Alright Sup Forums, let's try this

Alright Sup Forums, let's try this.

I'm an agnostic atheist. Convince me to become a theist. Give me whatever arguments you have. I'll try my best to reply to most of you, although a lot if people post here so it's unlikely I'll get to everyone.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
youtube.com/watch?v=Hakb6S0IpgY
multivax.com/last_question.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Are you Semitic?
Then become a Christian (Jew)

Are you an Arab?
Then become a Christian (Jew)

Are you sub 100 IQ?
Then become a Christian (Jew)

I could use the prime mover thing. Something must have started the universe, it couldnt make itself appear. So whatever that thing is , it is God.

...

Logical Fallacy. Valueing free will over prevention of evil doesn't make him evil.

If you want proof for God just look at how retarded atheists are.

That argument excludes the possibility that the universe is actually infinite and timeless, and always existed.

I'm not even religious but the big flaw in that argument is the assumption that evil exists. What, you think there's some shadowy, malignant force out there that compels people (interesting to note, it only affects humans) to do atrocious things?
If you define evil as "counter to the prevailing social mores", then you're still implying a human origin of the concept, meaning that if the Universe was created by some faggot who likes to make things that suffer, there's no way to apply the idea of "Evil" to his creation.
Not believing in God is as easy as this: religious people claim that a God exists, the burden of proof of that therefore lies with them. They are unable to provide positive proof of God, therefore no reason to believe in God (or at least any religion that exists).

Assuming that evil exists, there's no fallacy there. Free will or not, he can still prevent evil.

Since you're agnostic I'll work under the assumption that you're not a total dumbass.

Consider this: Science documents our perceptible universe. As such, reliance on science to quantify or verify metaphysical and supernatural agents are misguided since as the current state of things go, there is a high probability that our science is simply too weak to understand the true nature of God.

Consider this: there are

There is no argument. If you enjoy religion or theism, or not, that is your choice. You can enjoy it while understanding it may be wrong, when you're dead you will find out one way or another.

I simply choose to live my life as if there is something to that hidden, spiritual side most people do not care to discover. If I am wrong, at least I enjoyed myself.

>our science is to weak to understand the true nature of God.

I wouldn't really say this, it's more about being able to be falsified. God can't be falsified, so he can't be proven either, so it's best to take the agnostic position.

And sorry, I didn't exactly get what you were trying to say on that second part.

You can be an Agnostic Christian like me.

Acknowledging that the existence of God is inherently unknowable, you can *choose* to believe. This aspect, the choice, or leap of faith, is what gives religion its value, otherwise it would be just a science.

If there was proof or evidence of God, it would be too easy to believe. It wouldn't be a test.

You can blend religion and art and science, because, at base, science is no more than an investigation of a miracle we can never explain, and art is an interpretation of that miracle. You should never let science crush the aesthetic and the beautiful, both can coexist, enriching each other.

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
― Werner Heisenberg

Belief is a choice.

The big bang doesn't really leave that question on the table, it strongly suggests there was a point before time or space existed

Also, we hit the physics jackpot. Gravity is just strong enough to hold us to the planet without crushing us. Electromagnetism is just strong enough to shield us from the suns radiation but not strong enough to fuck us up. And a bunch of other shit that was a roll of the dice during the big bang.

If anything it suggest multiverse theory. Why would there be only one universe? Only one chance to get the factors right for life?

Ah again this is a loophole in logic since the concept of God is not a classical theory, like a man in the sky doing shit, it's more of a philosophical-scientific embodiment of the question "Why and how are we here?". God as Creator can be falisified if you consider it as a classical theory because there are connotations with the religions, again which may be wrong. Also the assumption that God cannot be falsified is again wrong even if you see it from a scientific perspective, for example consider we are living in a matrix with a belief in God ingrained. There won't be a God per se but a virtual God, but the real God would be the machines giving us the hallucinations, which are the true concept of God.

Read it again, I hope I'm making sense. Please watch this TED talk about the nature of reality by Donald Hoffman, consider the fact that these assumptions about divinity and nature are just one of many

God is an alien running a simulation. We are not the center of the simulation. We are just some random planet with life.

