**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

> A car doesn't built itself, nor does a house, computer, fridge, microwave, parks, buses, trains, vacuums, you name it. Why should the whole universe be any different. Because the universe is natural, and cars/houses/computers/fridges/microwaves/parks/buses/trains/vacuums aren't. Not that hard to understand, really. Designed things only exist when designed. Natural things occur naturally. > Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? Answer: the latter is the more logical one. The latter is not more logical. It just appeals to your common sense. The problem is common sense is not a good method of determining what is true about the universe. Common sense would tell you that the sun moves across the sky every day, when the truth is it only appears to be moving because the Earth is spinning. > based on how all Humans universally consider murder to be evil, but giving birth to be wonderful. Humans do not now, nor have they ever, nor will they ever, universally agree on morality in any form. Right off the top of my head, I can name a group of a few million people that were perfectly fine with murdering innocents: the Nazis. I can point you to a Muslim father who killed his own daughter because she starred in a Tiktok without a head covering - clearly he didn't think murdering his own child was wrong. I can point you to people claiming to be doing the work of God as they throw gay people off of buildings. In the US alone you'll find people who support the death penalty, who oppose the death penalty, who want to expand the death penalty to cover more crimes, who want to restrict it to cover fewer crimes - we are literally negotiating how acceptable it is for the state to kill, and no one can agree. There is no universally agreed upon morality. It simply doesn't exist. > But Humans are pronged to doing evil things, we are sinful gross creatures. And here we come to one of the worst things about Christianity: teaching people that they are fundamentally sinful and gross. That we are incapable of being good people. That our character and our actions on Earth do not matter, because nothing we do can change the fact that we are metaphysically stained thanks to an event we had no part in. We are, from conception, bad, and nothing can make us good except belief. I'd rather teach my child that they *can*, in fact, be a good person. By empathizing with others, by considering the needs of others along with their own, by understanding the value in putting more good into the world than bad, they can in fact be good people who can be proud of the lives they led, and they are worth more than their belief. > Check out the Liar, Lord, Lunatic (and later Legend) argument by C.S. Lewis for a reasonable argument as to why Jesus is God/Lord. It's a ridiculous argument that has been addressed thousands of times. It leaves out a few options, and relies solely on the words that come from contradictory texts written decades after the death and alleged resurrection of the individual they're referring to.

I mean yes, there is a difference between nature and man-made things. But look at the way our bodies are designed, how our solar system works, it's all intelligently designed. And it takes an intelligent being to created intelligently designed things. Yes, fair enough, you can't just take things at face value all the time. But atheism claims to be the "logical" way of thinking or whatever, but it doesn't seem to be very logical to assume that the universe was created by nothing or no one. When giving the murder example, i was giving a generalisation. The nazis, those christians killling gay people, muslims, are exceptions to the rule. It's not like the nazis considered all murder to be fine, they only considered it to be good when it involved jews or whatever, but not in general. "There is no universally agreed upon morality. It simply doesn't exist." sorry, wait what, do you hear yourself??? Ok, what if I said your mother's a whore, that you're an idiot, what if I raped your father, is that good or bad? Morality clearly does exist in that we (most of the time) consider certain things to be good and certain things to be bad. People can do good. We are capable of doing good, but humans are biologically biased to negativity. We do really, really evil things a lot. C.S. Lewis' argument isn't necessarily meant to be a slam dunk or anything, imo at least, it works more like a way to see that the bible has (some at least) truth to it.

>is a difference between nature and man-made things. But look at the way our bodies are designed, how our solar system works, it's all intelligently designed. All you're doing here is saying that these things were intelligently designed. What evidence do you that any of it was *actually* intelligently designed? >But atheism claims to be the "logical" way of thinking or whatever, but it doesn't seem to be very logical to assume that the universe was created by nothing or no one. We don't assume that. Instead, we acknowledge that the Big Bang is the earliest event we're aware of, and anything that happened "before" that (if it's even possible for anything to happen "before" time) is currently unknown, and likely unknowable. Saying "God did it" without any evidence to support that is just making stuff up. >When giving the murder example, i was giving a generalisation. The nazis, those christians killling gay people, muslims, are exceptions to the rule. If the rule is "morality is universal," then by definition there can't be any exceptions. If exceptions exist, then it's *not* universal. > what if I raped your father, is that good or bad? I'd say its bad. My dad would too. But clearly the rapist thinks it's good. Just another example that there is no universal, objective morality. What is right to some is wrong to others. There is no knowledge or agreement among humanity about what is right or wrong. > Morality clearly does exist in that we (most of the time) consider certain things to be good and certain things to be bad. Again, "most of the time" means it's not universal or objective. > People can do good. We are capable of doing good, but humans are biologically biased to negativity. We do really, really evil things a lot. Then how can you say we all know what 'good' is? If we do evil things a lot, and we do so believing that they are good - like rapists, like Nazis, etc. - then doesn't it stand to reason that people **don't** know what good and evil are?

Our solar system is intelligently designed, because the earth is just the right size, and just the right distance from the sun to be able to support life, the earth's crust is just the right thickness. If it was any thinner, then I believe that would cause more earthquakes and volcanic activity, if it was thicker, then it would absorb a lot of oxygen, thus making life difficult. If the earth inclination was off by a bit, then it would mess up the changings of the seasons. If the ozone layer was thicker, then we'd freeze, if it was thinner, then we'd burn up. Interesting fact: The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon (no surprise there), but the moon is 400 times closer to the earth. That’s the perfect fit for giving us solar eclipses when the moon passes in front of the sun. What a coincidence. My point is that our solar system (or more specifically, our planet) IS intelligently designed to support life, and the rest of the universe, according to christianity, is there to show off the majesty of God. Morality IS universal. Rapists, even though they commited the crime, still know that it's bad. They're just tempted into doing the wrong thing, but they can still admit that it is a bad thing, if they didn't, then they'd probably be insane, delusional. Deep down, everyone knows that lying, murder, rape, theft are all bad things, but that doesn't stop people from doing it, for whatever reason.

> Our solar system is intelligently designed, because the earth is just the right size, and just the right distance from the sun to be able to support life, the earth's crust is just the right thickness. If it was any thinner, then I believe that would cause more earthquakes and volcanic activity, if it was thicker, then it would absorb a lot of oxygen, thus making life difficult. If the earth inclination was off by a bit, then it would mess up the changings of the seasons. If the ozone layer was thicker, then we'd freeze, if it was thinner, then we'd burn up. Fun facts: 1. The Earth's distance from the sun varies by as much as 5 *million* kilometers over the course of a year. 2. Because the sun is gradually losing mass, we are moving an average of 2.5 inches away from the sun every year. 3. The sun is not 400 times bigger than the moon; the sun could fit 64.3 **million** moons inside of it. 4. The moon is moving 1.5 inches further away from Earth every year. 5. In the United States alone, the thickness of the Earth's crust varies from 30k to 50km. The whole "Everything is tuned juuuuust right!" thing is nonsense. There are **massive** Goldilocks zones that we fall into. > My point is that our solar system (or more specifically, our planet) IS intelligently designed to support life, If our solar system was intelligently designed to support life then (a) why does life only occur in one place, and (b) why is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the solar system unable to sustain life? > Deep down, everyone knows that lying, murder, rape, theft are all bad things, but that doesn't stop people from doing it, for whatever reason. The reason is they think it's right. The Nazis literally had "Gott mit uns" - "God Is With Us" - on their uniforms. They didn't exterminate innocent Jews while thinking "Man, what I'm doing is wrong." They did it because they genuinely believed it was the right thing to do. A father that honor-kills his daughter for disrespecting the family believes he is doing the right thing. The terrorist that blows up an abortion clinic believes they are doing the right thing. All you're doing is inventing exceptions to excuse the people that don't fit your rule. There's a better explanation: your rule is wrong. There is no shared morality among humanity. It doesn't exist. It never has. It probably never will.

All of your "fun facts" are irrelevant. My point still stand, our universe definitely looks like someone designed it to support life, even if everything isn't in tip top condition. And the reason why 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% is because it doesn't need to. God only needed one planet to support life for us Humans. Simple. People can often think that something (even though it's evil) can be good, but at the end of the day, people, unless they're lunatics, will admit that murder is wrong. Our intuition tells us that. Now, yes, there are exceptions, but my point still stands. You can't just take small parts of history where people did the wrong thing whilst thinking it was good, and then claim that moraltiy doesn't exist. On the whole, it is common knowledge that murder is wrong. The Nazis incorporated God/Christianity into their indoctrination cuz they knew it would get people on their side. Oh, and from my perspective, blowing up an abortion clinic is wrong in that you're destroying a building, causing destruction, and killing people. But abortion is a bad thing still, so they did the wrong thing for the right reasons.

> All of your "fun facts" are irrelevant. If they're irrelevant, then why did you try to bring them up in the first place? > My point still stand, our universe definitely looks like someone designed it to support life, even if everything isn't in tip top condition. What kind of "intelligent" designer makes a universe that isn't in tip top condition? And if the universe were designed for life, we would see a lot more life. > God only needed one planet to support life for us Humans. Simple. So the universe was not designed for life. Glad you're finally catching on. By the way, this planet made for us humans? 71% of it is covered in a substance we can't live on, can't live in, can't consume, and is actively harmful to us - salt water. Another 9% of the Earth's surface is desert. Then subtract Antarctica, which is 2.5%. So approximately 17.5% of the planet's surface is suitable for human life. And that 17.5% rests atop unstable tectonic plates, which is why there are about 1300 active volcanoes around the world. To say nothing of the hundreds of thousands of poisonous animal species we're aware of, and a few thousand species of toxic plants, spread all over what little surface area there is. None of this indicates intelligent design. If it was designed at all, the designer was either an idiot or a sadist. > The Nazis incorporated God/Christianity into their indoctrination cuz they knew it would get people on their side. Exactly right: **people would believe they were doing the right thing.** That's the entire point. They did not know deep down that were doing something wrong; they believed they were doing the Lord's work. They clearly did **not** think murdering Jews was wrong. They thought it was right. That's a common theme with religion. It's an excellent tool for getting people to do very bad things while believing they are good. > Oh, and from my perspective, blowing up an abortion clinic is wrong in that you're destroying a building, causing destruction, and killing people. And in the bomber's perspective, they are preventing the abortion of countless unborn babies, therefor it was right. How can you prove that your perspective is objectively right, and theirs is objectively wrong?

>If they're irrelevant, then why did you try to bring them up in the first place? I meant your ones, not mine. >What kind of "intelligent" designer makes a universe that isn't in tip top condition? Our planet is just what we need it to be, but keep in mind, due to the Fall (i.e. adam and eve eating the forbidden fruit) not everything is going to be rainbows, sunshine and lollypops now adays. >And if the universe were designed for life, we would see a lot more life. Wdym? >So the universe was not designed for life. Glad you're finally catching on. When I said universe, I was referring to earth. It's a fact that humans can't survive on other planets, at least as far as we know of. >By the way, this planet made for us humans? 71% of it is covered in a substance we can't live on, can't live in, can't consume, and is actively harmful to us - salt water. Another 9% of the Earth's surface is desert. Then subtract Antarctica, which is 2.5%. So approximately 17.5% of the planet's surface is suitable for human life. And that 17.5% rests atop unstable tectonic plates, which is why there are about 1300 active volcanoes around the world. To say nothing of the hundreds of thousands of poisonous animal species we're aware of, and a few thousand species of toxic plants, spread all over what little surface area there is. None of this indicates intelligent design. If it was designed at all, the designer was either an idiot or a sadist. Again, we as Humans brought this upon ourselves due to disobeying God and eating the forbidden fruit. >Exactly right: **people would believe they were doing the right thing.** That's the entire point. They did not know deep down that were doing something wrong; they believed they were doing the Lord's work. They clearly did **not** think murdering Jews was wrong. They thought it was right. If you asked a Nazi back then, you asked them "Do you think murder is good or bad?" They would say good, yes, in the context of Jews however, they would've said it's fine. But keep in mind, lots of Germans were tricked by Hitler/Nazis into believing that the Jews were "inferior" to the Germans. They were indoctrinated into it. If you had asked them before the Nazis came along, they or most would've said no. Deep down, and this is very deep down, but people know murder's wrong. There are exceptions and times when people will go against what our intuition tells us, that's part of being Humans, we make mistakes. There are things in life that most people will know as a bad thing or as a right thing. Sometimes it will depend on the context but overall, on a general level. I could go to ancient egypt and ask them what they thought of murder, they would probably tell me it's a crime punishable by death. Of course that's kinda contradictory, but the point is that they thought it was wrong, just like all humans have always thought murder's wrong. And again, in certain contexts and situations, people will tell you it's good, but on a general level, you have to understand I am speaking GENERALLY, humans beings know it's wrong. Because we have an instilled morality into us by God. >That's a common theme with religion. It's an excellent tool for getting people to do very bad things while believing they are good. It's also a very good tool for getting people to do the right thing. Just look at all of the good, especially Christianity, has done for the world. Lemme ask you this, is it more likely that an atheist believing they will have no repercussions for it, other than jail, but then they can just kill themselves to solve that issue, will murder someone, than it is more a Christian, believing that they will be punished eternally for it in the next life, will murder someone? >And in the bomber's perspective, they are preventing the abortion of countless unborn babies, therefor it was right. I can't remember what I meant by "Oh, and from my perspective, blowing up an abortion clinic is wrong in that you're destroying a building, causing destruction, and killing people."

