ITT:

ITT:

>What religion did you grow up as?
>What religion are you now?
>If religious even a bit, do you believe your religion to be true, or are you an agnostic theist (you practice it but you accept it cannot be known for sure if it is true)?

>Atheist
>Christian
>Yes I believe Christianity is true

>Christian
>Agnostic

>catholic
>athiest
i have no idea if there is a god out there, if there was a god i feel like he would be more complex than just some bearded dude in the sky. Id like to think that he wouldn't really give a shit what us humans do on earth.

>religious freedom
>christianity
>i believe it to be true and false at the same time

>None
>None

>Mexican Roman apostolic catholic.
>mason
>true.

Orthodox atheist
Satanism

1) Whatever begins to exist had a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) Thus the universe had a cause

...

P1 is unjustified

Grew up Muslim
Still Muslim, did a lot of research into other religions, didn't like what I saw.
Yes the religion is true, not sure about all the dipshits who follow it though. There are good ones, but people are confused about faith in general.

I think the "bearded dude in the sky" comes from artwork, not any sort of dogma. Michelangelo was asked to paint the Sistine Chapel's ceiling, and he painted a bearded dude, so everyone thinks thats what the church teaches.

The law of causality is fundamental to our understanding of just about everything. Even the great atheist philosopher David Hulme stated "I have never proposed so absurd a notion as something coming into existence without a cause."

>Catholic
>Catholic
>A lot of people seem to think the Catholic Church still has the power it used to

>Wrong

Does not change the fact that P1 is unjustified, especially when applied to the universe.

well I just gave a very good justification! If you want to doubt P1 then you have to doubt absolutely everything. You simply cannot function like that.

Grew up Muslim
Now Atheist
I don't believe in anything religious. They're basically just old books written by humans.

>What religion did you grow up as?
Jehovahs witness
>What religion are you now?
Not religious found out you can be spiritual without holding to religious convictions
I'm spiritual, I feel like we are all connected in some sense, but I think religion is a concept made up by man

>grew up Catholic
>became Muslim about a year ago
Yes I believe it's true

You didn't really give a justification at all, and you should doubt everything. We doubt constantly.

grew up Catholic
was atheist for a long time
now Catholic again

>What religion did you grow up as?
Catholic Christian
>What religion are you now?
Atheist

Still I'd talk and investigate more about religion. We see it as part of history and it's pretty cool

>Doesn't know that Catholicism is Masonic (See Jewish) Christianity

never believing anything is simply not a practical way to live your life.

>Christian
>Atheist
Religion doesn't make any sense. If I grew up in India, I'd most likely be a Hindu. If there really was a correct religion, that religion would had started in more places that one. Makes no sense to let it spawn in just one area.

>Sikh
>Sikh (practically this time)
>believe it is true, because it teaches that the purpose of your life is to meet/experience and eventually merge into god through meditation, can be done while alive, have met 3 people who have met god in the past 2 years
also started putting meditation into practice for the last year and have experienced a lot

>What religion did you grow up as?
Forced Chrstianity
>What religion are you now?
No religion, i'm a therianthrope
>If religious even a bit, do you believe your religion to be true, or are you an agnostic theist (you practice it but you accept it cannot be known for sure if it is true)?
All religion exists to scare people into line and to collect tax free moneys

Guys, wake up. Take the red pill and face reality that religions are man made. There's no supreme being that created all of this. The idea of having a creator is just as good as having the same question of who created the creator. It's very limiting. Educate yourself.

I never said we can't believe things. I said we should doubt them. You should always be open to the possibility that you are wrong.

>religions are man made
so is science. Doesn't mean it's not true.

None
None

>Catholic
>Satanism
>religion is a meme

have you ever had jihadist urges? Do you sympathize with jihadists in your religion?

>Atheist/culturally swedish christian
>Atheist
>Ive never seen anything to make me believe in any religion or anything supernatural. i only believe in what is proven to me.

>Christian
>Pagan (Druid)
I think all or most religions have bits and pieces of the truth embedded in them but humanity hasn't necessarily gotten it right. Druidry aligned most closely with beliefs I developed independently after careful observation of the world around me and a few experiences I had throughout my life that I would describe as supernatural or paranormal. I'm not certain I have it 100% right, but I believe I have most of the important parts.

Science is not man made, the laws and existence of science has been around forever, infinity. Men just proved science exist.

see proof of God here:

science can be tested and recreated in the real, physical world. Hard data can be gathered from it, leading to more scientific discoveries.

Religion is fabricated. You're adhering to the delusional writings of fucking peasants from over 2000 years ago. Peasants that had no idea what was going on.
Get a grip.

Even if that argument were sound, the conclusion isn't that God exists.