The Alien existed eternally in as a 4th dimensional being, and escapes the concept of "beginning and end". It always just existed, so nothing created it.

>reliance on science to quantify or verify metaphysical and supernatural agents are misguided

Why is the existence of metaphysical or supernatural agents assumed?

p1: whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence (PSR, ex nihilo nihil fit)
p2: the universe began to exist (incoherence of an infinite regression of events, impossibility of an actual infinite)
c1: therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

p3: the cause is either impersonal or personal (law of excluded middle)
p4: the cause of the universe is not impersonal (impersonal causes cannot alone elect to change one state of affairs to a different state of affairs)
c2: therefore, the cause of the universe is personal

characteristics of the cause:
• personal (c2)
• timeless (existed causally 'before' time)
• spaceless (existed causally 'before' space)
• unimaginably powerful (created the entire universe)

valid, i'd say sound, deductive argument with each premise more plausible than their negation

Answered here
"Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2] Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:[3]

Ultimately, what is there?
What is it like? "

Simply put, it is an expression of the question "What are we?" rather than a man-in-the-sky assumption

>it's more of a philosophical-scientific embodiment of the question "Why and how are we here?

This is mixing definitions

The overwhelming majority of the time, when people refer to god, they are referring to a personal god that at the bare minimum is intelligent, has a will, and created reality as we know it. God is also usually all knowing and all powerful. He also usually cares what does and does not happen on this planet and is a claimed to be the source of morality and meaning of life. To most people, god is a very specific claim and constructed concept with qualities.

Of course there should be a *how* we are here, if you define god as *how* we are here, then god must exist. But you've accomplished nothing for bringing evidence of a personal god. It's the same as people who say "god is everything, everything exists, therefore god exists". The logic is correct, but the conclusion is meaningless for debate.

>Answered here
But it isn't

There is only one God and his name is Kek. The prof is in the dubs.

Also what makes metaphysics different from questions in the purview of science?

>Ultimately, what is there?
>What is it like?

Science is very interested in these questions, but not in the "broadest possible terms", which I take to mean explanations that aren't supportable with the scientific method.

DO IT, GOY

Atheism is not a natural position.
It destroys societies.
The people are easier to corrupt.

Animism, at the very least, is built into humans.
Humans are social beings and form societies.
Societies develop religion through codified positions and spirits long-term.


Besides that, what do you think we believe God is? Most atheists seem to think God is literally a man in the sky.

The problem of evil, too, is retarded. It's not a problem, you just want God as a sugar daddy.

Furthermore, if you wanted stuff, you would read and try to get there, not shitpost on a girl comic forum.

Anything except Christianity is idolatry, paganism, hedonism, and will lead you and the entire world into Hell.

Christianity is the winning team. We don't need you. You need us.

So I have no intention of "convincing" you of anything. If you want to join the winning team you can come over and ask nicely. If you want to stay a fucking useless faggot and lose, you go right on ahead.

Kek
>agnostic Christian
You don't know what these words mean.

God is the infinite principal which woven into reality makes reality worth living. It's the antithesis to a cold heartless ruthless world, in which nothing you or anyone else does matters.

God is also "coincidentally" the best moral axiom to create and follow an objective moral system, as opposed to moral relativism, which leads to chaos.

The question you should ask yourself is not whether God exists or not, you couldn't prove or disprove infinity either way. What you should ask yourself is "why would you want to live in a world without a God?"

Why indeed.

>it destroys societies
Prove it

>the universe has to have a creator because it's logical obviously
>that creator doesn't need a creator because I said so

I'm asking for arguments for god, not this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
kys

>Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of God is actually impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe."

Convincing someone else is surely what Jesus wants right?

Irreligious people are easier to coax into new things.

Taking away religion, you take away tradition, history, culture, social gatherings, you decrease meeting people outside of your comfort zones, and much more. You don't have anywhere near as many kids.

You become subjective. You end up getting controlled by idiots and then fizzle out of existence - like Atheism+.