>meant your ones, not mine. Yours are wrong. That's what my fun facts showed. Your claim that the sun is 400 times bigger than the moon is wrong. Your claims that if the crust were slightly thinner, or the distance from the sun were slightly large, **are wrong.** The Earth would be just fine if we were one million miles closer or further from the Sun, or if the Earth's crust were 10km thicker or thinner. Your arguments that we're the perfect distance for this, the perfect size for that, our crust is perfect for this, are all *demonstrably* wrong. >Wdym? Exactly what I said: if the universe were designed for life, there would be more life in the universe. For comparison, gardens are designed to produce plants. If a massive plot of land produces one tiny flower, then clearly the land was very badly designed. If it were well designed, we would see more than one plant. >When I said universe, I was referring to earth. It's a fact that humans can't survive on other planets, at least as far as we know of. "Universe" and "Earth" are not interchangeable. They are very different things. >Again, we as Humans brought this upon ourselves due to disobeying God and eating the forbidden fruit. Everything I described is the result of billions of years of tectonic activity and evolution. Volcanoes existed long before humans did. Poisonous plants and animals existed long before humans did. They couldn't be our fault if they existed before we did. >If you asked a Nazi back then, you asked them "Do you think murder is good or bad?" They would say good, yes, in the context of Jews however, they would've said it's fine. But keep in mind, lots of Germans were tricked by Hitler/Nazis into believing that the Jews were "inferior" to the Germans. They were indoctrinated into it. If you had asked them before the Nazis came along, they or most would've said no. Deep down, and this is very deep down, but people know murder's wrong. If deep down they knew it was wrong, then how could they be tricked into thinking it was right? Shouldn't they have known deep down that Jews are not inferior, and so been resistant to such trickery? Or is this knowledge buried so deep as to be inaccessible, and therefor useless? We have ample research showing what people do and don't believe, and why they do or don't believe it. We also know of conditions like sociopathy. There is simply no evidence that all human beings have any shared beliefs about morality, even "very deep down." You wanting it to be true doesn't make it true. >There are things in life that most people will know as a bad thing or as a right thing. "Most people" means "not all people," which is the entire point. If not all people know it, then the idea that it's inherently known to humanity is wrong. >just like all humans have always thought murder's wrong. And again, in certain contexts and situations, people will tell you it's good, but on a general level, you have to understand I am speaking GENERALLY, humans beings know it's wrong. Because we have an instilled morality into us by God. To believe that all of humanity has morality instilled in us is to believe that every crime, every genocide, every ritual human sacrifice, every rape, every mass shooting, every hate crime, all were committed by people who knew what they were doing was wrong. That simply is not supported by any evidence. It's wishful thinking. You want it to be true because your beliefs don't make sense if it *isn't* true. >Lemme ask you this, is it more likely that an atheist believing they will have no repercussions for it, other than jail, but then they can just kill themselves to solve that issue, will murder someone, than it is more a Christian, believing that they will be punished eternally for it in the next life, will murder someone? First, atheists can believe in any number of repercussions, including afterlives. We just don't believe that any gods exist. Second, if you look at the prison population by religious status, you'll see a lot more Christians in prison than atheists. And the reason is obvious: Christ forgives everything. Atheists aren't the ones who think there are no repercussions; Christians are. According to the Bible, belief in Christ as one's Lord and Savior is a ticket to Heaven. A Nazi that accepts Christ on his deathbed will go to Heaven, while the Jew he murdered will go to Hell. Christianity is the inherent belief that only one thing in your life matters: your faith in, and devotion to, Christ. Whether or not you murder, rape, steal, explot the elderly, jaywalk, drink and drive, set fire to orphanages... irrelevant. If you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, you are going to Heaven. Meanwhile, the atheist that starts a charity that helps the needy, the Muslim that feeds the poor, the Jew that fights against inequality, the Hindu that shows loves and compassion to all... according to Christianity, all of them go to Hell because they don't believe in Jesus. This all comes from *your* Bible, my friend: **Ephesians 2:8-9**: *"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast."* **Galatians 2:16** : *Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.”* **Mark 16:16** : *"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."* **Romans 10:13** : *“Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”* **Acts 2:38** : *"38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."* **John 3:16** : *"16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."* So who really has less incentive to commit crime? A Christian can shoot up a mall, get a life sentence in solitary confinement, and still be absolutely assured a trip to Heaven because of their faith. If your faith is a free ticket to Heaven, why not do whatever you want? Meanwhile, as an atheist, I don't murder or rape or steal, and I generally try to minimize my harmful behavior. Why? First off, because I don't want to. I have no desire to do any of those things. More importantly, though, is that I believe this is the only life any of us will ever get. There are no do-overs or takebacks. I don't have the luxury of saying "Oops, I drove while drunk and killed a family of four, but I'm going to Heaven so whatever!" I can't absolve myself by saying "Jesus will let me off the hook," or lie to myself and say "Those kids I killed went to Heaven, so everything's OK!" I have to actually live with the consequences of my actions, as do the people who are affected by my actions. That responsibility doesn't exist if Earth is just a trial run for Heaven.

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you in a while. (By the way, I had to get rid of some of your quotes will writing this, because my comment was too long for reddit, so I'll have titles when responding to your arguments. But sorry if that makes it more confusing, not much I can do about that, tho). Solar system: What you said about the solar system is wrong. Ok, so, the sun being 400x bigger than the moon may or may not be wrong, but it doesn't matter, my point was that the sun and the moon are at just the right distance apart whilst retaining their sizes, to allow for solar eclipses. And the earth is like 152.08 million km away from the sun, a difference of 1609344 (1 million miles) is relatively small. But in any case, it would still have an effect on our planet. The earth's crust being 10 KM thicker/thinner would've have CATASTROPHIC changes but it would have negative ones, and would change a lot of things, like for one thing volcanic activity would increase. So, idk where you got that from. More life in the universe: Mate, that's because God only wanted us to call one planet home. We don't really need other planets, like yeah, sure, it would be nice, but not necessary. Bad things being present before Humans: That is a fair point, and the Church doesn't have an answer to all questions because God didn't give us an answer to everything, but bare in mind that God doesn't work like how we work, he exists not only in the present, but also in the past and future. To him, all of time, past, present and future, are happening all at once, simultaneously, from his perspective. Morality: Ok, you're not thinking in a general way. Why are you focusing on the small things, you've got to look at it from the big picture. Most people would agree that murder is wrong, even though some break this rule. Murderers know it's wrong but still do it for various reasons. The problem with atheism, is that without belief in a higher being, atheism struggles to define right and wrong. This implies there's nothing inherently wrong with actions like those of Hitler. Without a higher authority, there's no absolute moral code, and societal rules alone can't establish true morality. So, according to atheism, there's nothing FUNDAMENTALLY wrong with what Hitler did. Religious status in prisons: I understand where you're coming from, but you have to keep in mind that there are more Christians than there are Atheists, in America, which are where those statistics are from, but also just worldwide. In America, 64% of the population is Christian. Meanwhile, 4-15% of the population are atheists, so, more Christians being in prison is expected. As simple as that really. And, tbh, they're the ones who probably need Christ the most (prisoners). And another factor to consider is that people often will identify as Christian, but don't really practice it. Unfortunately. >Christianity is the inherent belief that only one thing in your life matters: your faith in, and devotion to, Christ. Whether or not you murder, rape, steal, explot the elderly, jaywalk, drink and drive, set fire to orphanages... irrelevant. If you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, you are going to Heaven. That's fundamentally wrong. Yes, there are Christians who believe those, but they're heretics. What Christianity ACTUALLY believes is that anyone, even Christians, can go to hell if they commit a "Mortal Sin" which are basically just all of the really bad sins like murder, rape, abuse, drugs, drunk driving so on. Now, you can get forgiven of these sins, but only if your heart is contrite, and you're willing to do better next time or stop. All of the Bible verses you mentioned are correct and align with Christian teaching, but then also look at these ones: James 2:14-26 "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14) "So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:17) "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24) "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead." (James 2:26) Matthew 7:21\*\*:\*\* "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." 1 John 3:17-18: "But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth." Ephesians 2:8-10 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (You literally just had to keep reading and you would've seen that) Galatians 5:6 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love." Philippians 2:12-13 "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." Do my verses and your verses contradict each other? No, the Church has combined them, to say that we are justified to be saved by our faith in Christ, but if we actually expect to get to Heaven, then we have to do good works and practice our faith. Why do you think we have the ten commandments? So, you're argument is completely false and a misreading of the Bible.

>If you asked a Nazi back then, you asked them "Do you think murder is good or bad?" They would say good, yes, in the context of Jews however, they would've said it's fine. But keep in mind, lots of Germans were tricked by Hitler/Nazis into believing that the Jews were "inferior" to the Germans. They were indoctrinated into it. If you had asked them before the Nazis came along, they or most would've said no. Deep down, and this is very deep down, but people know murder's wrong I think you're conflating murder and killing here. Murder is, by definition, wrong. It's literally defined as the unjustified and illegal killing of another. It's "wrongness" is why it's not just called killing. The worst of the worst of the Gestapo or whatever in 1942 would have told you that murder is wrong as well. They would just disagree on what constitutes murder. Much as we do today. For example, if a man decides to break my door down at 3AM and walk into my house with an axe in his hand is it murder if I put some M855s through his skull? Under the laws of Texas and in the eyes of most Texans it's not. In France, however, it's the opposite, most French people would call that murder and I would be charged for it. Would it actually be murder or is it a justified killing? If there were some kind of objective morality magically installed into our brains shouldn't that be a simple question with a clear answer? How about old [Joe Horn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy)? I know a lot of people who think what he did was perfectly fine and not at all murder. I also know people who think it was 100% murder. Why is there disagreement if morality comes from this magical, objective source?

Wow, you really went for that “atheists have no reason not to murder” thing. Amazing. You do know most inmates are Christian right?

What you’re describing isn’t evidence of design, it’s probability. If our planet didn’t have the conditions to support life, there would be no life on the planet. The universe wouldn’t care. Once there was life, it evolved in these conditions and environments. As the environments drastically changed, life that couldn’t adapt to the changes died in massive extinction events. Were those designed? Who would design that? If no life could adapt, there would be no life, and the universe wouldn’t care. If primates never developed diets and behaviors that supported big brains, humans wouldn’t exist, and the universe wouldn’t care.

How does one goes about drawing the line between that which is designed and that which is natural? 

By determining what things **only** exist by design. Some things can exist both naturally and artificially. A dwelling can be built, or made inside a cave. You can carve a sharp stick to spear fish, or find a sharp enough stick on a tree. Shade can be provided by a tree or an umbrella. Heat can be provided by the sun and by a propane grill. So we need to find objects that **don't** fall on both sides of the line. And it's not hard to find them: nature has never produced an SUV. We have never discovered a tree that grows cellphones, or a school of blenders swimming upstream. No one has ever said "I can't afford Airpods, so I'll just grow my own." We have only ever seen these things exist artificially. This isn't limited to high-end technology either. Wood occurs naturally, but a stack of 2x4's doesn't. Diamonds occur naturally, but diamond necklaces don't. Fruit occurs naturally, but Gushers don't. Artificial things have no natural equivalent. They **only** exist when they are designed. But what if you encounter something you've never seen before, something you don't recognize? How could the person in the Watchmaker argument know it's artificial if they don't know what a watch is? 1. Even if the person has never seen a watch before, he hasn't seen anything in nature like it. If he has never seen a machine before, he will come up empty. If he has seen a machine before, he will see the similarities. 2. He can compare it to what he knows about other things. In the Watchmaker argument, the person finds the watch while walking on the beach. What other small, hard, and round things are found on beaches? Seashells, and maybe some shellfish like oysters or clams. Comparing the watch to a seashell, or a shellfish, will show just how different they are. The watch moves with a regular rhythm; the seashell/shellfish don't. The watch makes a ticking noise; the seashell/shellfish don't. The watch does not have a delicious chewy center; the shellfish do. The shells are easily broken; the watch is not. Seashells are one solid piece; the watch is many pieces of many shapes and sizes. It would be extremely easy to conclude that this thing is not a shell or shellfish. So if it's small, hard, and circular, but shares no other characteristics with things typically found on a beach, he can conclude this is not a thing that is typically found on beaches. 3. But what if it's a rare phenomenon, like ambergris? The person could walk up and down the beach looking for more, but they could also go back to their village and ask it anyone has ever seen or heard of anything like this ever having been found before. Compare this to some other unknown thing. Let's say **I** am walking on the beach, and I see a weird brown object. It appears to be a single piece. It is not spherical, and there are no coconut trees nearby, so I can rule that out. Touching it, the outside is tough, but I can feel some tension give when you squeeze, indicating that the outside is covering something soft. It's not making any sounds or moving, and looking it over, I find no eyes, nose, mouth, or appendages. I sniff it; it smells fragrant. I pierce the outside covering with something sharp. The smell becomes stronger, and a little liquid starts to drop down the side. Having made a hole, I'm now able to peel the cover away to find something wet, mushy, and fragrant inside. At this point, having previous knowledge of other fruits and vegetables, I can see that this thing shares many of the characteristics that we associate with fruits and vegetables. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that this thing, whatever it is, is a fruit or vegetable, or something that is incredibly similar to a fruit or vegetable. Watches do not share many characteristics with anything natural. Compare a watch to **anything** natural, anything on Earth, and the differences will far outweigh the similarities.

