't even developed the scientific knowledge basis to start attacking it. 2017 answers to the question are dull, and can't reach a higher objective truth. Wait some more 3000 years, if the blacks don't end our historical success strike.

>the scientific method
Science defines itself as the study of the natural world so it won't do. But underlying the scientific method is reason, and nothing suggests that reason - imparted by the Creator - should be abandoned in a religious/spiritual inquiry.

its hard to think of something coming from nothing

I dont think we wilt have the answers in our lifetime

Always existed, in the sense that the Creative Consciousness exists outside time and is simultaneously in the past, present, and future. Reality is like a movie that's already been made, and you're passing an eternity of time by watching it.

>Nor can the equally unscientific "illusion" theory be taken seriously - hit the person who espouses it over the head with a 2x4 and see how he reacts.
>scientific approach
>scientific

Pic related.

...

(5) doesn't matter

It's metapolitics, and all four are equally viable.

That's a fair argument, however I'd say that the sciences are and have been branching out beyond the study of the natural world for the better part of the last century. I would also like to note that I am not a dipshit athiest who will belittle you for your belief in a creator...faith is the backbone of culture, and these conversations are some of the most interesting.

>supernatural speculation
All supernatural speculation is interesting, but how would we know the 'Consciousness' when it revealed itself to us? It would have to demonstrate knowledge of the future. That's called prophesy.

Hmmm. If the universe is older than any finite time, we would be infinitesimally close to the heat death of the universe which we aren't. That is the natural (natural meaning in accordance with the laws of physics as we know them) consequence of your theory. Your explanation could very well be true but it is "supernatural".

>strike 'prophesy' (verb)
prophecy (noun)

ROFL what an assraping faggot (((Y0U))) are, 0p

Scientism is the worst kind of beLIEve in our sad society. And Y0U feel for it. "science" is just a bunch of theories that beta faggots gobble down thier goiysh throats.

Muh devs vult flagman, Y0U are as gullible as a beta male who supports the crimes of IsRaHELL. Crusades were just internal royal --- AKA Crypto --- issues solved by useless wars.

Keep gargling cum, as it seems Y0U like it 0p

False dichotomy. There are other possibilities, such as an organic computer simulation which is not the same thing as an illusion, there is the multi universe theory. The OP is littered with fallacies and clearly has trouble thinking without making linear and logical assumptions. Logic is not the end-all-be-all of epistemology. Logic is man made. It is not perfect. Else, if you think it's a law and superior to all forms of knowledge, tell me... how does one validate the laws of logic without using logic to validate itself?

Your assumption that the universe behaves "logical", or even rational... is, in and of itself, irrational. And that's okay. But it leaves a lot to be desired.

Option 4 could cause options 1, 2, or 3.
This is what sciencefags like to ignore.
That being said, a being that could create reality must be of itself above reality however in this higher plane so to speak, it would not necessarily be that impressive.
It could very well be that we are the spaghetti code of a semi retarded (by their standards) interplanar being.
What's interesting is, the globalists have tapped into communication with the interplanar beings. Or at the very least they think they have, and that is where many of our technologies originate.
They may have not been the first to do this however. In fact, they certainly are not.
At any rate, what created this is irrelevant.
If we come from nothing or have always existed, that is the same thing.
If we are an illusion then so is everything else and being illusions the illusory world we interact with is real to us and is therefore real.

>Nothing stays nothing according to the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.


Within our universe, outside of the universe different rules apply. The expansion of space is actually faster than the speed of light.

Likewise, if OP does accept the Law of Consevation of matter and energy, the he can explain how God manages to influence the world without adding energy to it.

More than that.

The past, present, future, and all alternatives of each spatially exist as higher dimensions.

> if OP does accept the Law of Consevation of matter and energy, the he can explain how God manages to influence the world without adding energy to it.

I think yours is a fair argument. What if he changed number 4 to the following?

4. Something Supernatural (meaning beyond our current understanding of physics)

No mention of miracles.

My understanding of the word universe is that it includes everything that can be observed.

>natural laws contradict the existence of the universe

If what you say is true, then this should follow according to your logic:

There are two options: (1) the universe exists or (2) it doesn't. Because you said that the existence of the universe contradicts natural laws, that leaves only option 2. The universe doesn't exist.

However, this contradicts your original argument - If the supernatural universe creator does exist, then he must've created the universe.

This contradiction can be avoided by saying something like, "because the creator is supernatural, the creation and existence of the universe must also be supernatural, therefore not having to abide natural laws". However, if the creation of the universe can contradict natural laws, how did you eliminate those first 3 options in the first place?