Every time an atheistic society has appeared, it has failed shortly afterwards. France, Mexico, Communist nations.

Sounds like someone has an awful lot of pride in himself. That's a sin you know

yet on the flip side one would argue that regardless of a deity's existence your decisions in life DO matter.

hard for NEET's to comprehend but the only limit to the "mark" you leave and the joy you bring to the fellow man rests on your shoulders.

i'm agnostic, i do not matter, but in the community i live in i am damned if i try not to leave this plane of existence better than i found it.

there is so much joy to be brought into this world through charity, sex, food, conversation, humor. i don't see the image of a god as a necessity to enjoy it.

that said, i am not rubbing my beliefs in anyone's face, as long as they are sharia law loving sandnigs then what do i care?

Not true. The Big Bang Theory merely suggests there was a time before the universe began expanding (maybe even this time around). For example, the universe could go through cycles. It could rapidly expand and then, at some point, begin to return to a point of absolute density. The fact is that nobody knows.

Also, we HAD to have hit the "physics jackpot". If we didn't, we wouldn't exist. This is a bit tougher to explain but the point is that our concept of order in the universe is based on the universe in which we exist. The only possible universe capable of supporting human life is the one in which human life exists. In other words, it's like being amazed at the fact that your hand fits perfectly into a glove. Gloves were created in accordance to the design of the human hand. In the same sense, human beings were "created" in accordance to the design of the universe.

For the sake of hypothesis, assume that gravity and electromagnetism worked slightly differently. Humans, as we know them, couldn't exist. But perhaps a completely different, completely alien form of life would exist, and they would think, "We could only exist in the universe as it is. Thus, this is the only possible universe for life." It would never occur to them that a slightly different calibration of physics could support some completely alien lifeform, because they only have one running concept of a life-supporting universe, based on their own lives.

I also think the multiverse is a legit concept, but that doesn't seem to necessitate or even support the existence of a God.

sorry for tagging you in a prior post. woops

>If you want proof for God just look at how retarded atheists are.
this
also compare typical western secular countries to traditional christian countrys.
youtube.com/watch?v=Hakb6S0IpgY
And while you at it think about how jews are always mocking christianity in their media (mtv news and laci green for example), although atheist say to you that christianity is jewish weapon against the white man

>God is also "coincidentally" the best moral axiom to create and follow an objective moral system, as opposed to moral relativism, which leads to chaos.

There is no objective moral system, all morality is relative and internally derived.

>lol then what caused god?
anyone have a real refutation?

the reasoning behind the Cause not needing to be created in the KCA is because it didn't come into being, not "because i said so"
there's no special pleading there because that would apply to anything that exists but didn't come into existence. (numbers, definition of shapes, etc)

>lmao then y did the universe need a cause, chriscucktian?
i provided the backing for my premises in the parentheses next to them.

Jesus wants me to believe in Him and live according to His instructions and love all people as I love myself, and love God the Father above all things.

Did you hear: "waste your time trying to convince people who don't want to be convinced" anywhere in there?

This meme of "Christians owe me! Christian need me! You Christian better come convince me or you lose!" is retarded.

I don't go to Hell for not convincing you. You go to Hell if you don't find a way to convince yourself.

Humble yourself first or you won't even understand the arguments.

If you must brag, brag of the Lord. I have no pride in myself. I have pride in the Lord, who is Master of All Things and could destroy you and I in an instant.

And where's your proof that the universe "came into existence"?

>although a lot if people post here so it's unlikely I'll get to everyone.

>thinking reverse psychology will get me to reply to your thread
>implying it didn't work

Numbers and definitions don't "exist" because they're abstract concepts
And unfortunately for classical philosophy it turns out their definition of "nothing" isn't valid in any physical context

I think a good example of this is what's happening right now in the West. Most people under 30 no longer believe in God, aside from Eastern Europe and other such places. When there is no moral compass in place for the impulsive and selfish, they will inevitably turn to worldly pleasures.

I'm not implying that you need religious morality to be a good person, but it's undeniable that most humans are not that smart. If there is no reason for them to act virtuously, they will simply seek external pleasure.