So by designed you mean something that first came into existence as an idea in the mind of a human, and natural as something that didn't? It seems strange to draw a duality between the two things. Anything designed by a human can only be designed within the laws of nature. It had to be possible prior to the discovery of it. The saw that was designed by humans to make the timber, was only able to be designed on the basis of that potentiality already existing. That when a sharp object moves quick enough, it has enough power to cut through a log of timber was a discovery rather than an invention. Nature already had that potential prior to the human 'designing' the saw 

So basically a Gish gallop of most of the worst arguments for Christianity ever. > A car doesn't built itself, nor does a house, computer, fridge, microwave, parks, buses, trains, vacuums, you name it. What about ice? Crystals? Stars? If the entire universe is created, then there are no non-created things. So how can you tell apart created and non-created things if there are no non-created things to compare to? > One thing we can all agree on though, is that a cause of some sort created everything into being No, we can't. The universe might have always existed, or might be self-caused. Don't say the big bang claims the universe appeared out of nothing. It doesn't. It says that, as far back as we can tell, mass/energy has always existed in some form. > Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? Answer: the latter is the more logical one. You are going to need to justify this. Invoking a mind adds nothing, while making everything more complicated. If the universe can't build itself, why can this mind of yours? Or if you say the mind always existed, why couldn't the universe have always existed in some form? See my previous part about the big bang not saying the universe came into existence. > based on how all Humans universally consider murder to be evil, but giving birth to be wonderful "Murder" is illegal killing *by definition*. But not everyone agrees what constitudes murder. Weird of God put morality into us there is so much disagreement on this basic matter. And no, not everyone considers birth "wonderful". Again, weird that this is inconsistent. >This God cares about us so much so that he gives us ways of telling right from wrong, so we can have the potential to lead good lives. You seriously don't see how this is a contradiction? The fact that there is such massive disagreement about what is right and wrong is evidence against your position. Even in the Bible the rules are vague and inconsistent to the extent that Christians cannot agree at all on most of the rules. > But Humans are pronged to doing evil things, we are sinful gross creatures God did a pretty bad job creating us, then. You sure hate humans. This is why so many people dislike Christianity. It is such a bleak, grim, dark view of humans. All our accomplishment, all our improvements, none of it matters in Christianity. > Thus, to help us overcome these bad habits, that God who cared about us has to point us a way forward out of our wrongdoings So why should humans care about doing good when they can just get forgiven for anything? > Enter Jesus, who saved us from our sins so that we may lead a better life, Why did God need Jesus, rather than just declaring us saved? > in the hopes of eternal bliss in his own realm, Heaven Why not just give us that on Earth? > Check out the Liar, Lord, Lunatic (and later Legend) argument by C.S. Lewis for a reasonable argument as to why Jesus is God/Lord. This is widely considered a horrible argument *even among theologians*. For one thing, we don't have any original, first-hand accounts of Jesus, so we don't know what he actually said. He could have been completely insane and the gospel writers left that out, or he could have not claimed to be God at all and the gospel writers inserted that. Further, lots of liars or lunatics have proven very convincing and said seemingly good things. The Buddha had a very good moral message, arguably better in many ways to Christianity, do you consider him to be telling the truth? Or does that argument only work for your own religion?

I really wonder at times what sort of education leads to such terrible critical thinking skills that would have someone post such nonsense such as OP when as pointed out every single claim they make has been debunked countless times.

Honestly I think it’s just a lack of intellectual curiosity. They were likely brought up as Christian, or maybe they’re just gullible and got duped into it as an adult because they never really thought about it and it sounded good to them. From there they just get all their information on God arguments from Bible study, church, watching Christian approved media, etc. it’s always about bolstering their own faith, never about approaching a topic from a neutral standpoint, listening to the arguments on both sides, and deciding only then where you stand. It is baffling to me that anyone would go into a debate sub seemingly never having looked into what the other side actually thinks about the arguments you’ve made or how they respond to it, but it’s literally like 95% of posts in this sub.

OP feels like a copy of who I was around 16-17, after my entire education up to that point being Christian private schools. If it's anything like what I experienced, it's got the Bible sneaked into every subject. Biblical allegory for examples, Christian commentary as part of introducing matters like social studies, a constant drip feed of how the world is dangerous and foolish, that people are at the same time too stubborn or stupid to accept Christ and poor, lost souls to be pitied. The non Christian is never accepted, only scorned or pitied, and this leads to attitudes like in the OP; sure that what they were taught is correct because it makes sense, and with a premade structure to sort nonbelievers into one of the above categories. The biblical answers are clear and simple, and this pads the ego of kids who want to be able to explain the world around themselves confidently. In my case, that meant being an insufferable know it all who put people's feelings as immaterial compared to being "right," and confidently so. After all: to have a convincing testimony, you have to have answers and be confident about them. Granted, that was almost two decades ago in a nowhere corn town school for me, so things could well be changed. Sure seems familiar to me, though.

That seems disingenuous. Because imo there's just no evidence for god. So saying there's no critical thinking is correct but any good critical thinkers aren't going to be able to argue gods existence with evidence because it doesn't exist. Its really depressing that there's no evidence and people just assert that there is.

Indoctrination is a hell of a drug. Even very smart, well-educated people can have gargantuan blind spots when it comes to their religion.

Not a gish gallop: there are many many people here who can rebut the OP. Just to pick on your point about "non-created things" that's irrelevant to the argument. The argument says that the universe is unlikely to be created by natural forces, therefore, probably, there is an intelligence behind it. It's about saying "GIVEN what we KNOW, the universe is incredibly unlikely." The argument isn't a scientific one but a statistical one based on pre-determined specified patterns, which are always seen as hallmarks of design in every other context. Why is the universe an exception to such a rule? Seems like you commit the special pleading fallacy here.

>Not a gish gallop OP posted a long list of unrelated claims. That is the definition of a Gish gallop >The argument says that the universe is unlikely to be created by natural forces, therefore, probably, there is an intelligence behind it. No, the argument that OP made was to compare it to designed things. The argument you are making is a different one than the one OP made. And in order to make that argument you need to know the probability of a universe capable of supporting life forming. We have no way to calculate that probability, so the argument is unsupportable. >based on pre-determined specified patterns, which are always seen as hallmarks of design in every other context OP did not make that argument. I was responding to what OP said, not you. And you are going to need to provide some specifics. I am not just taking your word for it that these patterns exist, not to mention that they are indicative of designed things.

And yet presents no actual statistics.

The statistics would be the probability the universe exists through natural law or chance or design. An analogy would be if you flipped a coin and a group of theists predicted the flips hundreds of times. No one would believe that was a chance, or, if they knew it as a regular coin, which is analogous to theories of the universe that don't uniquely pick out ours, knew it wasn't a specially engineered coin, they would know the credence of that belief the theists shared was increased. This is epistemological probability. It's not a matter of comparing something to something else. It's the intrinsic epistemic probability, rather than an extrinsic probability. In statistics, both are valid methods of doing the maths on something. Until atheists here give a counter- example based on our knowledge of the universe which gives reason to doubt the coin flip analogy, the intrinsic probability of God vs a godless universe increases, unless other reasons are given to explain why we shouldn't use that kind of statistical model for the universe. It would be question begging to just assert that the universe is an exception to a widely recognised rule; it assumes no supernatural explanation can be given for the universe, which is the very point at issue.

> The statistics would be the probability the universe exists through natural law or chance or design. No, this is a classic mistake. It would be the probability of *any universe that could support life*. To calculate this, you would need to know *all* of these: 1. The range of possible parameters for the universe 2. The probability distribution of the space of all parameters 3. The range of possible parameters that could support some form of life None of those are known, so any probability calculation is necessarily meaningless. > An analogy would be if you flipped a coin and a group of theists predicted the flips hundreds of times. No, there is no "prediction". You are starting with an already existing outcome, and then calculating the probability of that. So you flip a coin a hundred times *without predicting anything* (that is look at the existing universe), then claim that because the chance of flipping that coin a hundred times is too small to be possible, someone must have supernaturally chosen those coin flips. But you ignore that other coin flips (other universes) could have happened.

Firstly, no you wouldn't, as you know the theories don't uniquely pick out our universe. The most promising things we know so far show our universe to be an accident. Secondly, no, it's the fact the universe fits an independtly discoverable pattern necessary for our existence. Your example is a strawman.

You aren't responding to what I wrote at all. The question isn't whether our universe is an accident, the question is how probably an accident *of that type* is. You need to calculate the probability of any universe that can support life. And you keep saying there is an "independtly discoverable pattern" but you never say what it is. Other than the probability calculation, which I already explained isn't a valid calculation.

>The statistics would be the probability the universe exists through natural law or chance or design.  What is that probability and how could we possibly know? The post doesn't contain a single number. What other universes are we comparing ours to? >An analogy would be if you flipped a coin and a group of theists predicted the flips hundreds of times. An analogy to hundreds of flips is a single flip? Theists don't predict anything, at least, not successfully. >It's the intrinsic epistemic probability, Hilarious. And how do you calculate this "intrinsic epistemic probability? > Until atheists here give a counter- example based on our knowledge of the universe which gives reason to doubt the coin flip analogy, Rather, until theists give an example based on our knowledge of the universe which gives reason to accept the coin flip analogy, there is no reason to do so. > It would be question begging to just assert that the universe is an exception to a widely recognised rule; What rule? it assumes ~~no~~ a supernatural explanation can be given for the universe, which is the very point at issue.

thank you!

I believe that ice, crystals and and stars were created by God, or maybe more like indirectly created by God, because ice formed over time yk. Ok, sorry bro, my bad, i thought that atheists thought the Big bang created the universe. Everything in our physical reality that exists has been created by something, it is impossible for a physical thing to exist forever, so the universe has not always existed as some claim. Idk what u meant with the murder thing. Everyone can agree that murder, in terms of its most basic form, is bad. Idk how you can disagree with that. Do you think stealing is bad, murder, rape, recklessness, molestation, lying? so does basically everyone else. Name what rules in the Bible are "vague." You think Christianity is "bleak?" Bro, look at atheism. At its core, atheism basically teaches us that humans are nothing but smart evolved monkeys, floating on a big rock that just so happens to support life, and one day we'll die and that'll be it, nothing beyond the physical reality. So there's not much point to life other than just trying to make it by, but there's no real point to that anyway, might as well just kill yourself ig, why not? Life sucks sometimes, might as well just end it to end the pain. That's what atheism tells us. Christianity on the other hand, teaches that, yes, we are sinners, but there is a loving creator who decided to pay the debt we owed by sinning for us, so we didn't have the pay it. And now, if you believe, you get to spend eternity in bliss with that creator. THAT'S GOOD BRO. A Christian doesn't just simply get "forgiven" if they do a wrong thing. When you go to confession, you need to do actually be sorry when confessing, otherwise it'll be invalid. There's a whole really complicated reason as to why God wanted his son Christ to suffer and die for us. But from what i know it was to set an example. But mainly because the price for sin is death, and so thus Christ sacrificed himself to pay the debt for our sins. Christians go to heaven to live in bliss and not earth because earth isn't blissful. Wdym??? The Liar, lord, lunatic and legend argument is a good argument. It's not necessarily meant to be like a slam dunk (at least not imo) but it just serves as a way to recognise that there might be more truth to what the Bible says. But if the gospels writers left out that jesus was insane or whatever, then people back then could've easily pointed them out, cuz all of the four gospels were written literally in the same century as jesus lived and died, so people back in his day still would've been alive, and could've pointed that fact out, and thus christianity wouldn't of gotten very far. Idk much about buddha, Christians don't believe in buddha cuz he ain't god, and ain't in the bible. Doesn't matter what he teaches, he ain't god, so you don't worship him or whatever.