So let me get this straight: at one point, there was nothing. Then, spontaneously, everything that constitutes the modern galaxy "evolved" (as you say) from that nothingness. How the fuck does that one work, chief? As OP said, the law of conservation of matter and energy states that no new mass (or energy) is ever created or destroyed. So what you're proposing currently actually violates our current understanding of science pretty heavily

So let's assume for this scenario that an all-powerful entity outside of time and space created the universe and that's what the big bang is. How, exactly, do you come to the conclusion that he "doesn't give a fuck about us"? I'm really confused as to how you think you can divine what an entity that doesn't even inhabit the same realm of existence as us does and does not care about

i have no religion and for the most part i am an atheist, yet i have never seen an argument that has any more credibility than god.

>Where did everything come from?
>(1) from nothing
>(2) always existed
>(3) it's all an illusion
>(4) supernatural Creator
Please be aware not all of these are mutually exclusive. For example, there could be a supernatural creator who always existed in an otherwise formless universe that also always existed. It could also be that a creator arose from nothingness and then created everything else.

>Likewise, if OP does accept the Law of Consevation of matter and energy, the he can explain how God manages to influence the world without adding energy to it.
Gentle reminder that quantum mechanics does NOT obey the law of conservation of energy on the quantum level.

THIS! It is impossible to reconcile the evolutionary model, even for material items with the origin of the universe. Once a universe exists, evolution might be operable. Evolution cannot create a universe, however.

harmonic maths seems to have some answers and the elites definitely know about it!

Tell me faggot, is it more likely that the universe started as a 0-dimensional point of infinite energy, or that a sapient, human-like, magical sky-daddy that, instead of being an AI, is just an omnipotent, yet organic being, created the universe from nothing.

why do you not explain it for the infinite number of morons who visit this site and show how superior you are!
i await your great wisdom faggot.

It's quite funny Atheists in this trend they seem truly afraid because they can't rebuke this

Stay mad fedoras

>my faith in the supernatural is scientific

You are also being a hat wearer. There is absolutely no way to measure anything in this matter. The nature of the question itself may be fundamentally flawed. Feel free to speculate, but don't pretend you're doing anything more.

This

>atheist has to resort to "muh sky daddy" strawman arguments to get his point across
and nobody was surprised

>the world was created by a supernatural Creator.
And who created this supernatural creator?
According to your own logic nothing can always have existed. So clearly your own logic is faulty, or you are missing additional options you can't even begin to comprehend because you are 2 farts removed from a fucking chimpanzee like the rest of us. Have some humility.

No, no, NO. Could people just fuck off with this "nothing" shit? It wasn't that there was nothing, it was that WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IT WAS. It may as well be nothing. Hell, it could be nothing. NOBODY KNOWS. NOBODY CAN KNOW. Before you throw around pseudoscience, first tell me, what is nothing?

If it is an illusion, the illusion was created by someone. 3 and 4 are different ways to say the same thing.

oh come on. This idea of "number of assumptions" is not the right idea.

The idea is "easy to implement." "following from simple principles".

Nothing about a god hypothesis is parsimonious... because the god assumption doesn't imply anything. Nothing follows from it.

>a 0-dimensional point of infinite energy
>a nothing everything
Make up your mind.

>Of it is an illusion, it was created by someone
Based on fucking what?

So, you claim the first three possibilities are irrational. Yet 'irrational' choice number 2, always existed, is EXACTLY how believers define your number 4 supernatural creator. How do you account for this irrational argument?

>4. Something Supernatural (meaning beyond our current understanding of physics)

Why not give options 1-3 the luxury of being "beyond our current understanding of physics"? OP only ruled them out because they go against what we know, so if we just add the word "supernatural" to all of them, they all becone plausable again.

Why does everything have to "come from" something?
/thread

Did 4):

1) Come from nothing
2) Has it always existed
3) Is it an illusion

>(5) It doesn't matter.

I don't give a shit where hydrogen and carbon came from. It doesn't affect my life at all, and any scientific applications that could potentially come from such knowledge is far beyond my imagination.

Until some CERN retards figure it out there's no point believing one random guess is any better than another random guess.

>always existed
By definition nature's laws apply to nature, not to what is supernatural.

Irrational is allowed if God is the answer. Literally retarded level of thought to believe in bronz aged myths. What happened to Zeus? Your god will soon die as well.
Kek however, is a different story

Where did the creator come from?
(1) from nothing
(2) always existed
(3) it's all an illusion
(4) supernatural Creator(2)

Based Jap with the only correct answer. Doesn't matter how we got here. Doesn't change life, doesn't change death. Live for now and live for you.

Yea that would be true if you like BURNING IN HELL.

How are any of this options more unscientific than the others if none of them can be proven or disproven ?

Believe in me or suffer eternity in hell t.YHWH

For something to exist it has to be created. We can use anything as an example to prove this using basic fundamental logic.

>Mountain Dew
The drink did not existed before it was created.
Mountain Dew has not always existed.
Nope, not an illusion either. When you pop open the cap on a Mountain Dew, you're actually drinking it!
Yes, Mountain Dew had a creator.

Then what created God?