Physicists are already dividing over Fine Tuning to those who revert to the meme (multiverse) that was ignored by scientists for centuries and those who finally acknowledge the best explanation is an intelligent designer.
Science is approaching theism weather you like it or not.
atheists would rather accept the most improbable where all of the physical constants and laws arise by pure randomness (their deity) than admit that it was all planned out by God. a single tweak to the strong nuclear force for example could have led to a universe without protons or the ability of stars to create heavier elements crucial to life. it's why you have bullshit like our universe being created from the collision of two infinite branes that nobody has ever been able to detect
>“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant
this is what they actually believe
An iron Age canaanite demon plagiarized from Sumerian myth didn’t create the universe.
The Sumerian and Canaanite records only indicate that this was a shared human experience of early humans when we interacted with the prophets more frequently. They are imperfect because they happened long ago and that is why they differ with our accounts. Beliefs of all sorts from the flood to recognizing one creator being can be found in geographically distinct cultures all over the world I wonder why
>homies observed and made myths about the seas getting higher all over the world as a consequence of the rapid disappearance of glaciers that means muh hebrew world flood must be le real!
Abrahamic gays can't seriously be this moronic.
the mechanics of how the flood happened are irrelevant you moron, a meteor could have been used to punish sinners if God wished and the same applies to any natural phenomenon as they are all under his control
>if there was ever a flood in the entire history of mankind, the universe must've been created by an entity who commands people to cut their foreskins off
I love Christian apologetics.
That isn't the argument, no. But it sure as hell discredits your know nothing position.
>God isn't allowed to deterministically influence the world because I say so!
Who created those natural processes and physical laws in the first place? If he wanted the world to be unpredictable he could have made it so but he clearly didn't
>But it sure as hell discredits your know nothing position.
The fact that there was at least one flood in the entire history of mankind discredits the position that the universe wasn't created by a God who commands people to cut their foreskins off?
Why would accounts that are in accordance with what was independently revealed to us by God discredit him?
Where did I say that they do?
>Actually muh God is literally non-differentiable from mundane and causal natural processes that take millenia
Lol lmao even
The “flood” was a local flooding of the Persian gulf, and the Ark myth was stolen from the flight of Proto-Sumerians out of the Gulf because israelites needed to fabricate a heroic history as they had none of their own.
>shared human experience of early humans
So that's why they literally every one was polytheist until israelites started coping that their god didn't save them from Babylonian slavery (discounting one pharaoh personality cult)
Somehow those polytheists believed in a creator deity that created the others and/or frequently was their king. Sounds like those other "gods" are just angels. Don't you find it odd that whenever someone from those cultures converts to a monotheistic faith they know instantly by which name to call God upon? It's satanic corruption of the truth mankind knew since the time of Adam and nothing more
The King of the Gods in western myths are rarely the creators of the universe though. Uranus and Chronos were completely irrelevant to the Greeks and Saturn was worshiped by the Romans more out of fear than love. Zeus and Jupiter were worshipped because they actually cared about Earth and humanity, he was the king because he actually stepped up and ruled unlike the distant, selfish deistic creators. Same with Norse beliefs, the creation of the Earth was just an accident caused by the war between the Aesir and Jutunn. What made Odin and Thor venerable wasn't raw power, or the idea they should be worshipped solely because they were creator gods, but the fact that they cared about and protected humanity. The obsession with the creation of the universe was almost exclusively a Hebrew thing. It's ridiculous to think a deity should be worshipped and obeyed solely because they're a creator. Yahweh certainly doesn't seem that appealing to worship.
Yeah all pagan faiths suffered corruption and they split up the role of God into multiple other beings. They were after all most commonly responsible for a specific domain of reality while God is responsible for every single one of them. Pagans have deities for border stones, books and penises you shouldn't take their teachings as something more than desperate attempts to get back at our original state of pure monotheism. We don't worship God just because he is the creator of everything, we do it because that is what we are designed to do and out of gratefulness as he literally has given you all the good in your life.
>Corruption
The Old Testament is way more corrupt than any Classical Western Canon. Monotheism is unnatural and why historically it had to be enforced top down. (Aten, Elagabus, Constantine)
Billions of people seem to be following something unnatural to our very beings according to you, I find that very odd. Even after the supposed forces of oppression dissipated into nothingness they still held onto it. Why do you think it's so easy to convert pagans? Obvious bullshit is obvious so they drop it when they are provided an education
Christianity is dying in the West though.
>Even after the supposed forces of oppression dissipated into nothingness they still held onto it.
Not really. Anon wherever it stops being enforced by law and immense societal pressure it drops.
Pagans had to be threatened into conversion with both hell, the law, and angry mobs.
Who fine tuned the intelligent designer?
That would only partially make sense if your cosmic foam or whatever other desperate attempt you come up with to replace God has intelligence of its own but it doesn't.
I'm not coming up with anything to replace God, I'm asking who fine tuned the intelligent designer. If we think of all possible first movers who would each have a disposition to create a different universe, it is exceedingly improbable that the prime mover would be the exact one who created this exact universe. So who fine tuned him?
The prime mover was not forced to create any universe, it's like you think he's tied to his creation in some way when he even has full knowledge of what it could have been if he chose otherwise. His will was the only deciding factor for the world.
Why was his will such that he created precisely this universe? Who fine tuned him?
His will is independent, it existed "prior" to this specific creation but the relationship is not the other way round.
Aristotle first thought there are multiple prome movers, but eventually rested at the idea that there is only one prime mover, prime mover is by definition is uncaused.
Your question is like asking: but what is the south of south pole.
