Why do we HAVE TO accept that there has to be something god-like?

Because something is unsolvable?

Wouldn't it make more sense to say "I don't know"? Would seem more accurate.

1. In order for the particular movement of my hand to occur, an infinite amount of causes and hence time must be concluded
2. infinity by definition cannot be concluded
3. but the movement of my hand did occur
4. therefore, an infinite regress of causes is impossibleI don't get what you're saying here at all, I never said anything about infinitely small distances. This is some type of Zeno Paradox that I didn't make at all.

This. Atheist only argue against Christianity and and deity gods. They don't really understand a higher power doesnt have to be a "man figure" and I seriously doubt it is. But to deny there is something greater then the science we currently know is so beyond retarded it is unbelievable. Well we have millions and trillions of light years to explore and have no idea WHY or HOW to get there. And then act like science is the be all end all. They always use the same lame excuses all the time. If you can't go outside and look at the trees, the water, the sky, breathing in air, and think this is was created out of nothing... Just LOL

Bro you completely missed his point in infinity and its probably time to stop posting.

You have to because its the only solution to the previously unsolvable conundrum.

So you MUST admit to gods existence, because you don't about it.

Seems rather circular.

It's not circular, it's logical. If you only have 3 alternatives, and 2 are proven illogical, then by logical necessity the 3rd alternative must be true.

Really strong argument.

"You're a retard if you can't look at trees and just KNOW there's some creator", hope you get your Nobel prize real soon, look forward to your advancements in the scientific field of feelsology.

Except that your 3rd option either came out of nothing or always existed just like your first 2 options with matter in general. You are just pushing back the argument one level. Doesn't make it any more logical.

Your argument is a huge bang from NOTHING became SOMETHING to let life work in perfect unison. Thats worse than the spaghetti monster being the creator.

Then by logic, we are all to one degree or another agnostic. Any other identifier is just conjecture based on a variety of factors.

I can concede that I don't know. Can you? If not, what evidence can you provide outside of philosophical musings and hypothetical analogies?


There is a forth option; Apatheism. By and large, I don't care, because universal ponderings, religion or god have very little direct impact on my own life outside of academia.

Way to misrepresent the otherside to make your argument seem stronger.

The big bang is not viewed as the creation of existence just the earliest reference point that we have observable evidence for.

That still leaves the question of how everything came to exist, but if you take issue of us coming from nothing how do you reconcile as much more advanced form of life a "God" always existing.

You either have to say "He always existed" just as I can say "Matter/Energy" always existed or you can say "God came from nothing" or "Matter/Energy came from nothing"

My "argument" is actually that someone calling people retards then using an argument about our environment being proof of a creator is just cringe worthy.

- If we were created, then who created the creator?
- If a creator can make the universe out of nothing then why can it not just appear out of nothing, quantum theory says that might be possible.
- If it's not possible to create something from nothing and no-one created the creator then they must have always existed, if a creator can always have been here then why can't our universe (in some state)?

The universe and a creator are an identical problem, any question theists can pose about the universes creation can be asked of a creators creation, yet most find the idea of a God who has always existed perfectly fine but a universe which has to be "retarded".

All I got from this post is the universe and the creator have always existed.

This is an extremely poverty argument. You are all over the place with assumptions, imprecise terms, etc. "Infinity", "cause", none of this is exact. Simply reverse your perspective...start at the present cause and look backward through your chain of causes that never end. Nothing has to conclude.I thought you weren't proving a thing about god's existence. Just lol

Way to completely miss the point of the example. It was to show using improperly defined terms like "infinity" in an argument leads to all kinds of bogus conclusions. Perhaps you should stop posting- it's adding nothing to the conversation.

I disagree, if you want to discuss the existence of X, first you have to define what X is. Because if instead of X you find Y, that's also a result. On the other hand, if you move the goalposts at will, it becomes meaningless.

Like AGW that now has become Climate Change so any atmospheric phenomenon can be attributed to Climate Change, cold and hot, dry and wet, doesn't matter, it's Climate Change. See the problem? I believe the fancy term for it is that the explanation should befalsifiable."Everything" doesn't have much going on in the falsifiability department.