If everyone in a society is out for themselves, with no concept of morality towards others, without any concept of unity with their fellow man (religion provides social cohesion), the society as a whole will not last as long as others who do have spiritual cohesion.

Despite Muslims killing themselves since the religion started, the "Muslim World" still provides them with cohesion. It was the same in Europe until they abandoned God.

"The overwhelming majority of the time, when people refer to god, they are referring to a personal god that at the bare minimum is intelligent, has a will, and created reality as we know it. God is also usually all knowing and all powerful...."
Absolutely correct, which is why I said "connotations" with religion. It is mixing definitions because of the ingrained concept of "God". Let me try to elaborate using examples - if you consider the cause of creation as a basis for the validity of the concept (the most powerful one imo) then the atheist theory that the Big Bang and subsequent randomness created our known universe becomes the concept of God in the theory of Atheism, even though they are contesting the idea of no God, I'm not arguing pedantics, but philosophically correct since they give a framework to explain our existence.
And yes, you're right ideally there should be no concept of God as a certain thing, I can't bring evidence to a personal interpretation of God since considering probabilities my theory would be one in infinite with no way of knowing the answer. That's why I made it a point that there are infinite probabilities of this, and the popular interpretation like you described is just one of the many, probably as wrong as its right.

I meant the "God as question" part

Historically, metaphysics used to be the only system as to explaining our existence. Then came science, which initially was used to verify our metaphysical assumptions (see Copernicus) and in the modern era science has surpassed the philosophical question.
I believe, and I think you've answered your own question, that scientific method is limited by itself. Let me explain, lets assume that infinite number of people can generate infinite number of theories. Metaphysics is unrestricted, and they can create anything they want and mathematically they'd come closer to the answer. Science must follow its frameworks, and lead to lesser results,

>I'm not implying that you need religious morality to be a good person, but it's undeniable that most humans are not that smart.
>Implying doing whatever you want when you only have one life to live is somehow not smart

>proof
that's not how it works, there's no such thing.
what qualifies as proof (sufficient evidence) is subjective to the individual.
all i've done is provided premises that are more plausible than their negation.

and as i've already stated, the backing for the premises are next to them in the parentheses.

>Numbers and definitions don't "exist"
disagree. i'd rather not niggle over definitions though. the point i was making still holds about special pleading.
asking what caused the uncaused cause is pants on head retarded.
>their definition of "nothing" isn't valid in any physical context
what do you mean? no one has ever found "nothing?" (non-being)

>The only possible universe capable of supporting human life is the one in which human life exists. In other words, it's like being amazed at the fact that your hand fits perfectly into a glove. Gloves were created in accordance to the design of the human hand. In the same sense, human beings were "created" in accordance to the design of the universe.

I meant any life at all.

>For the sake of hypothesis, assume that gravity and electromagnetism worked slightly differently. Humans, as we know them, couldn't exist. But perhaps a completely different, completely alien form of life would exist, and they would think, "We could only exist in the universe as it is. Thus, this is the only possible universe for life." It would never occur to them that a slightly different calibration of physics could support some completely alien lifeform, because they only have one running concept of a life-supporting universe, based on their own lives.

That's the thing though, slightly differently would be a disaster for any form of life. And slight differences don't even seem probable. Gravity is astronomically weaker than the other forces for an unknown reason. It looks like a hail mary pass.

>I also think the multiverse is a legit concept, but that doesn't seem to necessitate or even support the existence of a God.

That's why its a good explanation. When you see a very lucky outcome, the best explanation is there were a lot of attempts.

And we have no clue what the fuck that shit is. And it's invisible.

Exactly. Even if we put aside whether God exists or not, it's clear that humans need religion to survive.

Regular plebs need to be guided or they will be used and abused, and do the same to each other.

I hope that the West can fix itself. We will accept God once more, but it's ultimately a question of whether it's the Christian God or the Islamic one. Christianity is a far better thing for everyone.

The question was how Atheism could destroy society from within. If you want to live your life to the fullest by fucking over the people around you, that is not good for society as a whole.