I am not saying that there are multiple prime movers, I am asking why the prime mover is one that has the disposition to create precisely this universe.
If nobody fine tuned the fine tuner, then it's just a matter of dumb chance that the prime mover isn't one that would create a different universe.
>it's just a matter of dumb chance
>conveniently ignoring the fact he has infinite wisdom and knowledge of all other possibilities
>conveniently ignoring the fact he has infinite wisdom and knowledge of all other possibilities
What determines which world is the best one if not the properties of the prime mover himself? So who fine tuned the fine tuner to have such properties that this world is the best one?
>There is only one fine tuner, it’s not like you could choose between different flavors, one single prime mover who either wills to create this world or not.
Why did we luck out and get the fine tuner who wills to create this world and not another one?
Who said anything about this being the best possible world lmao? Heaven exists independently of this reality already. He simply used his will and omni attributes to shape this universe as he sees fit. Why is it this particular way for us? Because he wants to test us this way and nothing more
Low IQ response. I said the best world, not the best universe. This encompasses all of reality.
You are not understanding the question. It's not about why God exists, but rather why he has the attributes that he has.
The only attribute he has is that he is the uncaused causer the unmoved mover if he wasn’t then he wouldn’t be that.
There are no other attributes.
Then the fact that he created this world instead of another one is purely random.
It’s not random because it’s out of omniscient unchanging elaborate will. It was 100 impossible that he wouldn’t create this world.
We do things out of randomness, we get affected by outside because we are not omniscient. If we did, our wills would be infinitely elaborate and absolute.
Why would omniscience necessitate that the prime mover would create this world instead of another one?
I also never talked about my personal preference. Are you unfamiliar with the term "best of all possible worlds"?
> Why would omniscience necessitate that the prime mover would create this world instead of another one?
Randomness of action is out of ignorance. If you knew everything from past to future, giving you are omnipotent you would absolutely elaborstely made a certsin thread of actions and decisions till your death, and it wouldn’t really be communicable why you did that. One can only be sure there is no other way you would have acted. The reason would be only known by you becsuse youre omniscient.
Same with god, why did he create this world and not another one? I don’t know.
Was it possible he would have made another one? Absolutely not, randomness is out of guesswork, absolute omniscient entails absolute will.
Anon, are you stupid? The point is why his will would align with this world instead of another one.
Does the prime mover have a standard for what is good and what isn't?
What do you mean by good in this context? morality or platonic ideal type of thing?
Under traditional conceptions of theism, the good would be that which aligns with God's will. This is what I have in mind, but if you think the concept is unintelligible and either have a different definition of what "good" is or are a nihilist with regards to good and bad, let me know.
> good would be that which aligns with God's will
I disagree with this definition. What if the God in question is evil? And if not... How do we know this, if the definition of good is what God does.
>love your parents
>love your neighbours
>love your enemies
>don’t murder
>don’t bear false witness
>do not be proud
What an evil God! It couldn’t have been eviler!
The same God caused a great flood and the genocide of several cities.
> b-b-b-but he says he doesn't kill!
So he's also a hypocrite.
the lives of people belong to him.
He has lent it and he takes it away.
He has authority.
Also God doesn’t say he doesn’t kill.
Are you calling God evil? I thought you atheist didn’t believe any such notion as good and evil is real.
It's an internal critique, for people who think killing people is bad
I believe that murder is evil...
> the lives of people belong to him.
So he's a slave owner too? Evil, beyond any doubt.
>God is hecking evil!
t. Atheist in the comfort and warmth of his home and family, with a healthy body and fully finctioning brain.
It's thanks to my own efforts and the work of my parents. God has nothing to do with that.
God has everything to do with it.
When I was 16, I was walking on a pavement with my friends and i was talking to him, then suddenly I got the feeling that I must get closer to the end of the pavement towards the road while walking. After a few second suddenly a giant Iron pipe dropped on the pavement right next to me.
From that moment I always thought to myself, why was it that in that exact instance I got this feeling to move my walking position, how could it be coincidence?
The story of God sinking the entire earth just to prove a point to Noah is evil. What about Abraham wanting to sacrifice his own son because he heard voices? Those are literally in the books.
Do you believe that good and bad exist, or are you a nihilism with regards to these concepts? If you do believe they exist, can you describe them?
Well, I believe that people like psychopaths and narcissists are evil. And what makes them evil is that they respect only what suits their will.
So with regards to God, it wouldn't have been any better or worse if he created a different world? And if that is the case, on what basis did God choose to create this one instead of a different one?
> on what basis did God choose to create this one instead of a different one
It is clear that God created the multiverse. Why would he choose to create only one world?
>that which aligns with God's will.
Satan is a part of his will so no that isn't what good is. Goodness is attributed to his perfect mercy and justice instead and not necessarily what is present in creation.
>Goodness is attributed to his perfect mercy and justice
Who fine tuned that? And who fine tuned the prime mover to align with mercy and justice?
God caused the data we're trying to explain.
God does good things. The data we're trying to explain is good.
>God does good things.
Why is God merciful and just? Who fine tuned him to be that way?
Whatever God does is merciful and just, by definition
Merciful and justice doesn't have ontologies independent of God
> Whatever God does is merciful and just, by definition
Seems like narcissistic prayer and gaslighting to me.
Your subjective opinion about what is right or wrong is irrelevant and can never compare to an omniscient being in the first place, but he also made you and the made the mechanics of the world we all operate in. He has dominion over reality while you do not
> He has dominion over reality while you do not.
That doesn't make him good, because he uses his dominance for evil actions.
>I know what is best for the world
Delusional.