The problem is that science works regardless if we exist or not. science and math have constants that are true regardless if we "believe" it or know of it yet.

Scientist here. Yes science is man made you retard, just like tennis is man made. Science is something we do.

Randomness

>Scientist
>Science is something we do
Kek

So then what is the cause? It comes before the universe so must be immaterial. To avoid an infinite regress it must be timeless and uncaused itself. The only immaterial things are abstract concepts like "the number 4" or minds. But abstract concepts don't cause anything.

So what we have is a timeless, causeless, immensely powerful disembodied mind which created the universe.

I think it's safe to call that God.

Sure. They're still man made though.

...

If you want what's safe, there you go.. praise your god. You're a ding dong.

What do you mean by this?

Our universe coudld've simply been created by an infinte amount of paralel universes coliding and interacting. existance might be inevitable and a constant. it doesn't need to have had a "start" per say. counting the 4th dimension we could see everything happening at once and we're just at a point in time right now

>catholic
>still
>you formulated this part weirdly, yes I believe it's true but at the same time and yes I know it cannot be known, they aren't mutually exclusive, knowledge isn't faith

>So then what is the cause?
We wouldn't know.
> It comes before the universe so must be immaterial.
What does that even mean with regard to something existing?
>To avoid an infinite regress it must be timeless
Again, what does that mean?
>The only immaterial things are abstract concepts like "the number 4" or minds.
Minds are immaterial? Do you have an example of a mind that is independent of material (e.g. brain)?

You suggested:
>An infinite amount of parallel universes being invoked to explain ours
Occam's razor says:
>no

>Christian
>Atheist

>none
so atheist?

Correct.

>what does that even mean
It means it is immaterial. It is not of matter. Because it comes before all matter.
>Again what does that mean
Dude just google it. Timeless means not bound by time. This is different from past-eternal, though anything which is timeless is also past-eternal.
>Minds are immaterial
yes

And using Occam's razor believing that an almighty omnipotent being creating a universe is more likely?

>It means it is immaterial. It is not of matter.
Then what is it of?
>Timeless means not bound by time.
Not bound by time, or independent of time? Something that is not bound by time would still experience time, which would not be timeless.
>yes
Prove it.

I suggest:
>a single, simple, easily proven deity
Occam's razor says:
>yes

I know that there is a lack of logic in this statement, but I believe that as human evolution, or any living being, the universe was "created" by just randomness, a succession of coincidences that resulted in the universe as we know it.

What do you mean what is it of? It's immaterial. Like the laws of logic are immaterial.
>He asks what timeless means again
This is basic stuff. Go do some reading. Even just a dictionary would suffice, then come back.

>prove it
I have done. Next.

We know that a universe can exist since we're in one so believing that another universe exists isn't nearly as much of a leap as believing in a omnipotent being existing because we've no proof or evidence for such a being and we don't know if such a being could exist

don't have all your answers but will try

> It comes before the universe so must be immaterial
it is a formless form that cannot be observed with the physical faculties, something subtle.
Our mind for instance (not the brain organ), the consciousness that we create thoughts with, that has no form but yet it still exists.
>To avoid an infinite regress it must be timeless
Something that has existed in the past, that exists in the present, and will exist in the future. It IS time itself.
>The only immaterial things are abstract concepts like "the number 4" or minds
kinda going back to how most people commonly believe the brain organ is the same thing as the subtle mind or consciousness. When we sleep at night and have dreams we see, hear, experience whatever we like, but its not physical. Yet it still exists because you were able to experience it.

Reminder that most common religions were made up by dirty arab and indian peasants

>Like the laws of logic are immaterial.
The laws of logic are not things which take actions. You are proposing something wholly different.
>This is basic stuff.
Not really, no. I'm asking you specifically so that you can't accuse me of making a strawman.
>I have done.
Where? With me all you've done is asserted it.

simple? easily proven deity? wtf are you on about.

>Protetstant
>None

Explain why something has to be caused besides "because". That's the bigger issue with causality: why? Why must it follow? Can we define cause in the same way we define kinetic force? If we can't or wouldn't ever be able to discern that, or if these are the wrong questions to ask, then what does that say about our understanding of cause? What is the act of B following A, and why must it follow A in this particular instance?

There's just something very wrong about saying that things must have a cause without a means of determining why a cause must follow, or what cause even is beyond being what precedes effect.

Science is a method. Not something in nature, and not a body of thought. See
But, I have no proof of other universes either. I'm not even sure if other universes besides the one I appear to be in can exist.

read the thread before commenting

The concept of being material or immaterial is Basic with a capital B. If you cannot get your head around this then you do just need to read more. There's not a heck of a lot I can do.
>where did you prove it?
Here:

>Our mind for instance (not the brain organ)
The mind is the result of the brain organ though. It's fundamentally electro-chemical signals acting in a meat computer.
>It IS time itself.
Physicists have been saying that time only exists while the universe exists. This would make the universe timeless by your definition.
>but its not physical.
At a fundamental level, yes it is.