You didn't even check what I was replying to, and then made an arrogant assumption that your lack of belief was correct. This is why people dislike Atheism t b h

"God was always here" is just another baseless assumption on top of a baseless assumption

>Implying society matters
>Implying I'm atheist

If you don't believe in God there's literally no reason to not live in the way that provides you the most joy. No one else matters.

An elephant is big right? And a mouse is small..
And a mouse is big to an ant.
So everything is relative.
You are the size of what you are next to in that sense.
A mouse is small when it's next to an elephant but it's big when it's next to an ant.
So size is relative right?
So what if that elephant kept growing and growing? Would the mouse be getting smaller and smaller?
Relative to the elephant the mouse would keep shrinking.
It would be getting infinitely small if the elephant grew infinitely large.
If a mouse is infinitely small it's zero.
Mathematically speaking infinitely small means zero. It's the same thing. They aren't slightly close, it's the exact same thing.
The universe is infinitely growing larger, therefore you are infinitely small, therefore you don't exist.

Yet you know you exist.

Each time you come to a logical conclusion that states 'this is how it's so' but you know it is not so that's God leaving a little calling card.

whatever nigger, i wasn't putting forth the first-cause argument anyway.

from the argument i was putting forward: the cause of the universe (god) could've been created and it wouldn't change the conclusions at all whatsoever.

All Atheist societies have a fertility rate well under 2.1

That by definition is unsustainable

>dark energy
It's too late user, Dr Wily is already using it.
I mean, Docta Wiwee

>that scientific method is limited by itself.

Scientific method is limited by the unknowable, just like any other system. It has no weaknesses that other systems don't have. Because even if you guessed something correctly that science couldn't confirm, you'd have no good way of knowing if you were right.

>lets assume that infinite number of people can generate infinite number of theories. Metaphysics is unrestricted, and they can create anything they want and mathematically they'd come closer to the answer.

Mathematically only a handful would be correct, and that handful would have no way of knowing themselves, let alone convincing others so that knowledge could be put to use.

>Implying society doesn't matter

Thank you for rewriting my argument... That people without religious morality will do whatever they want for happiness. Here's another (you)

the idol of atheists whom atheists almost always try to destroy is GOD

It's not niggling over definitions. Abstract concepts like numbers and shapes are constructs of the human mind, and I imagine you wouldn't believe God is one of those
>non being
That's my point. The physical definition of nothing, which is the relevant one when discussing physical phenomena, is not "non being"

>Once again implying I'm not religious

You're not getting it. I'm a Christian. If there is no God or afterlife then nothing matters but personal satisfaction, whatever individual form that takes for each person is irrelevant. This is a fact. Stop being so fucking stupid.

I assumed you were an Atheist from your first post, I haven't even given you that label, I assumed. Calm down lad.

My original argument was that a lack of religion causes people to act selfishly. You've been angrily agreeing with me this entire thread. What the fuck is your problem, man?

WE ARE IN AGREEMENT

That's correct. I was answering
>broadest possible terms

Its limited by its structure, metaphysical philosophy is more "free" than scientific thought since science has to follow the "Observation>Hypothesis>Postulate" rule in everything with newer discoveries often invalidating older ones etc. Even laymen daydreaming about who they are come under the realm of metaphysics, and probably can reach the true answer, but a scientist will take more time but will lead to a closer answer to the truth by getting rid of the "chance" factor.

>agnostic atheist
What? You don't believe there is a higher power, but you believe that you can't prove that there is a higher power.

If you weren't more on the fence, I would say you enjoy have your arse pierced on a daily basis.

You don't need to, I'm not.

What you DO have to accept is that until only 100+ IQ people are left on the planet we need Christianity to be a moral guideline for people who cannot behave.

>Abstract concepts like numbers and shapes are constructs of the human mind
completely disagree, they're not constructed, they're discovered.

if they were just constructs of the human mind, wouldn't they only exist subjectively?
if i think pic related is a triangle and someone else thinks it's a square, would we both be equally right?
definitions of shapes exist necessarily and objectively.