It means you have no say because he makes the rules and has perfect knowledge while you have literally nothing, evil does not exist in your paradigm. how can you possibly believe you know better about what is beneficial to us as a species?
Evil exists objectively, and it doesn't matter how powerful God is if he does evil.
> you have literally nothing
That in itself is evil. If being God is good, why wouldn't he make me God too? Unless God is evil and uses his superpower to kill and enslave his own people.
>Evil exists objectively
show me how you justify this. and besides it isn't his power that justifies it but rather the fact he is the creator of the rules and everything else
>God is evil because he didn't make me God
weird satanic take? who the frick do you think you are to demand power from God like that? and besides that would be a contradiction there can only be one necessary being or have modal collapse
> show me how you justify this
Otherwise morality becomes meaningless: "Might makes right" appealing to authority. That's just psychopathy... Which is evil as we know it.
That does not justify your position whatsoever. It at most mischaracterizes what I am saying, so please try again to justify your source of objective morality without invoking God.
>Which is evil as we know it.
How the frick do "we" know it? I disagree with your opinions they are by nature subjective and can be dismissed with my own
So you could've just affirmed my earlier definition of "good", but instead you chose to obfuscate because you're afraid of where this road leads. You can literally just go back here
and see
>What determines which world is the best one if not the properties of the prime mover himself? So who fine tuned the fine tuner to have such properties that this world is the best one?
It makes no sense asking which world is the best, without a perspective.
I've given an account of what's best (good), which depends on God.
God removed, and a bunch of worlds lined up along each other, it's untellable to ask which is best.
Anon, you are still not getting it. I'm not removing the prime mover's perspective, I'm saying take a bunch of prime movers with different perspectives and each of them will create a different world (because that's the best one from their perspective). Why is our prime mover fine tuned for having such attributes that the best possible world from his perspective is this one?
>Why is our prime mover fine tuned for having such attributes that the best possible world from his perspective is this one?
I don't understand the question. Our world depends on God, not the other way around.
God's properties explains our world.
Like this, no it doesn't. There is nothing about the universe that depends on anything other than the universe itself. You simply claiming that the universe requires God is not true
I took your question to be about my view.
Obviously if you assume that not-my view is true, then my view is false.
>God's properties explains our world.
Why does God have these properties and not other ones? That's the entire point that I've been hammering on all this time. It's the exact same argument as the traditional fine tuning argument:
God is unexplained. God's properties couldn't have been otherwise.
Thank frick we finally got there. Alright, the universe's properties couldn't have been otherwise.
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with saying this.
Which is why the fine tuning argument for God is silly.
Look, you don't have to believe this
>the universe's properties couldn't have been otherwise
Assume someone believes it is possible for the universe to be different. Now suddenly there's a question to be asked, about why the universe is the way it is.
Why would someone who does not believe in a universe that couldn't have been different believe in a person who couldn't have been different?
I really don't see how this argument could ever work on someone who doesn't enter the discussion already believing in God.
> which depends on God
This would make morality subjective and meaningless if what is good were just God's opinion.
>This would make morality subjective
Yeah, divine command theory is a form of subjective morality. I've never claimed otherwise.
>would make morality meaningless
What's the argument for this?
I don't believe morality is meaningless.
Those are his attributes the same way omnipotence is, he has prescribed mercy on Himself.
Yes I know and I am very familiar with the term but I disagree with it and find it not to be compatible with scripture. What do you mean by it?
>I said the best world, not the best universe.
The "best" anything wasn't ever part of it. I told you why we experience it the way we do but if you care about why this particular grain of sand on mars must exist in this reality as opposed to another. Then it wasn't ever a requirement because every aspect of this reality is contingent, but then again with the atoms it is composed of existing for billions of years you have no idea what sort of butterfly effect it would have for it to be not there. He simply chose it to be there that is all
My friend we are completely on a different plane of existence than God. We are like tiny bits of color on a painting, and God is the painter outside of the painting.
And when we say ok but who painted the painter that painted us? It’s nonsensical because the painter is not painted himself.
So to ask who fine tuned the fine tuner is logically false. Who laid the bricks of the brick layer. Who sickens the sickness virus.
There is only one fine tuner, it’s not like you could choose between different flavors, one single prime mover who either wills to create this world or not.
It’s not a matter of chance or randomness at all, what you’re trying to do is stepping back and assigning randomness to the prime mover which is desperate.
The whole idea of Fine Tuning is that it could not be chance. That’s all.
When it’s not chance then it’s elaborate design.
„Who fine tuned the prime mover“ is like saying ok but who painted the painter.
I like how this question never fails to derail any apologetic babble
Who sickend the Virus? Who painted the painter? Who bricklaid the bricklayer? Who speaks the speaker? Who burns fire, who wets water.
If a scientist can make designer babies, he couldn't have been designed.
Solid logic.
And here is the semantics gambit: by using different words instead of "making" or "creating the apologist tries to poison the well and change argument; of course this doesn't work because god specifically creates the universe which opens to the question on what created him
The universe has to obey the laws of physics and is finite, therefore it has a cause, because that is where those restrictions come from. But that doesn't mean the Creator must have a cause since the Creator doesn't have to obey any such laws and is not known to be finite in any way. So it is perfectly possible that the Creator doesn't even have a cause. Meanwhile the universe must have a cause since it has to follow all these laws and is finite.