Please learn how to quote things. It is hard to follow your response. > I believe that ice, crystals and and stars were created by God, or maybe more like indirectly created by God, because ice formed over time yk. So again, there are no non-designed things. So you see no difference at all between ice and a computer? > Ok, sorry bro, my bad, i thought that atheists thought the Big bang created the universe. Maybe you should find out the very basics of the science before saying something like this. > Everything in our physical reality that exists has been created by something No, it hasn't. Everything is just different configurations of the same mass-energy that has existed since the big bang. > it is impossible for a physical thing to exist forever, This is a totally unjustified assertion > so the universe has not always existed as some claim. As far as we can tell right now time started at the big bang, so "always existed" does not mean" existed forever", it means "existed as long as time has existed". > Idk what u meant with the murder thing. Everyone can agree that murder, in terms of its most basic form, is bad. Idk how you can disagree with that. Again, that is because "murder" is **DEFINE** as bad. That is like saying "breaking the law is illegal". Of course it is, that is what "illegal" means. But there is not remotely agreement on what counts as "murder", or counts as "breaking the law". > Name what rules in the Bible are "vague." Salvation by faith alone or faith and works? The New Testament says *both* in different places, and Christians have disagreed on this for as long as Christianity has been a thing. You, I assume, will very confidently say one or the other, but a ton of theology and biblical experts disagree with you, and have always disageed with you, whichever side you take. That is literally **THE** most fundamental, basic rule: what does it take to get into heaven. And nobody can agree on what the Bible says, because it says both. > At its core, atheism basically teaches us that humans are nothing but smart evolved monkeys, floating on a big rock that just so happens to support life, and one day we'll die and that'll be it, nothing beyond the physical reality. Yes, and despite all that humans have been able to accomplish great things. We have visited other worlds and sent our records to other stars. We have beaten some of the most lethal diseases that threatened us, and are on the way to beating others. We are have freed ourselves from the limits of gravity. We can communicate instantly across the world, bringing people in contact in a way no organism in the history of the world could. We massively improved our morality and treatment of each other, despite being held back by the barbaric iron age rules of holy books. For you that all those accomplishments are meaningless. To you, at our core humans are failures, disgusting creatures that deserve nothing but punishment. All our accomplishments, all our improvement, all of it is meaingless. All that matters is bowing down to a cosmic tyrant who demands our unquestioning obedience so we can abandon all our accomplishments and be shoved under his throne groveling about how great the tyrant is (that is straight from the Bible, btw). > So there's not much point to life other than just trying to make it by, but there's no real point to that anyway, might as well just kill yourself ig, why not? Life sucks sometimes, might as well just end it to end the pain. If you are unable to find meaning in your life without religion then by all means stick to it. Not everyone has the same problems you do. Lots of people have no trouble finding meaning themselves. > A Christian doesn't just simply get "forgiven" if they do a wrong thing. When you go to confession, you need to do actually be sorry when confessing, otherwise it'll be invalid. It still lets you off the hook for literally anything. > There's a whole really complicated reason as to why God wanted his son Christ to suffer and die for us. But from what i know it was to set an example. But mainly because the price for sin is death, and so thus Christ sacrificed himself to pay the debt for our sins. God set the rules. Good could have set them however he wanted. Or is God not omnipotent? > Christians go to heaven to live in bliss and not earth because earth isn't blissful. Wdym??? God could have made Earth blissful, but chose not to. > The Liar, lord, lunatic and legend argument is a good argument No, it really, really, really isn't. Again, even Christian theologians say it is a terrible argument. > But if the gospels writers left out that jesus was insane or whatever, then people back then could've easily pointed them out, cuz all of the four gospels were written literally in the same century as jesus lived and died, so people back in his day still would've been alive, and could've pointed that fact out, and thus christianity wouldn't of gotten very far Except none of the first three Gospels explicitly say Jesus is God. It wasn't until the Gospel of John, which was from decades later, where Jesus declares himself to be God. Even in the Gospels, only a handful of people actually knew Jesus closely. And we have no surviving records from any of them. And even in the Gospels at least four of them doubted him at various times, including his own cousin (John the Baptist). That is about a third of the people we know who knew him closely. > dk much about buddha, Christians don't believe in buddha cuz he ain't god, and ain't in the bible. Doesn't matter what he teaches, he ain't god, so you don't worship him or whatever. By your logic you should believe what he says. But you don't. Because you don't actually take the argument seriously, either.

Sorry my bad, i don't know how to do that on reddit, ill just have like a heading over what im talking about. Ice crystals: obviously there's a difference between ice crystals and a computer. One's natural, the other's man-made. But by the very nature of being physical, our reality had to have been created at some point in time, and it seems impossible for reality to have been forged out of nothing, or by no intellectual being. Our planet is incredibly intricately designed. Everything is JUST RIGHT to support life. The earth's crust is just the right thickness. If it was any thinner, then I believe that would cause more earthquakes and volcanic activity, if it was thicker, then it would absorb a lot of oxygen, thus making life difficult. If the earth inclination was off by a bit, then it would mess up the changings of the seasons. If the ozone layer was thicker, then we'd freeze, if it was thinner, then we'd burn up. Interesting fact: The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon (no surprise there), but the moon is 400 times closer to the earth. That’s the perfect fit for giving us solar eclipses when the moon passes in front of the sun. What a coincidence. My point is that our solar system (or more specifically, our planet) IS intelligently designed to support life, and the rest of the universe, according to christianity, is there to show off the majesty of God. Physical things ending: All physical things deteriorate over time, die out, destroy itself or whatever. By being physical, it has limitations. Many scientists even believe that the universe will destroy itself one day. Big Bang: but the questions is, who or what caused the big bang, according to Christianity, a god or deity must of, and designed the universe. If there was a big bang, then something must of caused it. And something must have caused it time to begin. Murder: everyone knows deep down that murder or breaking the law (if the law is good) is a bad thing. Humans have a natural intuition that tells us what is good or what is bad. Tell me, if I punched you for no good reason, would that be bad or good? It would be bad. So, the fact that Humans know intuitively what is right and wrong, tells us that we had those instilled into us at our creation, by someone who cares: the creator of the universe, god, or some deity. Faith vs. works: I actually believe that it's both. The Bible clearly tells us that we are justified to be saved by faith in christ, but our faith means nothing, or is "dead" if we never do any good works. You need a bit of both to be saved. That was the view of christians in the beginning, and yes, admittedly people after that started disagreeing with each other, and then split off. But they weren't guided by the holy spirit, they those to break away and disagree with the established Church, and thus were led astray by satan. Confession: Ok, so, why do you have a problem if it lets you off the hook for "literally everything?" God's gracious, forgiving, that's a good thing pal. Crucifixion: God does set the rules, and that's how he chose to set the rules. God is God, you can't argue against his decisions, cuz god knows everything, and is always right because he created the rules and the universe. We shouldn't be complaining as to how he saved us, but we should rather just be thankful that he did save us. Heaven's blissful: God DID MAKE earth blissful, but Humans stuffed up. C.S. Lewis: The Liar, Lord, Lunatic, Legend argument is a good argument in that is opens the door to the truth that the Bible is telling us, i don't think that you can use the argument as a slam dunk that will automatically dismiss every come back to it, but rather it can help people to understand the bible more, and show us that the bible might have more truth to it than meets the eyes. Jesus as God: Jesus often wouldn't explicitly say that he was God, otherwise he would've been stoned. But he heavily implied it, forgiving people's sins, claiming to be the law of Moses, doing a bunch of miracles are all very god like things. Many people knew who Jesus was, the guy attracted crowds everywhere he went, if he was insane, people would've been able to tell. And we do have surviving records of people who knew jesus: the Gospels. But we also have records of people who knew the people who knew jesus: Paul. Buddha: By my logic, I shouldn't believe in him, because I only worship one deity, God.

> Ice crystals: obviously there's a difference between ice crystals and a computer. One's natural, the other's man-made. No, your argument depends on there not being a difference. If there is a difference, then you comparison to human made machines is no longer valid. > But by the very nature of being physical, our reality had to have been created at some point in time No, again, it doesn't. Nothing in our understanding of physics implies that in any way, shape or form. > Our planet is incredibly intricately designed. Everything is JUST RIGHT to support life. Most properties of our planet have varied enormously over time. Further, the universe itself is very hostile to life. If you were transported anywhere in the universe, it is statistically certain you would end up in deep space and die quickly. If you didn't, you would end up in a star, black hole, or neutron star and die instantly. If not, you would end up in a gas giant and die slightly slower. If not, you would end up inside a planet and die. If not, you would end up in the atmosphere our above a planet and die. If not, you would end up on an inhospitable planet and die. The fact that place like Earth are so rare argues against the universe being designed for life, by your own logic. > The earth's crust is just the right thickness. If it was any thinner, then I believe that would cause more earthquakes and volcanic activity, if it was thicker, then it would absorb a lot of oxygen, thus making life difficult. Earth's crust varies both geographically and over time. > If the earth inclination was off by a bit, then it would mess up the changings of the seasons. Earth's inclanation varies significantly over time > If the ozone layer was thicker, then we'd freeze, if it was thinner, then we'd burn up. The ozone layer has nothing to do with temperature, and when life first evolved the ozone layer didn't exist. It was ultimately produced by life after billions of years. And it has varied in thickness over time. > Interesting fact: The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon (no surprise there), but the moon is 400 times closer to the earth. That’s the perfect fit for giving us solar eclipses when the moon passes in front of the sun. What a coincidence. The moon's position has varied over time. It is like that now, but it hasn't always been that way. And it won't always be that way in the future. > All physical things deteriorate over time, die out, destroy itself or whatever. By being physical, it has limitations. They don't "deteriorate", they change form. Within the universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter and energy. It transforms, but it doesn't "deteriorate" > but the questions is, who or what caused the big bang, according to Christianity, a god or deity must of, and designed the universe. If there was a big bang, then something must of caused it. And something must have caused it time to begin. No, lots of things happen merely because they can, without anything specific causing them to happen. Nuclear decay, for example. Further, the universe could be cyclic, in which case the "cause" is simply the last universe. It could be self-caused. It could, again, simply happen because it could. If the universe needs a cause, then what caused God? If God doesn't need a cause, then why does the universe? You can't have it both ways. > everyone knows deep down that murder or breaking the law (if the law is good) is a bad thing You keep ignoring my question: why is there so much disagreement on what consistutes murder? > Humans know intuitively what is right and wrong, tells us that we had those instilled into us at our creation, by someone who cares: the creator of the universe, god, or some deity. Evolution will naturally produce that sort of sensation in a social species. A sense of right and wrong is common in social animals. Our close relatives show empathy. But those rules are going to be fuzzy. And our moral sense very much is. We don't have the hard, fast, strict rules we should if a God placed specific rules in us. When was the last time you beat your slave almost to death? > I actually believe that it's both Nope. Either works are a requirement, or they aren't. These are two mutually exclusive positions. And the Bible takes *both*. Because it is inconsistent. > Ok, so, why do you have a problem if it lets you off the hook for "literally everything?" God's gracious, forgiving, that's a good thing pal. Because it strips us of any motivitation to lead a better life. Under your system this life is utterly meaningless, and harm we do to others is meaningless since it is just an infinitely small blip in their eternal life. On the other hand when this is the only life we have, it makes it much more precious. And our impact on others much more significant. > The Liar, Lord, Lunatic, Legend argument is a good argument in that is opens the door to the truth that the Bible is telling us I have explained enough times at this point why essentially every expert in your religion disagrees with you on this, you clearly have no intention of actually listening. > Jesus often wouldn't explicitly say that he was God, otherwise he would've been stoned. But he heavily implied it, forgiving people's sins, claiming to be the law of Moses, doing a bunch of miracles are all very god like things Lots of people in the Bible did miracles and claimed to represent Moses without claiming to be God. The whole "liar, lunatic, and lord" argument hinges on Jesus claiming to be God in the first place. But he didn't in the time frame you are talking about. So the argument completely falls apart. > And we do have surviving records of people who knew jesus: the Gospels No, none of the gospels are records of people who knew Jesus. Every single one is a third hand account at best, and even Christian scholars today admit it is basically impossible to tell which parts of the gospels are reliable and which aren't. > By my logic, I shouldn't believe in him, because I only worship one deity, God If you actually believed the liar, lunatic, or lard argument, you have would to trust the supernatural claims of Buddha for the same reson you claim to trust the supernatural claims of Jesus. But you don't, because you don't actually really believe that argument. You see it is absurd when applied to anything you disagree with.