> The physical definition of nothing, which is the relevant one when discussing physical phenomena, is not "non being"
what does this have to do with my argument anyway? the ex nihilo nihil fit part?
if you say that nothing/non-being doesn't exist, then you'd agree with ex nihilo nihil fit

>the big flaw in that argument is the assumption that evil exists.

Okay, look at it this way. If your religion thinks evil exists, then it's wrong

If the universe is infinite and timeless, then the universe is "God". so, yes, it does include that argument.

How can you possibly know that a different set of physical circumstances couldn't support "any life at all"? Your only frame of reference is the carbon-based life forms of Earth.

Again, it's not accurate to call it a "lucky outcome" when it's the ONLY POSSIBLE OUTCOME.

Human beings MUST exist in a world that supports the existence of human beings because humans being ORIGINATE from that world. It's not as though we ARRIVED here and got lucky that it happened to work out. We came into existence ACCORDING to these circumstances. Our lives are the direct corollary to the physical circumstances of this universe.

Immorality = evil

There are non-religious Objective Moral Standards

If there is Morality there is the opposite, thus immorality exists

Immorality = evil

The point is that you can't say, "The universe came into existence, thus it must have had a cause." The fact remains that the universe may have never come into existence at all. Just as you might say that God MAY have never come into existence at all (since, if you're being honest, you don't actually know), then you can say that the universe may have never come into existence.

The possibility that both God or the universe are eternal means that neither necessarily require a cause.

That's not a triangle but it's also not s perfect circle, even though your brain makes the connection between the image and the concept. Concepts can of course be applied correctly or incorrectly depending on how close they match the referent; for instance, the definition of nothing as universal negation is not an accurate definition in the context of physics

>if the universe is infinite and timeless, then the universe is "God"

Spinoza's God is always the most ironic bailey argument of a theist.

Most of the arguments in this thread seem to be based around the fact that religion gives people a moral compass, brings communities together, etc. But even if this is true, the fact still remains that God doesn't exist. I don't think you'll be able to convince people to believe in something because of the potential positive effects it will have on society, faith doesn't work that way. If you have to weigh the positive and negative aspects of religion before "deciding" to believe then doesn't that miss the point?

Exactly this. I'm an atheist, but part of me is strongly considering pretending to be a Christian simply because, in this day and age, it may be a necessary response to things like Islam and the poisonous, regressive left.

In other words, I may agree that Christianity is a positive, perhaps even necessary force in society. I arrive at this conclusion by purely rational means. But those same rational means prevent me from accepting, as a positive assertion, the existence of a sentient, morally cognizant deity.

I don't believe in God.

But Christianity is a necessary existance for the world to advance, it give a Guide for the vast majority of people who cannot function without a higher existance and group telling you how to behave like a civil person.

the argument is addressing the efficient cause, not the material cause.

an efficient cause is what brings an effect into being, what produces an effect into existence. while a material cause is the 'stuff' out of which things are made. for example michaelangelo was the efficient cause of the statue david, and the material cause of david was the block of marble that michaelangelo sculpted it out of.


>the fact remains that the universe may have never come into existence at all
does the universe exist? (i say yes)
does it exist past eternally? (implausible because of the incoherence of an infinite regression of events, impossibility of an actual infinite)
then the universe came into existence.

>pretending to be a Christian simply because, in this day and age, it may be a necessary response to things like Islam and the poisonous, regressive left
It works for Milo.

>completely disagree, they're not constructed, they're discovered.
The argument is hard

without you what you would have thought would have not existed

the possibility of it existing doesn't equal to it existing

there's no way you can know though is there
think of eternity
there's no way that you can know the existence of something so far beyond your range of perceptions unless you have a belief in devotion
what is evidence? all you can do is observe the universe and make theories about what is seen but nowhere does that tell you why things exist
you can go forever into finer granularity about the nature of reality: deeper than atoms and deeper than quarks and what will you find? you may not even be able to go deeper or you may find more particles but still you are unknowing why they exist
and still you do not know why you exist or what you are or why you think or what the mind is or anything close to god
and then you can ask "what is belief?" and still you will never know where your thoughts arise or define the soul or be able to comprehend the answer because to be devoid of belief is to be devoid of belief

I just said, you can't prove or disprove infinity. It's literally a matter of opinion.