I agree that if the universe has a cause, that cause is different from the universe in *some* respects
I'dd still just call it the initial physical state of the universe, though
Don't know why so many people think it's a guy with holes in his hands
The physical laws that determine how the universe behaves can't be part of, or contingent on, the universe itself. They have to be coming from a source that is outside of nature or supernatural. Furthermore whatever is causatively and/or temporally prior to the universe, by the law of excluded middle, must either have its own cause or have no cause at all. If it does have its own cause, then ultimately (just like the universe) it ultimately must have something without a cause as the first mover behind it all. And being without a cause must mean that all attributes come from within such an entity, as nothing can be imposed on that which has no cause. If all attributes of an entity are (i.e. must be) coming from within itself, then everything that the entity does must be by its own will, which means that that uncaused entity willed everything into existence without any prompting or imposition from anything else. Therefore the existence of caused things, and indeed anything observable at all, is a direct proof of the existence of God. For that reason, to me all of existence is a directly witnessed miracle, as there is no other way to explain why anything exists at all. Hopefully that makes sense.
The divine laws that determine how the God behaves can't be part of, or contingent on, the God itself. They have to be coming from a source that is outside of supernature or super-supernatural
funking clown
>The divine laws that determine how the God behaves
What laws?
>The physical laws that determine how the universe behaves
What laws?
If the painter wasn't painted does it follow he/she wasn't created?
Very pithy rebuttal anon
It's a perfectly legitimate question.
There's an inference being used, that things are explained by other things.
Then this inference is being used to have God be the thing explaining the universe.
But then you got to have this spergout when the same inference is being applied to God.
What I "actually believe" rather is that there is no outside to the universe by definition, and therefore no beginning or end to it, and therefore no creator who exists outside of it. Therefore, "God" refers only to the unity of things in our universe, of which I am as much part of as you, and yet we are not equal parts of, for I am a vastly more intelligent being.
Space expanding and time starting to move forward from the moment of the big bang does not necessitate anything happening or not "beyond" its realm, they are local phenomena to our universe and that's it. Who said God was ever limited by the dimensions of this world? After all according to theists he existed just fine for eternity without creation. An eternal universe doesn't solve anything in this thread anyway. Great now you have this thing that still has all the extremely unlikely probabilities required to support us existing but now you can't even cope by saying the multiverse tried all combinations and we are just lucky. It just creates more problems for you, assuming the universe had all the conditions required to "start" from eternity past why did it only begin to do so 13.8 billion years ago? If it didn't have them then something changed requiring time but since it's unlikely you'll be holding onto the model of a static universe because of the evidence against it tell me more about the mechanics of your model.
Useless Aperahamic justifications babble.
behead those who don't list names when they cite authority figures
Fine tuning is probably the least convincing argument for God. It's just a survivorship bias problem, where our universe exists therefore it must be the "best of all possible worlds." In reality you can't make assumptions based off a sample size of 1, we have no idea if other universes are possible or not based on different constants.
The reasoning of FT is not like what you said.
look at the cosmological constant which is tuned to 1:10^120.
> nobody thinks that’s accidental….that is not a reasonable idea that something is tuned to 120 decimal places just by accident”. Leonard Susskind says.
It’s a matter of randomness or design.
“like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable nonreligious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.” from Discover Magazine.
Who fine tuned the intelligent designer?
Me
The intelligent designer is uncaused and has no beginning or prior cause at all. The intelligent designer is not constrained to follow the laws of physics, while the universe has no choice but to follow those laws. And those natural or physical laws were determined by the prior cause of the physical, material universe.
That's not really an interesting argument though, there are all sorts of fun quirks in math and science. You may as well argue Euler's formula or the fact that gravitational and electrical force have a similar equation proves God.
Also our universe isn't fine tuned for life, 99.9% of the universe is absolutely hostile to life. Humans live on a tiny little island in the universe.
The fact that there is life (which depends on an infinitesimally narrow range that the constants of physics provide), means the universe is fine-tuned for life.
There could be life elsewhere on the universe as well. We don’t know.
Life as we know it depends on a specific range of physics.
You and look at the universe and say it’s tuned for life when it’s 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% nearly enpty dead and hostile to life.
This is like someone trying to sell you on a vacation to a country with great biodiversity and it’s entirely radioactive desert with one microscopic bacteria colony in some random spot.
Well they need to have a fantasy. It’s a form of escapism from their actual responsibility that entails from the fact that the universe is hostile to life. And abrahamism is essentially a form of capeshit escapism.
When we say it's fine tuned for life we mean that life can actually exist here as opposed to the "99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%" of other realities we can conceive of. It does not mean that every corner must be teeming with random creatures.
If something is fine tuned for something in this context would basically mean an endless jungle. If I tell you some vacation spot is fine tuned for water sports, swimming and relaxing at the beach, but you go and it’s by far the driest place you’ve ever seen with only a microscopic drop of water in one corner, that area is not fine tuned for water and aquatic activities.
Hell dude, I know you’re going to complain about that analogy. How about it’s one human sized puddle so you can actually stand on a surfboard in it
But does that make the region fine tuned for water sports?
This seems like an issue of definition. I haven't ever seen a theist claim that every planet, moon, star, etc is compatible with life. In fact they'd use Earth's uniqueness here to further prove the point of an intelligent agent placing us here where we can thrive. Being placed in the Goldilocks zone is just as much of a miracle as the other highly unlikely occurrences that had to happen to support life
The earth teeming with life including advanced thinking animals is objectively an anomaly. The universe is not fine tuned for life.
If the universe was fine tuned for life…do you know what fine tuned means anon? It means it’s perfectly set up for that one purpose.
>we have no idea
It has been logically proven
If they were possible, then they would exist.
>episode #237842842 of "I can prove god"
>it's shit arguments as per usual
Why do you even try? I thought the leap of faith was supposed to end it. Why do you no longer want faith to be a requirement?