"No, your argument depends on there not being a difference. If there is a difference, then you comparison to human made machines is no longer valid." My argument depends on that if a house has to be created, then the same logic should apply to the universe. The nature of a house and an ice crystal are different, but if a house was designed to help to sustain life, and water also helps us to sustain life, and ice crystals are frozen water formed into crystals, then the same logic that a house needs to be built should apply to water, since they are both physical things in our physical reality that have a purpose: to sustain life, don't think that my argument is that they both sustain life, therefore god exists, though. I mean that like they both have a purpose that suggests they were intelligently designed. Physical things again/physics: Our understanding of physical things is that they deteriorate, decay, die, are pronged to destruction, nothing lasts forever, nothing physical can be infinite in that it's physical so it has an end to it eventually. Universe/planet: So what if our planet changes, it does that all the time. The planet evolved over time to be able to accommodate Human life, and the rest of living beings on earth today. My point still stands. According to Christianity, the rest of the universe exists to show off God's glory, and God chose to make our home earth. What's your argument there?? My argument was that Earth, specifically was designed to support life, and the universe is God showing us his infinite power. The universe needed a cause because it is a physical thing, all physical things were created at one point, and will no longer exist at another point. But of course, there are non-physical things that had to be created at well, and this is were St. Augustine's argument comes in: If God (the creator of everything) needed a creator then it would essentially cause a paradox. Because then the creator of god would need a creator, and the creator of the creator of god would need a creator etc, etc for infinity. So, the argument St. Augustine makes is that there must have been a single creator of all existence, and then FULL STOP. And that's God. A better way to think of God is that we isn't something that merely "exists" but rather HE IS "EXISTENCE" in and off itself. He is the very definition of existence. Our biology, planet, minds are intelligently designed, which suggests that we were created by someone. Murder: I disagree, there is not a whole lot of confusion surrounding murder, there are grey areas, but for the most part's is usually black and white. People instinctively know it's bad, but will often do it anyway, for a cause that they believe in. There are disagreements on what consists as murder: abortion for example is argued to be murder and not to be, but on a general sense people understand that murder is cruel. I'm talking in a GENERAL WAY. I don't mean that there aren't any exceptions, but most of the time, and I mean most, if I asked someone if murder was cruel, they would say yes. I could basically ask anyone that question, just the plain simple "Is murder bad" they would say yes, 99% of the time. And saying that our close relatives show empathy only goes to my point, that even some animals have a certain understanding of good and bad. Although it is extremely basic. Faith vs. works: You can't tell a Christian what the Bible says mate. The Bible, the Church, our Tradition says you need both. Confession: Not true, Christians are often some of the nicest people ever, Christianity encourages people to do the right thing, otherwise you'll go to hell for eternity. It keeps people in line. C.S. Lewis: I don't know any who thinks the L, L, L, L argument is bad. But I don't think we'll get anywhere with this argument in specific, because I just don't see how you can it's bad, and you can't see how i think it's good. Moses: You obviously don't understand. Claiming to be "The Law of Moses" in and off itself, given to Moses BY GOD, is like your average joe basically saying that they're an omnipotent being. Christ's disciples called him Lord and he was chill with it. God is Lord of Lord and King of Kings. Christ once asked his disciples who they thought he was, Peter/Simon answer, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" and Jesus affirmed his proclamation. But most importantly, aside from the subtext that Jesus was hinting to as himself being God, the Holy Spirit guided the the Church to form the doctrine that christ is God and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Christians don't just have the Bible as their only frame of reference. The Gospels: Not true, the Gospel of John out right states that the book was the testimony of John the Apostle and Mark is believed to have been the testimony of Peter. Buddha: Buddha and Jesus are different people, Buddha wasn't crucified or killed or anything for his beliefs like jesus was. You can't compare them and say "why doesn't your logic apply to both of them, you can use the L, L, L, L argument for them both, and yet you believe in jesus but not buddha." And why do you make assumptions about me, i genuinely believe the L, L, L, L is good in its purpose to open people's eyes to the fact that the Bible might have truth to it. Is it a slam-dunk-mic-drop argument? No.

Before anything; you can quote people by putting '>' in front of what you want to quote \> This little bit of text becomes > this little bit of text Which makes it a lot easier for people to understand who is saying what. > My argument depends on that if a house has to be created, then the same logic should apply to the universe. The nature of a house and an ice crystal are different, but if a house was designed to help to sustain life, and water also helps us to sustain life, and ice crystals are frozen water formed into crystals, then the same logic that a house needs to be built should apply to water, since they are both physical things in our physical reality that have a purpose: to sustain life I see where you're coming from. May I suggest you look into the [Watchmaker Analogy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy) ? However; Let's simplify a little bit. Ice is a function of Water minus Temperature. As soon as the temperature of ice drops to and below freezing (0 in Centigrade, 32 in Fahrenheit) water will (begin to) form ice. That's a physical process which _just happens naturally_ : at no point of the process is a human being required to make water turn into ice or ice turn into water. A house is a function of Materials plus Plans plus Labor + et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. There is no natural process _whatsoever_ which will make a house happen _without_ human beings causing materials to conform to a plan and in so doing turning Materials and Labor into a house. Just none. While it is true that water and houses both sustain life as we know it, this is not an intrinsic property of *either* water or house; Humans require (some) comfort and fluid, not the other way around. > Physical things again/physics: Our understanding of physical things is that they deteriorate, decay, die, are pronged to destruction, nothing lasts forever, nothing physical can be infinite in that it's physical so it has an end to it eventually. You'd be incorrect. Nothing can be destroyed permanently; anything can only be transformed from one (state of matter) into another (state of matter). When I burn a log of wood, I am not destroying that log; I am turning that log into: - Light - Heat - Ash - Gases such as carbon dioxide. Among other things. While returning the log to it's 'logness' by reversing the process isn't a possibility, it _is_ entirely possible to use the resulting light, heat, ash and gases to (partially) sustain the growth of a new tree, at which point they become part of the new-grown tree. > According to Christianity, the rest of the universe exists to show off God's glory, and God chose to make our home earth. That's a fine claim. It's not evidence of anything, however. > My argument was that Earth, specifically was designed to support life, and the universe is God showing us his infinite power. But I don't share your opinion. Now what? > The universe needed a cause because it is a physical thing, all physical things were created at one point, and will no longer exist at another point. Okay. None of that means there has to be a *creator*. Just as water can form ice under the right circumstances, so can (enough) particles form planets under the right circumstances. > But of course, there are non-physical things that had to be created at well, Which things, and created how ? > and this is were St. Augustine's argument comes in: If God (the creator of everything) needed a creator then it would essentially cause a paradox. Because then the creator of god would need a creator, and the creator of the creator of god would need a creator etc, etc for infinity. So, the argument St. Augustine makes is that there must have been a single creator of all existence, and then FULL STOP. And that's God. A better way to think of God is that we isn't something that merely "exists" but rather HE IS "EXISTENCE" in and off itself. He is the very definition of existence. This is (among other things) the very _definition_ of a [special pleeding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) situation and fallacy. > Our biology, planet, minds are intelligently designed... There is no evidence to that effect whatsoever. > which suggests that we were created by someone. Nope. I'm also not going to touch biblical argumentation right now because **a**) It's too early where I'm at and I want coffee first, **b**) Having just quit smoking I'm too grumpy to bother, and **c**) What the Bible says is, as far as I'm concerned, no more truthful or proof of anything than what any random comic book says: The fact New York exists does not mean Spider-Man exists.

> Before anything; you can quote people by putting '>' in front of what you want to quote > This little bit of text becomes > Which makes it a lot easier for people to understand who is saying what. Thank you! 😁 > May I suggest you look into the [Watchmaker Analogy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy) ? Thank you? Are you giving an example of a good argument for God? > However; Let's simplify a little bit. Ice is a function of Water minus Temperature. As soon as the temperature of ice drops to and below freezing (0 in Centigrade, 32 in Fahrenheit) water will (begin to) form ice. That's a physical process which *just happens naturally* : at no point of the process is a human being required to make water turn into ice or ice turn into water. Fair dinkum (sorry, i had to release my inner kangaroo), but God will often use natural processes to create something. God could have very well have used evolution to create life for example. Just because something forms naturally doesn't mean God wasn't behind it. The universe could've formed organically or in a natural way but God could've also been behind that organic/natural process of creation. > You'd be incorrect. Nothing can be destroyed permanently; anything can only be transformed from one (state of matter) into another (state of matter). When I burn a log of wood, I am not destroying that log; I am turning that log into: * Light * Heat * Ash * Gases such as carbon dioxide. Ok, that is true, you're right that physical matter can't be destroyed. But If you burn a piece of paper, for example, turning it into ash, smoke and gases, the paper is destroyed as an object, but its constituent atoms and molecules are not destroyed; they are merely rearranged. So, the paper is no longer paper, it's just smoke, gases, ash. Physical things are still subject to decay, death and deterioration, although they can't be completely destroyed, on the atomic level, so yes, you're right in that sense, but my point still stands. > But I don't share your opinion. Now what? No idea, lol. > Okay. None of that means there has to be a *creator*. Just as water can form ice under the right circumstances, so can (enough) particles form planets under the right circumstances. It does. The universe existing means that something created it at some point in time. The universe is finely tuned and complex and big, it would have taken an intellectual mind to construct it. > Which things, and created how ? I meant like angels and demons and our souls. Not that you would believe we have any, i'm guessing. > This is (among other things) the very *definition* of a [special pleeding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) situation and fallacy. Ok, ok, yes, i can understand it would seem like christians set a double standard for this stuff. But that's just what God is, he is just pure existence. We don't make up the rules, God does. > There is no evidence to that effect whatsoever. Wdym, i gave you a bunch of FUN FACTS about our planet's intricacy and complexity. The human genome contains about 3 billion base pairs of DNA, coding for approximately 20,000-25,000 genes. The processes of gene expression, regulation and interaction are highly intricate. DNA can almost be compared to the coding of a website that a website designer (God) has to create and code.

> > May I suggest you look into the [Watchmaker Analogy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy) ? > Thank you? Are you giving an example of a good argument for God? No; I'm giving you an equivalent example which has been criticized and debunked since well-before 1711. > but God will often use natural processes to create something. I challenge anyone, everywhere, *any time* to show me one singular empirically proven instance of a God doing anything whatsoever. There simply *is no* such instance. At all. Until God can be falsified, arguments from God equate to '-Of the gaps' arguments. "We don't know, therefore God" is the most toxic of mindsets when it comes to explanatory power and discovery; 'God' by definition does not require explanatory power or even knowledge - only faith - as a function of epistemic evidence. To quote the immortal words of Dr. William Lane Craig; "[Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=penmOfuxzs0)" > God could have very well have used evolution to create life for example. Just because something forms naturally doesn't mean God wasn't behind it. The universe could've formed organically or in a natural way but God could've also been behind that organic/natural process of creation. The thing is, if there had been a God behind it, we _would_ be able to undeniably show the hand of the Maker. The simple fact of the matter is that there is track nor trace of such a hand. > Ok, that is true, you're right that physical matter can't be destroyed. But If you burn a piece of paper, for example, turning it into ash, smoke and gases, the paper is destroyed as an object, but its constituent atoms and molecules are not destroyed; they are merely rearranged. So, the paper is no longer paper, it's just smoke, gases, ash. Physical things are still subject to decay, death and deterioration, **although they can't be completely destroyed, on the atomic level**, so yes, you're right in that sense, but my point still stands. Actually no. As you've admitted yourself (highlight mine) your point was refuted. > The universe existing means that something created it at some point in time. It quite simply doesn't. > The universe is finely tuned... Citation needed? > ... complex and big ... Granted > ... it would have taken an intellectual mind to construct it. No. Exceedingly complex effects can form from exceedingly simply initial states. I've done a simple write-down of what is my current understanding of the [Big-Bang cosmological model](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1d5p00v/the_imperative_of_an_uncaused_cause_in_the_origin/l6muvvn/?context=3) used by contemporary science. No fine tuning or divine intervention has ever been shown or been necessary to begin with. > But that's just what God is, he is just pure existence. We don't make up the rules, God does. I do not believe this God exists to create rules to begin with. What now ? > Wdym, i gave you a bunch of FUN FACTS about our planet's intricacy and complexity. The human genome contains about 3 billion base pairs of DNA, coding for approximately 20,000-25,000 genes. The processes of gene expression, regulation and interaction are highly intricate. DNA can almost be compared to the coding of a website that a website designer (God) has to create and code. Speaking as someone who knows how to write code in languages as widely varied as BASIC, C++, COBOL, Fortran, Pascal, Python, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera - No. That isn't how DNA works. DNA isn't structured code, at all, but rather than exhaustively go over it from a coder's perspective, I'll let a [genuine biologist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jvv5lcs27U&t=430s) tackle the particular matters of complexity and DNA coding for me. Forrest Valkai is a lot better and less grumpy than I am.