>Mild generic Christian
>Agnostic

I just don't really care. Every major relegion essentially boils down to "be nice to people" so that's what I do. All the cerimonies and rules and procedures and just there to give people something to do.

>If you cannot get your head around this then you do just need to read more.
Not an argument.
>Here:
Not even an attempt at addressing the question.

Are you done?

I think that if you can't establish the most basic of things to that user, then you yourself don't know anything about the most basic of things. There's at least one heck of a thing you could do, and that is explain the most basic of things, something so basic it that its quality of basic-ness starts with a capital "b".

Just my two cents.

>The mind is the result of the brain organ though. It's fundamentally electro-chemical signals acting in a meat computer
How do you know it is not the other way around? What if the mind is the driver to the body and brain the same way a vehicle has an operator that is distinct from the object

>not an argument
How can I argue with someone who literally asked me to help him with the definition of "timeless"
I can't. You need to go away and read first. Don't stumble into a thread whining for people to define things for you.

Alhamdulilah brother

It is not my job to spoonfeed the stupidest of us.

grew up hard atheist
now ignostic
dont give a shit if there is or isnt a god, and dont want to know

>How can I argue with someone who literally asked me to help him with the definition of "timeless"
Simple: by defining it.
>Don't stumble into a thread whining for people to define things for you.
A fundamental part of discussion is clarifying terms.

>>What religion did you grow up as?
Atheist, both parents are athetist
>>What religion are you now?
Fundamental Baptist
>>If religious even a bit, do you believe your religion to be true, or are you an agnostic theist (you practice it but you accept it cannot be known for sure if it is true)?
See above, self explanatory

>How do you know it is not the other way around?
Because physical changes to the brain change the mind.

So what? Dropping soda on my computer changes the way it works too, doesn't mean the computer will ever be useful without programmers and end user input

>Dropping soda on my computer changes the way it works too
Dropping soda on your computer doesn't change the programmer.

But it does make you look a little stupid to the smarter of us. If it's not hard, then not only should it cost you little to nothing to demonstrate the concepts, but it should be so easy that you could have done it moments ago and there would be no reason to belabor you about not doing something so simple.

Think about the days before Euclidean geometry.

Though, this might be false equivalence, because the computer would need to be doing something for another physical system in the same way the brain does things for the body, at the very least. If your computer isn't running a program on a network for a hydroelectric dam to help regulate the entire facility, or even a small section of it, I don't think it's fair to compare it to a functional human brain pumping the heart or compressing the diaphragm. If you dropped soda on a neural network whose job was to move different colored shapes, maybe that would be a better analogy, because you could just render the network incapable of doing its job or even doing anything period in the same way you could kill someone by pouring soda on their brain- in other words, physically changing the "computer".

>Baptist
>Strong agnostic (theist)

I firmly believe that the existence of God is fundamentally unknowable.

As a non-disprovable theory, the existence of God can not be debated scientifically, only philosophically. As such, it's a matter of opinion.

And, in my opinion, it makes more sense that an intelligent force deliberately set everything in motion than for the existence of life to be one big coincidence.

People who claim that God undoubtedly exists (or does not) are either dishonest or foolish.

>People who claim that God undoubtedly exists (or does not) are either dishonest or foolish.
calling those whose opinions you disagree with dishonest or foolish makes you look mentally defective

Well, at least that is the case if it is treated as a non-disprovable theory. However, in that case, it becomes something that cant even be debated philosophically, because a philosophical attempt to debate it would require reasoning, which would require logic in spite of the rhetoric that will inevitably ensue.

Opinions, they aren't quite substantial. This and the above is why a philosophical debate on the existence of God could not only just be a matter of opinion alone.

>agnostic atheist
>Norse Pagan
>agnostic theist

Well, yes. A grand intelligence being in charge requires less assumptions than the multiverse theory that you have put forward. the real best fit for Occam's razor with the knowledge we have now, is simulation theory(which itself can lead to the simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation....etc. which is a multiverse theory of its own. But not the one you put forward. And it has really nothing to do with my point, I just wanted to refute your ill guided attempt at a rebuttal.) Thus let me summarize everything. Multiverse theory < God < simulation theory, in accordance to Occam's razor. Least assumptions by far.

Major religions were most likely devised to save people from themselves I think. Look at believers, look at non believers. I think there are studies done on this as well, but in my anecdotal experience those who truly believe (not half assed but really in their heart believe) are happier people. They live simpler, less degenerate, more connected, less stressful lives.

Ignorance is bliss.