The universe isn’t fine tuned for life, it’s almost entirely lifeless. We don’t even really have a word for the proportion of life vs. lifeless, infinitesimal does not go far enough to get across how much of this universe is actually able to harbor life vs. totally hostile to life
Multiverse makes more sense then intelligent designer and solved problem of evil.
>infinite complexity explanation makes more sense
>actually believing there is a problem of evil in the first place when under your paradigm evil isn't even a thing
It's a supernatural explanation that was custom-made to avoid the idea of God, and even just Occam's razor tells me there is no reason at all to accept it.
I'm arguing with you, not against you, you mass quoting autist.
>they can't even consider the possibility that the Mayan Gods or the Hindu Gods might be the real ones
anything polytheistic can be discredited in an instant because we have a uniform reality meaning different wills can't be in charge of it unless one is the weaker one (and therefore not a God)
> different wills can't be in charge
Therefore trinity is wrong and christianity is BTFO.
The trinity is wrong indeed. Classic christian cope is to mention that they are ultimately united in will but that means there is nothing actually differentiating them and therefore you just have to concede to monotheism where you at most can treat the son as an avatar/meat suit of sorts.
In the Illiad all the Gods and Goddesses have power but Zeus is king and has the final say. There's only one way the Trojan can end, Zeus laments the fact that Hector must die but resolves that it's his fate to die in battle with Achilles.
They all have power sure but what happens when the god of the sky wants to create a thunderstorm but the god of the sea is not willing to release moisture for cloud formation? It will be literally chaos so no wonder they have a deity that is king above all because unless one is able to overpower the rest and intrude upon their dominion nothing gets done. And if they all agree 100% of the time they might as well be one being with multiple manifestations
We still barely understand how weather works, predictions are still basically 50/50. Chaos is all around us, even moreso with quantum physics and the uncertainty involved in making predictions at the atomic level.
A lack of computing power and perfect mathematical formulae describing fluid dynamics in weather systems does not mean we are living under chaos. And on the contrary certain fields in quantum physics like QED are some of the most tested and successful theories of ours. It corresponds perfectly with what we know of reality so no again it isn't reality breaking chaos even if it isn't intuitive
lol
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pLRogvJLPPg6Mrvg4/an-alien-god
how does any of that discredit the fact that reality is stable and not prone to literal chaos where everything breaks down?
The multiverse and an intelligent designer are both speculative hypotheses based on limited empirical knowledge, for not even a scientist has ventured beyond the universe.
There is evidence for intelligent designer. Namely the fact that it was not chance. This is an evidence.
There is no evidence for multiverse.
People who argue for Multiverse are simply avoiding intelligent designer.
> There is no evidence for multiverse.
Except for quantum physics... The best proven theory of all time...
you finally found it! where is your Nobel prize? personally I can't see the multiverse under a microscope so it doesn't exist
Paul Diraq one of the founding fathers of quantom physics believed God intervenes in the universe through quantom jumps.
>implying the theory of multiverse excludes the possibility of an an all-encompassing creator
Still don't believe that the universe is controlled by Rabbi Yeshua, sorry.
Rabbi yeshua is the only God you can bet your money on. Only he has the attributes of the prime mover out of all the deities.
Lest put your immortal soul in peril.
No.
Your rabbi yeshua dosen't even get close to my god.
What is your God might i ask
>some obscure cult leader who achieved jack shit and got himself executed
>his cult didn't even become relevant until many generations after his death
>prime mover of the universe
Lol. lmao even. But yeah, I'm sure he's gonna come back in about two more weeks and show me.
>achieved nothing
2.40 billion people Christian
Billions of rats inhabit drains everywhere too.
You say that as if you can even make one rat. they are a feat of engineering whether you like how they smell or not
The complexity of the organism of one rate will never be achieved by 100 generations of humans you proud hypocrite
Christianity=Black Death by that logic.
Lol.
Abrahamism is the mental equivalent of the Black Death or malaria. Probably more harmful.
>this racist and sexist page full of unfounded claims makes the faith of Abraham false
European society is based on the teachings of him and his followers
European society is based on the European canon created by Europeans, which existed long before your useless babble
Pagan cope.
"european canon" never applied to the barbarians of the north nor are its principles infused in your culture, Christianity is whether you like it or not and ultimately your knowledge of right and wrong comes from the gifts of Jesus
>2.40 billion people Christian
Not under Jesus's leadership. Christianity grew under other talented people (like Sha'ul/Paul, who never even met Jesus) and didn't become socially relevant until generations later. Jesus was a dirty hobo who called himself king and was executed for it. Not very impressive for the supposed prime mover of the universe.
Pail met Jesus
Jesus resurrected, appeared to over 500 people, on whose testimony accounts gospels were written.
Jesus is still appearing to different people through visions, NDEs and dreams.
Miracles still happen.
>Miracles still happen.
Take pictures, film videos. Gullible moron.
The evidence is overwhelming.
You think if Jesus appeard to you for whatever reason personally, you would rush for you phone to take a photo of him or would you become utterly flabbergasted and motionless.
Also I don’t think God would want his existence to be proved beyond doubt as it would take away faith and people who wouldn’t deserve grace merit it.
>I don’t think God would want his existence to be proved
Then what the hell were you doing, trying to prove him?
I'll take this as a permission to disregard your posts.
I’m a human and I’m doing this for those whose hearts are not still hardened because Jesus said believers must proselytise people.