That's a self recursive loop. If all values are relative, then the value to attribute to value is also relative and thus has no objective truth in it.

This is false, infinity is a well-defined concept

>impersonal causes cannot alone elect to change one state of affairs to a different state of affairs
Cool story, fagot. I guess volcanoes and shit are just gods hammering on an anvil?

>How can you possibly know that a different set of physical circumstances couldn't support "any life at all"? Your only frame of reference is the carbon-based life forms of Earth.

Because even our own life creating universe is so hostile to life, then it would be throwing another layer of hostility over that. I don't think you really understand those different circumstances. Celestial bodies themselves would be totally different, you would've even have planets or stars as we know them.

>Again, it's not accurate to call it a "lucky outcome" when it's the ONLY POSSIBLE OUTCOME.

It's not, the big bang could have gone a lot of ways. But it went the way that made the universe habitable and observable by sentient beings.

>Human beings MUST exist in a world that supports the existence of human beings because humans being ORIGINATE from that world. It's not as though we ARRIVED here and got lucky that it happened to work out. We came into existence ACCORDING to these circumstances. Our lives are the direct corollary to the physical circumstances of this universe.

Yes but I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about permutations where nothing even close to resembling life could come close to existing. Those permutations are probably the norm.

It doesn't work that way, you must save yourself.

Not sure what this makes me, but it seems kind of strange that the universe and time would just end with heat death. The Big Crunch, or some other cyclic existence, happening endlessly, seems more believable to me than either endless darkness or some heavenly afterlife. If the universe cycles, it would also mean my existence is not unique.

I can't believe in a specific deity, but I don't think things just end. But if they do, I probably won't be too worried about it when I get there.

Have a short story, kind of related:
multivax.com/last_question.html

>cannot alone ELECT to

goodness gracious

I'm none of those things and I'm an agnostic atheist like OP. What should I do?

>the fact still remains that God doesn't exist
If you're able to say this with such conviction you're mentally ill.
You probably think God is a floating beardy man in the sky as well.

No you math major pleb, just because you make it an abstract symbol does NOT mean you can explain it in terms of actual tangible nature. The infinity used in mathematics is low dimensional and is nothing like what I'm talking about.

>asking to be convinced of theism through reason, when theism itself is rejection of reason
>asking to be convinced of the veracity of an idea on Sup Forums of all places
what the fuck?

Yes. Das it mane. Atheists, agnostics, and theists are all pretty much brothers in the dark.

However, as time passes, science may develop to an extent as to verify our philosophical ponderings. The best solution would be to just wing it, humbly, that you are nothing compared to what is.

>If all values are relative, then the value to attribute to value is also relative and thus has no objective truth in it.

What's the problem? Values and objective facts are totally different.

...

The efficient cause of what though? This still doesn't assert that the universe suddenly materialized. Even the Big Bang Theory, which is by no means a perfect science, only suggests a point at which expansion began.

I don't think you're saying, "Okay, perhaps the materials of the universe always existed, at some point in a dense, concentrated state, and then suddenly expanded-- but what caused the expansion? Must be God."

Of course, you're intelligent and you know that simply because we don't know what caused the expansion doesn't mean that God becomes the best valid explanation. It's an easy explanation, sure, but there's absolutely no reason to suggest that it's the best explanation or that it's even more likely to be the explanation than any other explanation.

Before we knew what caused lightning, the easiest explanation was that some sentient being was causing it to happen by will and intent. Now we understand how electricity works.

The entire premise behind, "that which comes into existence must have a cause" doesn't apply to the universe if it never came into existence (as we understand the concept).

Care to offer your definition of infinity, or is being nebulous and impossible to pin down part of its transcendence.

Understand that you make a faulty argument when you speak as if they're all selfish in a negative fashion. Atheists can do plenty of good things. The issue is it breeds arbitrary morality. There's no objective truth and thus the murderer is no less correct than the charity worker.