^^^There is a definition here...God can simply be defined as that which created the universe. It's just an easier of communicating- Instead of writing "the creator of the universe" out everytime, I'm replacing those words with God. It's only a convention. All I'm saying is particular characteristics aren't relevant to argument above.

To illustrate, describe exactly what God looks like then- down to physical size,color,shape. We see quickly how meaningless such a question is, especially in regards to falsifiability.

That's why no scientist makes that claim - the whole point of performing science is to understand things that we currently don't.

Probably you should try and understand the position of the people you are complaining about, instead of just making up a nonsensical one and attacking it.

You can literally say that about any argument, I already explained to you what I mean by "cause", and "infinite". Tell me which premise is wrong. I keep proving to you logically that infinite regress is wrong and all you keep doing is saying "oh well look at it backwards", well that doesn't really touch any of the premises of my argument, it still makes infinite regress impossible.

Will always trust the ones who admit they can be wrong and test their theories than those who follow a questionable book ..claim to know all about the universe and through the course of history kill rape excommunicate those who disagree.

The problem is greater when the latter includes multiple religions all who claim to be different than one another

At one time quantum entanglement was outside of human comprehension. As was the entire field of quantum physics.

So god can be everything other than "nothing". Or can "nothing" be god too?

I don't think so, mainly because the argument was going as follows:
Possible explanations for the universe:
-Universe, or reality always existed
-Universe was created from nothing
-Universe was created something (not nothing)......call this God

So we wouldn't call nothing God, for the purpose of the argument.

Pointless to continue debating about the argument. It's not a sound argument in my opinion, and neither of us will be changing our opinion obviously.
As for being able to say the above about any argument...not true at all. You are picking literally the two most infamous terms throughout the history of science that have led to endless debates and resulted in confusion ..."infinity" and "cause". (Zeno's paradox above was just one illustration). I can make many, many arguments that do not involve such imprecise terms. Pick basically any mathematical argument (which are true deductive arguments....not some poverty physical argument).

I can argue (prove) that the square root of 2 is an irrational number. It's a simple proof. Notice that all of the terms involved are precisely defined- "square root", "2", "irrational number". No vagueness involved.


Edit: because I'm bored....I'll spell out why I think your argument is unsound.^^There, statement #2 in particular you listed has obvious issues. The set of all non-positive integers is both infinite* and does have an "end", or max element (0). Inb4 well numbers aren't real! Well neither is an infinite list of causes, or the notion of cause itself- they are just as abstract as numbers, and if you disagree with this, please direct me to the nearest museum that has a specific "set of causes" on display- the actual physical object- would be quite the sight. Lol.

*: not that you'll care I'm sure, but mathematics actually does have a precise definition of what infinity means: A set is said to be infinite if it can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself. This definition didn't finally arrive until about the late 19th/early 20th century with Cantorian set theory, and is followed by the surprising fact there are different levels of "infinities", probablythegroundbreaking result of modern mathematics. Anyway, the set of all nonpositive integers, or Z- U {0}, where Z- is the set of all negative integers, is clearly infinite by the above commonly accepted definition of infinity- just let f(x) = x-1 be the bijective map from (Z- U {0}) to Z-, a proper subset. And it has a greatest element of 0...so I object to your #2 statement.

Most atheists I know are social rejects. A sound mind would not even entertain the thought of atheism

Look at most successful people, athletes, musicians. They all believe in God, in a higher power, they give praise to Him and glorify Him that's why they are so successful in the first place.

This is not an argument for the validity of atheism or otherwise.This is not an argument for the validity of atheism or otherwise.This is not an argument for the validity of atheism or otherwise.

Also the kind of people who take a podium in order to get a medal or an award typically thank God because that's the expected ritual (in the US). It's pretty LOL to lump all successful people into a group you have judged by American actors and athletes.

Feel free to tell yourself whatever you need to feel better about yourself buddy.

That's just pure cope. Considering sports and entertainment are run by Satanists. Besides why would athletes acknowledge God in public if they don't even believe in Him in the first place? There's no money or accolades to be gained by doing so.

And are you're saying this man had to pretend he believes in God just to give this speech? What would he gain by pretending?

-Denzel Washington believes in God
-Therefore, God

Pretty sound I guess....