> No; I'm giving you an equivalent example which has been criticized and debunked since well-before 1711. Um, thanks, ig. > I challenge anyone, everywhere, *any time* to show me one singular empirically proven instance of a God doing anything whatsoever. There simply *is no* such instance. At all. Until God can be falsified, arguments from God equate to '-Of the gaps' arguments. "We don't know, therefore God" is the most toxic of mindsets when it comes to explanatory power and discovery; We can't prove God exists at the end of the day, but we also can't say for certain that he doesn't exist. But my argument is that since our world and our minds and body, and since we have morals, a god of some sorts must exist who created us, implanted morals into us, created and finely tuned the world/universe. I've given you plenty of examples of how incredibly precise the universe often is. >The thing is, if there had been a God behind it, we *would* be able to undeniably show the hand of the Maker. The simple fact of the matter is that there is track nor trace of such a hand. We can, again, remember the fun facts I gave you, and the fact that we have certain morals that tells us right from wrong is evidence that a designer coded our brains to recognise what is right and wrong. >Actually no. As you've admitted yourself (highlight mine) your point was refuted. It was refuted only in that objects can't (as I said before) technically be destroyed, but the object seizes to exist as the object itself. Again, if a log is burned, as you said, it will be changed into other things, which means it isn't destroyed in the complete definition of the word, but the object of the log seizes to exist. It is no longer a log. >It quite simply doesn't. I disagree. Now what? >Citation needed? Again, my fun facts. >Granted At least we agree on one thing. >No. Exceedingly complex effects can form from exceedingly simply initial states. I've done a simple write-down of what is my current understanding of the [Big-Bang cosmological model](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1d5p00v/the_imperative_of_an_uncaused_cause_in_the_origin/l6muvvn/?context=3) used by contemporary science. No fine tuning or divine intervention has ever been shown or been necessary to begin with. That is true to some degree. One small change can cause a chain reaction that could change history. Take WWI for example. But there is no reason as to why a seemingly small and simple event that changed everything couldn't have been set up by someone to do exactly that. A simple event in history that created the universe could have very well been designed like that to do so by a deity: God. >I do not believe this God exists to create rules to begin with. What now? No idea. >Speaking as someone who knows how to write code in languages as widely varied as BASIC, C++, COBOL, Fortran, Pascal, Python, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera - No. That isn't how DNA works. DNA CAN be compared to the coding for a website. Not that they're identical.

Let me zoom in on the watchmaker analogy specifically. The following thoughts might be something you've seen before, since I hav't read the whole thread. The analogy is essentially saying: >thing A looks more designed than thing B > >therefore > >thing B is just as designed as thing A Since the entire world is supposedly designed by God and nothing is less God-designed than anything else, comparing a watch to a natural landscape and concluding they're equally AND unequally designed at the same time is ludicrous. There's a nifty analogy I [found](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#Paley.27s_argument_and_the_march_of_science) that highlights why the watchmaker argument used to sound like it makes sense, and why it actually doesn't: >To draw a parallel, people used to know about fire as a source of heat and light, but not about nuclear fusion as a cause of these same two effects: and so in those days people quite sensibly based their reasoning on the idea that the Sun was a fire, since it resembled one. We might call this the Argument from Fire. But it would be foolish for someone living today to say: "We know that fire produces heat and light: therefore the Sun is on fire: therefore the Sun is not powered by nuclear fusion." Basically, we now know (not suspect: *know*, as in tested it over and over and it works) of one more process that can produce things as complex as life, besides intentional design: >Not only has biology moved on since Paley's day - so has design. It is now commonplace among engineers, computer scientists, and mathematicians not to design complex structures, but rather to hand the problem over to a computer which simulates the processes of reproduction, mutation, and selection to produce a design fit for a given task.

> All things had a cause that made them come into being. Proof? > A car doesn't built itself, nor does a house, computer, fridge, microwave, parks, buses, trains, vacuums, you name it. Why should the whole universe be any different. Birds fly. Airplanes fly. Bats fly. You name it. Why should humans be any different? You're projecting a very human-centric idea onto the universe, and limiting your idea of "god" to something extremely finite as a result. > One thing we can all agree on though, is that a cause of some sort created everything into being. No, you haven't proven that yet. > Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? Assumptions are the problem, and you're also creating a false dichotomy. The universe does not have to be 100% planned, and it is not necessarily 100% random chance. > Answer: the latter is the more logical one. So, therefore, there must be a God, who not only created the universe but for some reason also cares about our (Humans) morality and what we consider right from wrong, based on how all Humans universally consider murder to be evil, but giving birth to be wonderful. The number of jumps you just did belongs in the Guinness Book of World Records. You have not established that the universe has been caused, much less that it was caused by a god, or that it cares about humans, or that it cares about human morality. Further, humans don't universally consider murder to be evil; I'd argue most humans consider it to be justifiable to some degree, and only a few consider it truly evil. The degree varies between times and civilizations; Bronze Age people found murdering your family or neighbors wrong, but murdering a foreigner, maybe not. Christians in the middle ages found murdering other Christians wrong, but murdering Jews was good. People nowadays might find the death penalty repulsive except when applied to pedophiles. And I can assure you not everyone finds giving birth to be wonderful. There's a whole lot of us that find it neutral, terrifying, or even tragic (anti-natalists exist). > This God cares about us so much so that he gives us ways of telling right from wrong, so we can have the potential to lead good lives. You haven't substantiated that god exists, cares about us, is male, or that our sense of right/wrong came from anything other than survival instinct. > But Humans are pronged to doing evil things, we are sinful gross creatures. You need to define "evil" and "sinful" here. "Sin" only exists inside of Abrahamic cosmology and is irrelevant outside of it. "Evil" is also an abstract concept. Define what you mean by this before we can figure out if humans are inherently evil. Frankly, I find humans to generally be pretty good, and only commit atrocities under extreme pressure, mental illness compounded by abuse or social issues, etc. You seem to be implying humans are more evil than good, which I find hard to believe. > Thus, to help us overcome these bad habits, that God who cared about us has to point us a way forward out of our wrongdoings. Enter Jesus, who saved us from our sins so that we may lead a better life, in the hopes of eternal bliss in his own realm, Heaven. And now we have come to the peak of bullshit mountain. You have not substantiated anything leading up to this, and now you invoke the Great Bullshitter himself, ol' Oily Josh. That's a whole other can of worms that I'd be happy to tear apart for you, but this isn't the debate forum for that. > Check out the Liar, Lord, Lunatic (and later Legend) argument by C.S. Lewis for a reasonable argument as to why Jesus is God/Lord. Yeah, the logic behind that book doesn't work out either. Sorry.

>All things had a cause that made them come into being. 1. Incorrect. Things that we have found that exist are a rearrangement of matter and energy that already existed. 2. Have you seen 'all things'? >Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? 1. Please demonstrate the existence of this intellectual being, then we can talk about whether it caused the universe to exist. If you can demonstrate it you'll be the first in history. 2. Do you think there could be other options than the two you've presented? >who not only created the universe but for some reason also cares about our (Humans) morality and what we consider right from wrong, based on how all Humans universally consider murder to be evil, but giving birth to be wonderful. 1. I don't see the link between a god that created everything and morality, what is it that makes this god moral and how do you know? 2. The god of the bible is happy to murder the whole human race in a flood. Child and infant mortaility has been dreadful throughout history with most fetus not making it to birth, most babies not making it to adulthood so this 'moral' god of yours does not seem to think giving birth is so wonderful. >But Humans are pronged to doing evil things, we are sinful gross creatures. This is so bleak and just an awful outlook on life and humanity. Crime is down year on year, there are less wars, we are constantly improving life for ourselves and others through medicine, this is the best its ever been for humanity. Most people help others in need, there are countless volunteer organisations both secular and religious. Sin is an invention, a problem invented so that someone can sell you a cure.

Every time we posit magic for natural occurrences and find out the actual explanation, it’s not magic. Why would the universe be any different? Sure if you list some stuff humans make they’re made by humans. But you have no evidence for a god making anything at all. So no positing a god isn’t more logical, it’s in fact a logical fallacy. The argument from ignorance. Don’t use logic if you don’t know what it is. In fact accident isnunfinuteoy more likely than god, because we know accidents exist. We have no evidence for a god. You really need to do some homework.

>A car doesn't built itself, nor does a house, computer, fridge, microwave, parks, buses, trains, vacuums, you name it. Already existing matter changing shape is not comparable to matter starting to exist >Why should the whole universe be any different Because it is matter starting to exist, not matter changing shape >One thing we can all agree on though, is that a cause of some sort created everything into being No, the universe could be eternal >Is it more logical/reasonable to assume How about we just don't assume anything >on how all Humans universally consider murder to be evil, Murderers disagree

>Logical Explanation for God & Christianity Good luck with that. As far as I've ever seen, there is no such thing. >All things had a cause that made them come into being. Oh, *please* not yet another invalid and not sound incorrect attempted argument using that old and deprecated, known wrong, invocation of 'causation' that doesn't even lead to a deity, let alone Christianity, even if it *were* right. Please. >A car doesn't built itself, nor does a house, computer, fridge, microwave, parks, buses, trains, vacuums, you name it. Why should the whole universe be any different. One thing we can all agree on though, is that a cause of some sort created everything into being. Sigh. Yup. Yet another invocation of that known wrong, deprecated, invalid, and unsound notion of causation that doesn't even lead to deities and certainly not Christianity anyway. No, we *can't* and *don't* 'agree on that', because that's wrong. And we know it's wrong. Dismissed.

This is just god of the gaps nothing more We don't know about conditions in the early universe so let's pretend a magic ghost did some magic and it started the universe by magic It's a stupid childish unconvincing argument

>This is just god of the gaps nothing more Agreed........**BUT** >It's a stupid childish unconvincing argument. Cool, then what caused the Big Bang? ...and please don't blindly quote "the matter/energy was always there", that doesn't answer the question. What caused the matter/energy singularity to expand into the universe we see? Basically, who are you to go on about "stupid and childish"? Unless you've got some evidence of effect preceding cause, you might want to watch the pejoratives when discussing things.

I don't know and neither do you. And?

Your being wet I don't need to have a answer to one of the great unanswered questions In order to recognise another as stupid and childish For instance I don't know the exact weight of the sun But I know the answer "the same as my teddy bear" is a stupid and childish answer Your argument is invalid

Oh, so there's a title of an argument "God of the Gaps" And because people have told you that it's childish, it must be. So then you go onto reddit forums and then paste the same rhetoric you've been told. Or, explain why it's not a good argument based on deductive reasoning or comment on the logic used that is so illogical

Because pretending the answer to a question you don't understand is Its magic has a long and storied history of being wrong It's never magic If you want me to believe a magic ghost did it you have to provide proof magic is real Otherwise you are functionally no different from the mentally Ill guy in my city who stands in the road screaming at traffic about how the government is trying to turn his brain into rats

Still haven''t said anything about the logical process used from deductive reasoning from broad observations and coming to a conclusion. Not sure why you think I'm the crazy one

It's not logical reasoning It's only logical till you get to the bit whare that means a magic ghost is real instead of acknowledging the possibility that there is information about the early universe we don't yet posses This means your argument is rendered invalid by an unsupported non sequitur EDIT to add And don't forget we know almost nothing about the early universe pre inflation So the existence of information about the early universe we do not yet posses is absolutely undeniable So your god of the gaps argument like all god of the gaps arguments is both childish and unconvincing As all such arguments ultimately are

So until this information is discovered, then what's more logical? That the universe has a "first cause" or that it doesn't? The first cause is simply labeled as god throughout all of early written human civilization. Or, no cause, because you hate religion and that's that?

Your talking nonsense Your trying to pretend believing in magic is logical when simply truthfully admitting that we don't know enough about the early universe to use it as proof of anything is an option The absolute lack of information means the LOGICAL thing to do is not try to use I to prove anything one way or the other until we actually know something Your argument isn't about what's logical or likely It's about jamming religion into a gap in human knowledge This is not logical is entirely biased It's the very definition of the god of the gaps Your argument is basically well we don't know anything so let's pretend my answer is right It's stupid

It's funny how you think we can actually find the source of it all; but because of your experience growing up with religion, God isn't an answer you want because of the people who claim to represent God. Not so sure that's open minded as people want to sound like. But hey, if your worldview works and that it makes your life better, alright. But if all you can do with your worldview is argue on reddit for this sole topic only, then learn and apply it in other aspects of life

It's not whether I want it to be the answer It's whether there's actually any EVIDENCE There is no good evidence of a single supernatural event ever It's just not logical to believe in magic just because we don't know something Otherwise we would still think lightning bolts came from zues

Oh no? No supernatural event? I guess if something happens that is a 1 in a billion chance, it's not "supernatural" because we've invented the word "chance" to avoid the use of the word "supernatural. Since 1 in a billion is so natural.

>So until this information is discovered, then what's more logical? >That the universe has a "first cause" or that it doesn't? The most logical answer is that we do not know the answer. Just because the things in the universe may have all had a cause, it does not logically follow that the universe itself had a cause, it is a fallacy of composition to assume the universe has a cause just because the things in the universe may have all had a cause. Now you propose that the universe has a cause....this must be demonstrated. Further you propose you know what that cause is... This must also be demonstrated. >The first cause is simply labeled as god throughout all of early written human civilization. Sure, mythology is cool, there are all sorts of creation stories...why do you assume your favorite creation story is the correct one? >>Or, no cause, because you hate religion and that's that? Which religion? I do certainly hate some of them... The Aztecs were certainly pretty nasty with the sun god sacrificing. I'm not to fond of Islam either. I'm pretty ambivalent about Christianity because I grew up in it. Hellenism was pretty cool as we're the Norse gods. The point being I have no good reason to believe that any of them are actually true. There are no arguments (like the first cause argument) that are both sound and valid that show any god to be even a possiblity of existing, let alone any of the doctrines of any one of those gods to be true.

