One thing atheist seem to be unaware of is the law of causality. Simply put, every effect must have a clause

One thing atheist seem to be unaware of is the law of causality. Simply put, every effect must have a clause.

Now let me ask you atheist, which of the following follows the law of causality?
>nothing got infinitely hot and exploded into the universe for no reason
Or
>the universe was crafted by a being who has the capability to do so

Example 2
>random mutations that came out of nowhere and made monkeys poop out humans
Or
>carefully designed features from an intelligent architect

Why can't atheistic theories follow the laws of the universe but God can?

Fuck off, we race war now.

Sup Forums get out

All atheists are aware of this. I did this in the early years of secondary school.

Spirituality doesn't automatically solve the law of causality anyway.

you must be very lonely. why don't you go get some sleep, then make new friends tomorrow morning who you can whine to.

>Implying that all atheist believe this
It doesn't even matter that these questions have yet be answered. It's idiotic to turn to religion just because science has yet to find an answer.

Hurr durr, science hasn't answered this yet.. hurr durr religion's answer must be true hurr durr

>implying that small mutations don't gradually add up over thousands of years until it transforms a species to being more capable of survival in it's environment

Also I want Sup Forums to leave, but have a (you)

...

Now let me ask you christian, which of the following follows the law of causality?
>high density high temperature quark-gluons expanded, accounting for cosmic background radiation, Hubble's Law, a high abundance of primordial elements in the universe, among many other objective scientific observations
Or
>the universe was crafted by a being who just happens to exist with no cause and no observational evidence

couldn't resist taking the bait.

>nothing created high density high temperature quark-gluons which formed the universe

oh look THIS thread again.

>effect must have a clause.

Santa Clause in this case

>nothing created god

>>nothing created high density high temperature quark-gluons which formed the universe by accident
OR
>an all knowing all powerful being carefully crafted the universe and all that it contains

you keep saying that the initial universe came from nothing, but your god also came from nothing. can you not wrap it around your head that both a theoretical god and a theoretical initial singularity need a cause? the big bang model laid out a cause: phase transition led to cosmic inflation. so, tell me, what caused god to come into existence?

Fun fact: the purpose of religion isn't to provide an explanation as to the origins of the universe and existence. Religion is a metaphysically contrived culture and lifestyle.

this is probably the first time a post on Sup Forums has changed my perspective on something as broad as the concept of religion, props.

this isnt politics get the fuck out and go back to

Yet it claims just that. Wow religion contradicting itself? SUPRISE

>Fun fact: the purpose of religion isn't to provide an explanation as to the origins of the universe and existence.

Except that SOME religions (religions that we should reject) overstep this purpose and actually DO explain the origins of the universe and existence and a whole bunch of other facts about the world that religion has no place talking about.

>Can only respond using memes.
Autism confirmed

Really makes you think

I seriously figured this shit out when I was 8 years old.

>reading children's book about bible stories, entertaining
>mom asks me if I have questions
>I ask who created God
>Mom says God always existed, then she gets silent for a few seconds
>Mom says "To be honest, user, I don't really know who or what created God"
>She gets silent for a few more seconds
>"...To be honest, user, I don't really believe God exists"

I was atheist from then on, though I identify as pagan now.

A metaphysical allusion to the creation of all existence isn't uncommon among religions, but that's hardly religion attempting to substitute scientific knowledge as much as it is assigning abstract value to all that exists. "God created man in his image. Our bodies are his temple." Do you not see how how this describes an abstract value that science does not; how it illustrates the supernatural value innate to all that exists? I'm not religious in any means, and I'm the one telling you this.

Science is simply the study of the natural world and how things are. It's a completely different discipline than a religion and fulfills a role of knowledge and not culture. Religion can teach me not to kill, but science won't. One man can use science to discover a cure for cancer, while another can use it to engineer a weapon for genocide. From a strictly neutral and unbiased standpoint, whichever of the two is the good and evil man depends entirely on one's own outlook on life and how he sees other people. There is simply no objective answer to any of that.

And the existence of such being doesn't violate your supposed laws?

>I seriously figured this shit out when I was 8 years old.

>Mom told me god doesn't exist
>I believe what mom believes
>I figured it out

>human body
>intelligently designed

The human body is a train wreck of design

What created god?

OWNED

>Every effect must have a clause
I think you're thinking about contracts

Self-defeating argument, because that line of logic's next step is 'what caused god'.

Use fresher shitposts, OP.

>balls on the outside
>'HURR ITS FOR COOLING"
im sure that we couldve had a better design

Spine is also a piece of shit. So are eyes and ears.

Science is just s methology though. As is religion, but a faulty one if there are dogmas

Nobody created Him, he existed before causality began existing (the big bang) and will exist for eternity, along with your eternal soul (heaven/hell, but for you probably Hell)

Quantum mechanics allows for causation backwards in time.

Actually if anything, the eyes and ears are the best designed parts. The mouth is fucked up (wisdom teeth and crowding), the ass is fucked up (anus is covered and if you don't wipe fecal matter gets trapped)

So its okay for a god to exist for all creation but the conditions for the big bang arent?

>Science is simply the study of the natural world and how things are. It's a completely different discipline than a religion and fulfills a role of knowledge and not culture. Religion can teach me not to kill, but science won't. One man can use science to discover a cure for cancer, while another can use it to engineer a weapon for genocide. From a strictly neutral and unbiased standpoint, whichever of the two is the good and evil man depends entirely on one's own outlook on life and how he sees other people. There is simply no objective answer to any of that.