Sure, but you got no good reason to believe that is true, because on your own theology, God has to keep the reasons to believe shitty, so people aren't force into belief
The reasons are good alright, it’s just that people don’t wanna hear, or if they do they purposefully misunderstand it or make strawmen out of it. They just don’t want it they don’t want it man.
Look, you made up two excuses to explain away 1 problem.
People are too awestruck to remember to take pictures AND God prolly wouldn't want them to take pictures anyway. That's cute.
Why should I believe your claim about miracles happening today? Give me you "good" reasons.
You don't get it, there is no way to make someone believe no matter the evidence. It takes a change within yourself and you can't be forced into faith because if he wanted all humanity would have been believers by force and then where is the test?. Satan knows God exists and still disobeys him because of arrogance
I'd believe if I saw a priest pray over an amputee and the missing limb grew back in real time.
what makes you think you aren't being fooled or hallucinating? in a materialist worldview a bunch of nanites operated by neoAtlanteans reconstructing the limb or even aliens are more likely after all
That seems way less likely and convoluted to me. Besides, I don't have a "materialist worldview", I just don't believe in miracles because I haven't seen anything that would qualify as one. Once I do, I'll believe in miracles. Same as with everything else really.
>I don't have a "materialist worldview"
>I just don't believe in miracles because I haven't seen anything that would qualify as one.
Empiricism is basically that though, also how exactly is that less likely from your pov. Do you attribute everything you can't currently explain to miracles from God? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abugiGHOHg0
>Empiricism is basically that though
Not at all.
>how exactly is that less likely from your pov
Well for starters, technology isn't magic. You just use "nanites" as handwavium for inserting magic into the example while claiming that it's not magic.
Tell me, how does a nanite conjure up twenty pounds of solid matter ex nihilo?
>Not at all.
they come as a package for the vast majority of you somehow
>Tell me, how does a nanite conjure up twenty pounds of solid matter ex nihilo?
who the frick said that? it could easily be taking from the surroundings without it being visible. trees basically do that from the air and they aren't magic so your point is invalid
>they come as a package for the vast majority of you somehow
You are talking to me, not to "the vast majority".
>who the frick said that? it could easily be taking from the surroundings without it being visible. trees basically do that from the air and they aren't magic so your point is invalid
You are once again making up magic. Trees aren't nanites, and they cannot extract and utilize such massive amounts of carbon over such a short time span.
Why do you want me to not be convinced by seeing a miracle? Is me potentially being convinced by a miracle somehow inconvenient for you?
The influence of Satan affects everyone differently but it is the same source after all so the nature of it all is the same and thus you are all alike.
>b-but the robots aren't fast enough
Show me a physical law restricting their speed making it impossible for them to achieve that feat. There are certainly chemical reactions that happen faster it is not a stretch to conceive of nanoscale structures moving at those rates too.
>Why do you want me to not be convinced by seeing a miracle?
I don't? You are just lying to yourself that upon seeing something you cannot explain you will resort to God. Miracles work for people at are open to seeing them and not just saying they are as a gotcha, the disciples were shown miracles and so were his enemies never forget that
>b-but the robots aren't fast enough
That's not what I said. Take for instance these facts:
>a human leg generally weighs around 12 kilos
>air weighs around 1.3 kilos per cubic meter
>you need to suck resources out of air to build the leg
>1:1 conversion would require complete displacement of almost 10 cubic meters of oxygen
>the real efficiency would be much lower because of different element ratios between air and the human body
So basically you're somehow instantly sucking in all the air around through a fricking nanite, processing twelve kilos of matter through a nanite, and somehow not killing everyone else around in the process?
>You are just lying to yourself that upon seeing something you cannot explain you will resort to God.
The funny thing is that even if you personally think my reason for believing it was a miracle would be bad, that still has no bearing on me believing it was a miracle.
You're just coping and dilating because your belief necessitates that I don't want to believe in your God and wouldn't be convinced by a miracle.
>So basically you're somehow instantly sucking in all the air around through a fricking nanite, processing twelve kilos of matter through a nanite, and somehow not killing everyone else around in the process?
a nanite? There are multiple of them and nobody said there has to be a range limit in the immediate vicinity of the people breathing there nor is it only limited to gas available in the area. After all a human being is not made just from water vapor and atmospheric gasses. And besides again there is nothing IMPOSSIBLE in what you are saying really it will be a feat of engineering for sure but the tech we have now would have been perceived as witchcraft even a hundred years ago. Ultimately the point you are trying to make is useless when a simple delusion is just as much of an explanation for what you are witnessing and it involves zero supernatural beings.
>that still has no bearing on me believing it was a miracle
Yeah indeed it would just make you dishonest and that is my point, atheist prays and survives miraculously from car crash guess how he will justify it after? Slap a bunch of mechanistic explanations and suddenly the unlikeliness of it starts to slip their mind. If you were actually honest you'd be seeing the miracle we are living now
I don't know that God exist, though
>It takes a change within yourself
Yeah, I'm an Atheist-Calvinist. God need to heal my heart of stone, for me to believe. I can't save myself, it's the holy spirit that does that
If I go to hell, it's because God chose not to heal my heart of stone
You know but you don't believe. Father forgive!
>You know but you don't believe
What the heck does that mean?
It's not about knowledge it's about faith.
I still don't get it.
What's the difference between me knowing that God exist, as you claim (but not having faith in it?)
And not knowing that God exist.
If you know that god exists but you don't act accordingly you are lacking faith. (basically behaving like a demon)
How can I tell if I genuinely don't know that God exist, or if I know (but don't believe that I know) ?
Help me out here
You use belief like it is an opiniomated sentiment of yours.
>belief
I didn't bring up that word.