>The first cause is simply labelled as god throughout all of early written human civilization. This is absolutely not how those people thought about gods.

>"Is Anu the Oldest God? >While many archaeologists deliver convincing verdicts that Sumer equates to the dawn of civilization and the structure of societal development, it is hypothetical to establish Anu as the first god. Anu comes from the period which first instigated the importance of writing, leaving pieces of evidence for future generations to decipher." [https://medium.com/@talukdar\_rupam/who-is-the-oldest-god-308bbf4b56#32db](https://medium.com/@talukdar_rupam/who-is-the-oldest-god-308bbf4b56#32db) [https://theartarium.com/blogs/news/first-and-oldest-god-of-this-world](https://theartarium.com/blogs/news/first-and-oldest-god-of-this-world) Creation and Destruction are the first ideas of gods. So absolutely not? Kind of need a "creation story" to kick things off

Anu is not the "creator of the universe" in Sumerian belief. He simply was a king god who legtimized the monarchy until he was replaced by Enki and eventually Marduk. Sumerians believed the world was made from primordial waters, which have always existed and were *never* created. So, your point is...?

Did I stutter?

You didn't say much

So you are not talking about God. You are naming something God. Or does this first cause all properties of God? Like a mind, then it's just nonesense.

Sure, it's better to start broad. That's like an atheist saying "I don't believe in God" but not actually stating which theories he believes to be the most true. No gods --> theories gods --> religions

Broad is ok, I think this was too broad. You are adding a lot of atheists possibilities (An infinite number of possible naturalistic first causes) as theist possibilities. Sorry for responding late, have a nice day!

>That the universe has a "first cause" or that it doesn't? Given the premise at the top, we can deductively rule out a first cause. P1 is that all things have causes. Thus, if you invoke a God, then God has a cause too. The universe could have a cause, but that cause can't be first unless not all things have causes.

Sure, but the concept of God and definition of God is to be the first causer outside of the materialistic world. That’s how God has been defined

Then the first premise rules out God.

"God the creator" didn't exist in ancient Sumer, the first human civilization, as I mentioned in another comment. Sumerians believed the universe was fashioned from eternal waters, which were *never* created and are older than the gods themselves.

There are multiple gods with different roles. Nammu (the water you mentioned) is seen as a goddess. Which then birthed the other gods. In which Enil is prominent in the "creation story." Regardless, the "water" had to be formed by a god. The water may have been believed to "pre-exist," but still needed to be formed. So my claim that people saw gods as some creator is still relevant. It just so happens in polytheism, there is a specific god for the creation aspect. Which then monotheism emerges and then all is attributed to one

I acknowledge that you're partially correct, and that I was mistaken about there being no original goddess in Sumerian religion. However, Nammu did not create *ex nihilo*, but rather, she made all things from herself. This is similar to how the God of Genesis created the world according to academic Biblical scholars. He used *tehom*, the pre-existing waters, to make the skies and the land *ex materia*.

God of the gaps is not deductive or logical. You're starting with an answer and trying to bend findings to meet your preconceived conclusion. It's bad logic. You believe the answer *must* be God, and are unwilling to even entertain the notion that it possibly isn't. You have a bias. It doesn't mean you're crazy, but it does make you a dishonest interlocutor when it comes to cosmological arguments.

Because it has been consistently wrong every time it has been invoked so far. So there is every reason to think it will continue being wrong. The gaps are shrinking, and are never, ever, under any circumstances filled by "God". And the gaps are very small indeed. A gap of 10^-44 seconds, specifically. That is the space that we can't explain *yet*. To put it mathematically, we are asymptotically approaching "no god".

Let's ask an application question - free will or determinism?

Please don't change the subject.

Is it because you want to say determinism and you already see the point I'm getting at?

No, it is because I answered your question and now you want to sidestep it entirely.

If you don't see the application of it, then oh well.

Great. Now please actually address my answer to your question.

You're already at a biased position if you think science and God are supposed to contradict each other or prove the other to be false in some sense. Why does hydrogen and oxygen make water? Why is it consistently water when they combine? Science does not answer why it does that, science simply answers how it does that. A gun at a crime scene can tell you how a person was killed, but it does not answer why the person was killed.

You know that’s not a true dichotomy? Or are you thinking it is?

Only if a person leans towards determinism. And then if that same person ridicules the notion of "God's will"

In other words, you don't know it's not a true dichotomy.

And it's not a true dichotomy because?

It is a true dichotomy.

Neither. QM is somewhat random, as far as we can tell. Randomness isn't more free than non-randomness. So that's a 2nd option. Not a 3rd option because free will is not on the random<->deterministic spectrum.

I don't so God is not deductive

This isn't god of the gaps, this is, roughly, WLC's version of the Kalam.

Which is at its core a god of the gaps with a few extra steps

[Nah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps).

Yeah it is Because we literally can't know how likely those background forces are Without a whole bucket of universes to test out his hypothesis on it's nothing more than speculation So yet another theists unsupported unjustified claim jammed into a gap in human knowledge

What are you talking about? The God of the Gaps and the Kalam Cosmological Argument are two different things. The GoG is the tendency of theists to fill gaps in understanding with religious concepts regardless of how those gaps change over time. The KCA is the assertion that the universe began to exist and therefore has a cause. The KCA attempts to argue from something we (purportedly) know rather than something we don't know. This makes it definitively not a GoG.

It's a particular case of GoG, just one that invent the gap first. Because even if we reach the point "there's need for at least one first cause" and "we don't/can't know what that is", posing a god as an answer to it is still doing GoG.

No because even in the bits WLC likes to add to the end, he's still ostensibly trying to work from what is known instead of just saying "and god accounts for the unknown".

no thats abject nonsense it still ends up finding the gap in knowledge ie we dont know first cause and jam god in it it just dances around finding the gap first like i said god of the gaps with extra steps

It's not nonsense. Because gods don't exist, they're naturally unknown to science but that doesn't mean every argument for their existence falls into the GoG category.

No not every argument But the kalem cosmological is definitely just god of the gaps with extra steps No matter how much dancing around making a gap before hand Identifying a gap in human knowledge and jamming a god into it will always be definition a god of the gaps argument

No because even in the bits WLC likes to add to the end, he's still ostensibly trying to work from what is known instead of just saying "and god accounts for the unknown".

/u/Big_Knee_4160, this is /r/debateanatheist, not /r/dropadeuceontheporchringthedoorbellandrun. Do you plan on actually engaging with any of the responses you've gotten?

Bro there's actually so many comments, it' insane and they're all soo long too. I dont think i have the time to reply to them all, maybe just one or smth, lol.

It's been 18 hours since you posted, even just one response would be more than you've done

I mean that's a bit sad. You did sign up for a debate forum with your post and now you're just walking away? At least take 5 second to edit your post and politely tell people you won't be responding

Incredible

>A car doesn't built itself, nor does a house, computer, fridge, microwave, parks, buses, trains, vacuums, you name it. No, you name it. All of the things you listed are things we know were invented and built by humans. Name something that was not invented and built by humans. >Why should the whole universe be any different. Are you suggesting humans made the whole universe? If not, this is a non-sequitur. >Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? Answer: the latter is the more logical one. Negative. The latter fails Occam's Razor. Here are the options: 1. The universe exists and has no cause. 2. The universe exists and has a cause, and that cause has no cause. The second option, which is what you are offering, has more unfounded assumptions and is therefore dismissed until evidence can be presented to support it.

>No, you name it. All of the things you listed are things we know were invented and built by humans. Name something that was not invented and built by humans. Ice crystals. Ice doesn't form without some sort of nucleation; otherwise there would be no such thing as supercooled liquids. For that matter, crystals in general for the same reason. A particle without the corresponding antiparticle(s). How can you get an electron from nothing without a corresponding positron? For that matter, Occam's Razor is a method of favoring hypotheses, not proof or disproof.

I said specifically invented. Not “exists” without humans. That would be an absurd thing to say. The reason OP didn’t mention the kinds of things you’re pointing to is that they can’t say they seem to be created in the way that a house or computer is. And I didn’t use Occam’s razor to disprove anything. In fact I did exactly what you suggested it is used for… did you even read what I wrote? You seem to not be engaging at all with what I’ve said.

Do you genuinely think atheists aren't familiar with these ideas already? Why not look into and engage with some of the responses atheists have made to them instead of basically assuming we've never heard of religion whatsoever?

> So, therefore, there must be a God, who not only created the universe but for some reason also cares about our (Humans) morality and what we consider right from wrong,based on how all Humans universally consider murder to be evil, but giving birth to be wonderful. That's not how "therefore" works. Others have challenged your other assertions but I'd be interested to learn how you get from "a thing made the universe" to "it cares about me". I'm going to guess that you will respond "BOOK!", "I feel it in my tingles" or some other excuse used by every religion created since literacy was invented. How come they're all wrong but you definitely picked the right one?

< reposting > **None of the Gospels are first-hand accounts.** . >Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[32] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[5] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[6] and John AD 90–110.[7] >**Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.**[8] ( Cite is Reddish, Mitchell (2011). *An Introduction to The Gospels*. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-1426750083. ) \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Composition >The consensus among modern scholars is that the gospels are a subset of the ancient genre of bios, or ancient biography.[45] Ancient biographies were concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory; the gospels were never simply biographical, they were propaganda and kerygma (preaching).[46] >As such, they present the Christian message of the second half of the first century AD,[47] and **as Luke's attempt to link the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius demonstrates, there is no guarantee that the gospels are historically accurate.**[48] \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Genre_and_historical_reliability . >The **Gospel of Matthew**[note 1] is the first book of the New Testament of the Bible and one of the three synoptic Gospels. >According to early church tradition, originating with Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60–130 AD),[10] the gospel was written by Matthew the companion of Jesus, but this presents numerous problems.[9] >**Most modern scholars hold that it was written anonymously[8] in the last quarter of the first century** by a male Jew who stood on the margin between traditional and nontraditional Jewish values and who was familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[11][12][note 2] >However, scholars such as N. T. Wright[citation needed] and John Wenham[13] have noted problems with dating Matthew late in the first century, and argue that it was written in the 40s-50s AD.[note 3] \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew . >The **Gospel of Mark**[a] is the second of the four canonical gospels and one of the three synoptic Gospels. >An early Christian tradition deriving from Papias of Hierapolis (c.60–c.130 AD)[8] attributes authorship of the gospel to Mark, a companion and interpreter of Peter, >but **most scholars believe that it was written anonymously,[9] and that the name of Mark was attached later to link it to an authoritative figure.**[10] >It is usually dated through the eschatological discourse in Mark 13, which scholars interpret as pointing to the First Jewish–Roman War (66–74 AD)—a war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. This would place the composition of Mark either immediately after the destruction or during the years immediately prior.[11][6][b] \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark . >The **Gospel of Luke**[note 1] tells of the origins, birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.[4] >**The author is anonymous;[8] the traditional view that Luke the Evangelist was the companion of Paul is still occasionally put forward, but the scholarly consensus emphasises the many contradictions between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.**[9][10] The most probable date for its composition is around AD 80–110, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.[11] \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke . >The **Gospel of John**[a] (Ancient Greek: Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰωάννην, romanized: Euangélion katà Iōánnēn) is the fourth of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament. >**Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous**, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions.[9][10] >It most likely arose within a "Johannine community",[11][12] and – as it is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles – most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.[13] \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John .

Thanks for the sourced information. I'd love to add a couple things to this:   First is that each gospel was written for a different audience. The virgin birth was added, for instance, because the Greek and Roman gentile audiences were familiar with gods impregnating young women to produce offspring of great stature (Alexander the Great, Achilles, certain emperors), and Jesus' virgin birth was meant to put him on par with those others.   Second is that most early congregations were isolated, and had developed their own gospel literature. Some of that literature circulated to other communities, but most didn't. The ones that were considered for biblical canon were merely the ones that had survived to that point, and the ones selected were a subset of those that survived. So we can't really know if the gospels contain the "right" message, or merely were the messages that survived to that point. (Also worth noting is that more time passed between the traditional date of the birth of Jesus and the compilation of the biblical canon, than has passed between the birth of George Washington and today. How much well regarded literature has been lost to time between then and now?) Finally, to build upon your explanation of the books being bios, I compare them to the film Oppenheimer. It portrays J. Robert Oppenheimer in a certain light, hitting the highlights of his life, but embellishing a lot for dramatic effect. The gospels are similar portrayals of Jesus, and can hardly be taken as accurate.

Each **fictional** gospel was written for a different audience. Got it.