But even a casual look at any religion will show that only a small small minority of the practitioners of a religion will actually recognize that none of the claims about reality are literally true.

If the purpose of a religion is not to dictate facts about reality, Christianity is doing a poor job. There are real conflicts between scientific knowledge and accepted christian teachings. I don't want to bring up young earth creationists, but they exist. Alternatively, for example: Nearly 100% accept that jesus existed and actually performed literal miracles. This is a scientific claim. It changes people's ideas about what's possible, unrealistically so.


Agreed the thing about god creating people in his image is sufficiently abstract to not affect reality, but BOTH things exist in religion.

But EVERYTHING has a cause, god falls under the superset of EVERYTHING

>because that line of logic's next step is 'what caused god

Funnily enough, the Quran says Allah is without a beginning and end. So the infinite regression argument is countered by the fact that God may as well be timeless.

I mean, God is God, and if he created everything then he is surely above logic, time and space itself.

Compare it to other eyes in the animal kingdom. Eyes were originally adapted for under water use.

He's saying god always was and always will be. But remember marry and do not homo. Eternal beings cant stand singles nor butt sex

Have you considered the possibility that the universe is eternal and simply cycles through different stages?

>above logic

Literal nonsense

Science, is the study of natural reality. Applied science is engineering. There's a clear and distinct difference. Neither of the two provide metaphysical outlooks on life that ultimately all humans intimately search for. Science will tell me HOW I was born, but not WHY I was born for example. What it really boils down to is that almost every person has a dogma of his own that he chooses to share with others or not. Even atheists contrive ethics in the exact same manner as the religious do. While atheists reject the existence of gods and the practice of contemporary mainstream religions, they still have no problems respecting human life, but having rejected religious outlooks, they're forced to search for metaphysical value to life elsewhere. That is why the many different moral systems adopted by atheists are in reality not much different than religions. In fact, Max Stirner, a famous atheist philosopher, saw secular morality as nothing more than a new religion.

yeah i'm an atheist but transcending the human-perceived constraints of logic would be a consequence of omnipotence. if you believe in an omnipotent god then you believe that that god does not follow the same logical rules as us.

>Compare it to other eyes in the animal kingdom
Stupid to do so. Selective pressure wouldn't give us owl eyes because apes aren't nocturnal, it wouldn't give us eagle eyes because humans didn't hunt tiny prey from hundreds of meters, it wouldn't give us IR or UV spectrum vision because we don't drink nectar so flowers are irrelevant.

How is that nonsense? If God created everything, that means he also created logic, which means he's above that creation as he is above everything else.

>yeah i'm an atheist but transcending the human-perceived constraints of logic would be a consequence of omnipotence.

If god violates logic, then god is not god.

I genuinely am saying this to you user. Whether some highly restricted creator being exists is pointless. Can you really justify selective supernatural intervention in reality from some entity?

Specific books, prayers, names, and doctrines have to be proven to be at least utilitarian to retain relevance.

Why didn't god tell us about atoms and the scale of the universe?

Science as a methology teaches you so much more, even as an engineer if you apply it to your life. It depends what sort of WHY you were born answer you're looking for.

>he also created logic,

No, "logic" is just a set of rules for language. It has nothing to do with the world. It's just definitions.

If you say god is illogical, obviously you shouldn't believe in it. You're introducing nonsense into your worldview for no reason.

...

The fuck?

Are you happy to have absolutely no clue?

It wasn't obvious to you before that? It's just a system to keep women from cheating on men.

>If the purpose of a religion is not to dictate facts about reality, Christianity is doing a poor job.

Well...I don't think I was speaking about Christianity specifically instead of religion as a general topic, so I don't see how that contests anything I said so far. Christianity is admittedly less abstract than other faiths or religious outlooks, but it nonetheless remains a religion, and therefore a metaphysical abstraction.

Consider when the definition of religion became narrowed down to "the belief in an external deity that created the world," this new definition ruled out religions more spiritual in nature, thereby declassifying them as religions, when in reality they exist in the same manner as monotheistic or polytheistic religions. Take Confucianism and Taoism for example.

What we perceive as "logic" and "common sense" only exist because our universe has parameters like it has. There can be other universes with different laws of physics, different dimensions, different flow of time, if any, so for them our logic may not be applicable.
Just like God can exist outside of time and logic, a physical explanation of what was before the universe existed can also defy the logic we have in our currently existing universe.

...

no i realize why religion exists etc but the perspective i gained is that a religious person does not seek an explanation for existence in their studies of a holy book, they just choose an explanation that justifies their beliefs and fits our idea of existence (i.e. contrived metaphysics).

The bigbang is god's works, you can't take Genesis too serious, the message was to nearlypost caveman people.

Just because God can it doesn't mean he instantly created everything.

>nothing got infinitely hot and exploded into the universe for no reason
The only people that believe that is retarded theists.

If "god" created the Universe, then what created god?
God's always been, you say?
Then why couldn't the universe have always been?

>Carefully designed features
Don't make me laugh.

>I actually replied to this poorly written bait.

>Consider when the definition of religion became narrowed down to "the belief in an external deity that created the world," this new definition ruled out religions more spiritual in nature, thereby declassifying them as religions, when in reality they exist in the same manner as monotheistic or polytheistic religions. Take Confucianism and Taoism for example.

Sure. There are religions which are purely metaphysical, but religions in general are not purely metaphysical.