I told you: I don't know that God exist
You're the one the one that started saying weird stuff, about me not believing that
>but don't believe that I know
But not important.
>I told you: I don't know that God exist
Do you mean that you don't know if God exists or do mean something else?
As in a response to you saying "Satan knows God exists and still disobeys"
I don't know that God exist. So the story about Satan isn't relevant.
Did you read the bible?
No
Why did you not read the most influencial piece of literature ever written?
Are you changing the topic?
Probably it's demons influencing me
If you don't know the word of god, then you don't know god.
Yeah. I already told you, I don't know that God exist.
Have you sincerely prayed to be guided by the Lord? Yes ultimately guidance is with him but those who want to be saved will not be abandoned
>Have you sincerely prayed to be guided by the Lord
Of course not. I don't believe God is real
How could I possibly "pray sincerely" to a God I think is made-up
Besides, I don't even know how to pray
Did you read the bible?
>Idk how to pray
Anon, you should ask him for a sign, something visible something certain, ask him for a sign and then promise that if he shows you it, you will be His believer.
If you do it from the depths of your heart, honestly and eagerly and not out of spite, you will be guided.
that is your problem you aren't even open to receiving guidance and will not yourself even ask for it. what harm can it do to try? let your pride go for a moment and just do it
Why would he do that? Pretending to believe God exists so you can "sincerely" pray is just intellectual dishonesty.
you don't have to pretend he exists what the frick? say if you are out there God please grant me guidance and actually mean it, you know with a contrite heart and all
you have to let go of your pride and consider the possibility in your heart that your Lord is listening. also don't play dumb you know how believers pray to God
>say if you are out there God please grant me guidance and actually mean it
That's not going to be sincere if you don't believe God is out there tho.
It will be sincere by putting yourself in a position of actual agnosticism. You can send an SOS message without expecting anyone to be on the receiving end you know?
The outward manifestations of the act do not matter unless you are following his guidance, at this stage you can perfectly say it in your heart without doing any motions or speaking anything. it's an ask for help don't find excuses not to do it
See
.
I was a fan of the series and genuinely tried it when I was young yes, next question?
>say it in your heart without doing any motions or speaking anything
I think I did something like this multiple times in the past, when I was really sad
That is a sign that the innate disposition you have to turn to him for comfort and help is still there. Clouded by everything else maybe but present nevertheless, you might actually be on the path already anon even if at the very start.
Cool
>you know how believers pray to God
I don't
Do I need to kneel? Is speaking out loud important? What about folding my hands, does it matter?
That's not even getting in to the mental states, presumably it's not just a physical performance, I need to think certain thoughts
>actually mean it
I don't think God is real, so I'm not gonna mean it
Do you believe with all your heart and mind that he isn’t real? Would you bet your life on it?
Don’t you think it might be possible that you’re a human and you might be wrong?
I mean believe in the ordinary sense.
I don't believe God exist. Yes, I could be wrong about it.
He’s either playing moron or he is a forest gump level moron.
How do I pray sincerely, when I don't believe God exist?
>just do it
HOW?
Like, I just close my eyes and think happy thoughts? Do I have to say something out loud?
Why are you so sure God doesn’t exist, everything is possible, it’s a dogma you have. Just consider the possibility that you’re wrong. Just consider it, like all scientists do.
Then tell God, if he eixsts and if he loves you and wants to save you, to show you a sign.
Ez
How do I do that sincerely?
It's gonna be super cringe
Try it, it's gonna be based like your Soijak collection!
If I do (not gonna do it right now, waiting until I feel more sincere), but nothing happens.
Should I take it as evidence that God doesn't exist?
No it could also mean that you are destined not to be justified for your trespasses. But in the end it is by god's grace alone that we are saved and the fashion of how he shares it with us is up to him.
Cool. I' would probably just gonna believe that God is made-up, though
Jokes aside, just try it trust me.
Fine tuning is a SHIT argument, became theism does not make predictions
Anything we could possibly observe, is compatible with theism
Fine-tuning is simply to make-up an ad-hoc explanation, where God is asserted to have a desire to cause the data we're trying to explain (without explaining why God has that desire)
It's an explanatory sleight-of-hand, nothing has been explained.
Theists take an hypothesis with limited possibility and compare it to a hypothesis with infinite possibility space. Then acts all kinds of shocked when the limited on seems more probable.
It's so fricking moronic.
>compare it to a hypothesis with infinite possibility space
Occam's razor would suggest it to be the least likely too, so what makes you hold it above all else?
kys you'll never be white
You guys do not actually understand mathematics or physics so why are you using them to argue for the Christian god?
>You guys do not actually understand mathematics or physics
Why do you believe this?
Because your arguments in this thread display that you don't. Your throwing muh probabilities without an understanding of probability theory and claiming the fine structure constant has to he intelligently designed when it doesn't.
And most importantly, and this is really the core problem with theistic thought although not directly about mathematics or physics, is that you do not actually need intelligence or a conscious personal intelligent God for there to be law and structure. Some guy earlier said that you can't apply the logic to the universe itself because it needs to be intelligent. This is not true, at all. Attributing intelligence or consciousness or personality to the prime mover is simply an addition of properties that is not actually necessary which theists always do simply because they want it to be.
>You don't need electricity for magnetism.
That's a fake quote and Heisenberg was not a theist. The negative correlation between iq and religiosity increases exponentially at the genius level iq.
Literally only morons are religious.
>Leibniz and Bach are morons
No but they lived centuries ago when far less about the universe was known.
There is undeniable statistical proof in our time that iq is negatively proportional to religiosity. Thus disproving the homosexual bragging in the op.
>he's a progressive
So enlightened we are these days that claims of the existance of two sexes is a hot bottom issue right now.
>Der erste Trunk aus dem Becher der Naturwissenschaft macht atheistisch, aber auf dem Grund des Bechers wartet Gott. / Dieses Bekenntnis stammt von einem der größten Naturwissenschaftler des 20. Jahrhunderts. Für seine 'Aufstellung der Quantenmechanik' erhielt er 1933 den Nobelpreis / Werner Heisenberg stammte aus Würzburg."
Heisenberg was a lutheran.
Take the L
Average IQ atheists continue to willfully prove how average their IQ is.
You can almost see the basedface photos and a fedora hanging in the background of their messed up depression-riddled lives as they viciously b***h about how they've already figured out the entire universe - even as the best scientists today only find more questions than answers.
Science will never bring men to God. A faith in God based on something as petty as science would be as weak as faith based on miracles.
the existence of irrational constants in fundamental physics equations indicates they are not in their final form.
If the underlying framework were fully comprehended then there would be no "fine tuning" variables present within the mathematical formulations.
sadly the moronic masses who think they know God have latched onto the idea as a sort of gatcha.
Guys you just need to try to do the kamehameha and actually mean it.
>inb4 I believe that's impossible
Have you deductively proven that shooting a kamehameha is impossible?
>Some physivist neliebes in some pantheistic meme therefore god is real
Surely you can do better op
Oh my, my post is doing numbers, guess I did my fair share of red pilling atheists on religion today.
Multiverse theory is not true, you moron.
So, like, do you want to raise the bar what gets passed off as science?
No. I want to throw out science altogether.
I don't want to feel silly, for thinking it's true that a man walked on water 2000 years ago.
But it isn't true so you are silly for believing it
I experienced a miracle.
Same, I didn't believe in miracles until my aunt's dog started talking to me
Maybe you should stop fricking it Cletus
>Science is approaching theism weather you like it or not.
No, science is agnostic.
Scientists might be approaching theism, in fact in the US it would surprise me if even a slim majority of working scientists were atheists, but theism is not Christianity. Not even close. Its absurd to go from saying there was some sort of creator to taking the bible, with its proven ahistorical stories and forged letters seriously as truth.
shut up nerd.
>science is totally approaching theism bro trust me
making shit up won't result in people believing in your religion again, if anything it will have the opposite effect
How could you know if the universe is fine-tuned if there's nothing to compare it with? It's certainly not fine-tuned for humans, since we die in almost every place in the Universe except a small range of habitats on our homeworld.
If any of you actually believe science or philosophy is about to take an Abrahamic turn, you’re going to be reeling in thirty years. Genetics, neural networks, and drone warfare are just coming into their own. You’ll live to see horrors beyond the wildest dreams of the Prophets and Revelator, and the philosophers will be too busy quibbling over the sentience of the first real artificial intelligences to say much about Rabbi Yeshua.
AI will never reach human level consciousness.
In the 1960s AI researchers were saying that within 20 years they would produce computers that would have the depth, and more importantly the scope and flexibility of human intelligence. The philosopher Hubert Dreyfus told them that unless they understand the importance of embodiment and tacit, non-explicit knowledge for intelligence and coping with the world, AI will never approach human intelligence, except for narrow fields like chess.
The number of possible situations we can be in is virtually infinite, and the number of things you can program a computer to do is finite. We don't think about the world like computers, we use our bodily and non-theoretical knowledge
If there wasn't laws limiting God, he would be able to do actually anything, such as making a stone so heavy that he can't lift it, make atheism true, etc
There are things God chooses to do and make actuality and others that are not chosen. It's purely up to the will of the Lord. The Lord can decide exactly how long a thing is to be sustained, to set it where it will be, decide what it will go through, and even cause the actions of a free agent to have any effect that the Lord wants. He can decide to make a world where no one with a will has to worship Him, but give the option for people to do so if people may choose to.
He can even bring and cause the actions of rebellious people to come back on them in ways that glorify God, and do this in such a way that in the end, God gets the glory due. It can be like it says in Job 34:11, "For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways."
moron
Even if there was a creator God (unlikely), Christianity (and by extension Judaism and Islam) seem to be the least likely candidates for the one, true religion.
>spilt breast milk forming the Milky Way.is more likely
explain yourself
This is the definition of the probability of an event.
P(A) = |A| / |Ω|
Where |A| is the number of ways the event can happen and |Ω| is the number of ways that anything can happen.
You cannot assign a probability to the universe without defining the omega set, the set of all possibilities, which is not something that you can empirically observe or deduce. There is no reason that the constants should even exist or that the only laws of reality are variations of the standard model.
We could have spawned in a cartoon universe. There is no reason to set the omega set equal to the standard model.
Even if there was a conscious creator, you are not a soul or a spirit. Neuroscience, psychiatry, biochemistry, is very clear. You are an organic machine without free will. Your emotions, memories and personality are physical. There is no afterlife.
>Neuroscience, psychiatry, biochemistry, is very clear.
show me the research papers proving the soul does not exist
>You are an organic machine without free will.
what is compatibilism?
What's a soul?
NDEs, OBEs, visions, miracles…
https://www.christianlearning.com/iraqi-burned-alive-isis-jesus/amp/
?si=QxYCJVSpwBuv5Dam
Just one pic is all it takes to BTFO these morons.
Mom and dad. Was god borne out of chaos and order?
But you morons believe God "baked" Adam and Eve out of clay.
>I need smart people to tell me god exists because I let atheist commentary live in my head rent free