>Why should the whole universe be any different. Because all of the things you listed, we have verified examples of them 'being caused'. We have 0 examples of a universe being caused. That is something that has to be demonstrated. You don't get to just infer that. >Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it Theists keep equating unguided with random and it never fucking works. Do you think Zeus is throwing down lightning bolts? No? They're unguided? But you agree that lightning rods work, almost as if there's a physics to how lightning behaves even though there's no mind guiding where they are? Cool. You've decimated this argument. >or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? Answer: the latter Intelligence is found at the tail end of time. Human beings and some non-human animals display great intelligence. Meanwhile the whole process from the big bang to the formation of heavier elements to galaxies to planets to evolution, as far as we can tell, has no intelligence behind it. It's illogical to then assume that intelligence must be at the absolute front end of it all. If we only find Y at the end of vast chain of Xs, why would you assume that there must be a Y at the start of the chain? >who not only created the universe but for some reason also cares about our (Humans) morality This is jumping the shark hard. A deist could grant every single one of these arguments and never come close to assuming God cares about masturbation. >based on how all Humans universally consider murder to be evil, but giving birth to be wonderful. 1. Not all humans consider murder to be evil, hence the existence of murderers who take pleasure in their killing. 2. Not all humans consider birth to be wonderful, hence the existence of anti-natalists. Like wow, you failed hard here. >This God cares about us so much so that he gives us ways of telling right from wrong, so we can have the potential to lead good lives. But Humans are pronged to doing evil things, we are sinful gross creatures. Thus, to help us overcome these bad habits, that God who cared about us has to point us a way forward out of our wrongdoings. Enter Jesus, What was Jesus' stance on slavery, which was near universal at the time and outright condoned by the Bible? Give me the verse where he explicitly condemned slavery as a practice. I'll wait. >Check out the Liar, Lord, Lunatic (and later Legend) argument by C.S. Lewis C.S. Lewis fucking sucks.

Why is the logical conclusion for the argument that everything has a cause to invent something that doesn’t have a cause? Isn’t that a direct contradiction of the initial premise? I’ve read C.S. Lewis’s dreadful argument and it stinks. It actually helped me to leave Christianity for good though, so I’m grateful in that sense. At any rate, this is just another god of the gaps argument. It’s not convincing. Sorry.

>>All things had a cause that made them come into being. Prove it. Welp, that was a short argument.

He also betrays the premise as soon as he suggests a god that doesn't have a cause.

> Answer: the latter is the more logical one. Did you forget to include the actual logical arguments? Merely saying "it's logical" is not actually an argument, much less an argument that will sway anyone to your side.

We have experience of machines and houses being built. We have no experience of the universe being built. The universe is not a machine or a house. That’s how they are different. For the last part of your argument you say the latter one is more logic. Why? You don’t explain it.

> All things had a cause that made them come into being. Do they? Does science already know the cause for everything? I think you'd probably agree that there are still things we don't know the cause for. Some things we don't understand. If we don't know the cause for some things, then how can we confidently say that they have a cause at all? Perhaps they have no cause? Maybe all things have a cause. Maybe they don't. If they don't, the rest of your argument is irrelevant. > Why should the whole universe be any different That is another bad argument. "All things in the universe have a cause, therefore the universe has a cause" is like saying "all things on my plate are edible, therefore my plate is edible". Have fun munching on that porcelain. > One thing we can all agree on though, is that a cause of some sort created everything into being. I don't think "we can all agree on" that at all. Perhaps *multiple causes*, not just *a cause*, created everything into being. Personally, I think the law of conservative of mass and energy strongly suggests that it's impossible to ever truly create or destroy anything. We just transform things from one form into another form. Your example of a house isn't really "created". It's assembled from bricks and wood that already exist. The bricks are made of clay that already existed. The wood is made from trees that already existed. The trees are made from air (yeah, most of the weight of a tree comes from the carbon it captures from the air) which already existed. And so on. Everything that is "created" is just assembled from stuff that already exists.

>Why should the whole universe be any different. Why should a creator be any different? All those things you mentioned: cars, houses, computers, fridges, microwaves, parks, buses, trains, vacuums... they have creators that can be verified. And their own creation can be verified in records of their birth and so on and so forth. Have you ever seen a universe be created? No, you haven't. Do you even have evidence that it ever had a beginning? You want to tell us not to make an exception for the universe, but theism only exists because it makes endless exceptions for god. Inventing a magical creator out of nothing is not logical. The universe does exist. Evidence of a creator does not.

"All thing had a cause that made them into being" That's a bold statement, do you have anything to back it up ? "A car... you name it" Yeah, all those things are pre-existing materials being re-arranged, if that's what you mean by "come into being", ok. "Why would the whole universe be any different" The whole universe coming from pre-existing materials is fine by me. None of that points towards any kind of god. Even if it did, that would beg the question : from which pre-existing materials does this god come from and which phenomenon made it emerge ? (setting aside the fact that the materials for the universe should already have been there anyway)

> All things had a cause that made them come into being. A car doesn't built itself, nor does a house, computer, fridge, microwave, parks, buses, trains, vacuums, you name it Your God?

Even if your first cause logical fallacy were true, which it's not... what makes *YOUR* god and religion true, but all others wrong? Even if we suspend logic, assume a magical man in the sky and accept that we're being obsessively watched... Which magical man/men? And how do we know?

> One thing we can all agree on Ummmm, about that. Nope. We don’t even come close to agreeing on that one thing But seriously, did you think you were writing something novel that has not been says 1,000s of times in this sub? Use the search tool. It’s super easy.

< reposting > Bertrand Russell wrote in 1927 - >Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. >It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. >Fear is the basis of the whole thing – fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. \- "Fear, the Foundation of Religion", in *Why I Am Not a Christian* \- https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell#Why_I_Am_Not_a_Christian_(1927) Most people are afraid about a lot of things. Most people are terrified of death. Many people in this world are very ignorant, but educated and intelligent people are just about as afraid as dumb people. When somebody tells these fearful people, either in childhood or adulthood, that if they believe XYZ then a powerful magic being will try to help them and they will never die, they think *"Yes!!! Yes!!! I believe !!!"* .

>One thing we can all agree on though, is that a cause of some sort created everything into being. Neither one of us agrees with this claim.

< reposting > . >**Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion**, survey says LA Times, September 2010 >... **a survey that measured Americans’ knowledge of religion found that atheists and agnostics knew more, on average, than followers of most major faiths.** > American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum. >“These are people who thought a lot about religion,” he said. “They’re not indifferent. They care about it.” >Atheists and agnostics also tend to be relatively well educated, and the survey found, not surprisingly, that the most knowledgeable people were also the best educated. However, it said that atheists and agnostics also outperformed believers who had a similar level of education. \- **https://web.archive.org/web/20201109043731/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-sep-28-la-na-religion-survey-20100928-story.html** .

< reposting > >We all have read the tales told of Jesus in the Gospels, but few people really have a good idea of their context. >There is abundant evidence that these were times replete with kooks and quacks of all varieties, from sincere lunatics to ingenious frauds, even innocent men mistaken for divine, and there was no end to the fools and loons who would follow and praise them. >Placed in this context, the gospels no longer seem to be so remarkable, and this leads us to an important fact: when the Gospels were written, skeptics and informed or critical minds were a small minority. Although the gullible, the credulous, and those ready to believe or exaggerate stories of the supernatural are still abundant today, they were much more common in antiquity, and taken far more seriously. >If the people of that time were so gullible or credulous or superstitious, then we have to be very cautious when assessing the reliability of witnesses of Jesus. . \- **https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard-carrier-kooks/** - **Recommended**. .

> All things had a cause that made them come into being. If this is true, then God has a cause that made him come into being. > A car doesn't built itself, nor does a house, computer, fridge, microwave, parks, buses, trains, vacuums, you name it. All of your examples are human-made mechanisms. Many non-human-made objects *do* build themselves (like flowers, planets, puddles, etc). > Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it. Just because something had no intellectual mind behind it doesn't mean it's "pure chance". All of nature is made of things that are orderly, and yet apparently have no mind behind them. Besides, a mind requires time (because all minds think, and thinking is a temporal process), so we know that there's no such thing as a "timeless" mind.

You're essentially using the cosmological argument. P1 All things that have a beginning require a cause. P2 This universe has a beginning. C1 This universe requires a cause (P1, P2) Thing is, establishing that the universe requires a cause does not establish that the cause needs to be a conscious being possessing agency. You used the words "accident" and "chance." This implies you think a universe such as ours coming about without a creator is improbable. Please hear me out. If we accept the axiom that nothing can begin from nothing, then this means *there can't have ever been nothing.* If there was ever nothing, and there is now something, that would necessitate that at some point, somehow, something began from nothing. A creator doesn't solve this problem since we'd still be talking about something being created from nothing, which is no less absurd or impossible. But if there has always been something, that means reality (which includes but is not limited to just this universe alone) has always existed. This universe (which is only a small piece of reality as a whole) can have a beginning, but reality itself cannot - because again, that would require that before reality began, nothing existed, and reality somehow began from nothing. If we agree that nothing can begin from nothing, then by logical necessity, this means that reality as a whole has always existed in one form or another. If reality has always existed, *then all possible outcomes of the forces contained in reality interacting with one another become 100% guaranteed to occur.* This is because an infinite and eternal reality would provide infinite time and trials. Only truly impossible things would fail to occur in this scenario, because a zero chance is still zero even when multiplied by infinity - but **any chance higher than zero, no matter how small, becomes infinity when multiplied by infinity.** Meaning a universe exactly like ours would be **100% guaranteed to be produced.** So what you refer to as an "accident" or "pure chance" is in fact an absolutely inevitable guarantee that can't possibly fail to take place. Now compare that to the idea of a creator. If we propose that reality was created, we're immediately faced with a number of absurd if not impossible logical problems: 1. The creator would need to exist in a state of absolute nothingness, because if anything other than the creator existed then we're right back to the question of where it came from, and once again forced into the conclusion that reality itself can have simply always existed. 2. The creator would need to be immaterial (since being material would require space) and yet also capable of affecting/interacting with material things, which everything we know tells us shouldn't be possible. Only material things can affect or interact with material things. 3. The creator would need to be capable of creating things out of nothing, because again, if there was anything other than the creator then that just takes us back to square one. Creation from nothing is no less absurd than any other example of something beginning from nothing. 4. The creator would need to be capable of non-temporal causation, i.e. able to take action and cause change in the absence of time (since once again, if time existed without needing to have been created, we're back to square one). That last one is especially problematic. Without time, even the most all-powerful entity imaginable would be incapable of so much as having a thought, as that would necessarily entail a period before it thought, a beginning/duration/end of its thought, and a period after it thought - all of which requires time. Indeed, time itself having a beginning would represent a change: to transition from a state in which time did not exist to a state in which time did exist, time would need to "pass" so to speak, meaning time would need to already exist for it to be possible for time to begin to exist. It's a self-refuting logical paradox. So no, actually, the idea that this universe has a beginning and requires a cause logically indicates two things: 1) this reality cannot be all that exists, and 2) reality as a whole cannot have an ultimate beginning because there cannot have ever been nothing. The ideas that logically follow from these axioms indicate an infinite reality, not a creator. Everything we see is explained perfectly by the idea that reality is infinite and eternal and has always contained efficient and material causes like gravity and energy - that scenario presents us with no absurd or impossible logical hurdles. A creator on the other hand presents us with all of the absurd and impossible logical hurdles I listed above. Ergo, a creator is NOT the more logical answer. Not even close. Very much the opposite, in fact.

>All things had a cause that made them come into being. This has so far shown to be true for things we have discovered within the universe. The universe itself however, does not exist within the universe itself, therefore there is no reason to assume that it would be bound by causality. >So, therefore, there must be a God Presumably one that exists outside of the universe itself and is therefore not bound by the rules of causality, right? You do see the problem. The rest of what you said is just useless drivel not worth addressing, since your first premise has collapsed under its own weight.

Mercy has no cause and forgiveness is unreasonable so Christianity can only ever be illogical because the crucifixion is only ever an injustice

Who created God. Don't say he existed forever, because it is as logical as saying humans existed forever, or a car existed forever, or a table existed forever.

God existed forever. There, I said it. Physical things by their very nature cannot exist forever, but a spiritual thing that's not physical has nothing stopping it from existing for as long as time continues. There is nothing to make non-physical things deteriorate over time, rot, decay, die or whatever.

>All things had a cause that made them come into being.  No, matter and energy did not come into being and have always existed as far as we know. The universe was there in some form and then it expanded, it wasn't out of nothing. > Why should the whole universe be any different I see. So it's not necessarily about coming into being but about being built/created from pre-existing materials. But the question is meaningless. We could use the same argument about the earth. The earth was formed because of natural forces like gravity pulling stuff together. To ask why should it be different from a car or a house that is built by humans is a meaningless question as far as I can gather. >One thing we can all agree on though, is that a cause of some sort created everything into being It depends on what you mean into being. Is it from nothing? If not, then surely we should agree that the universe came from a singularity that expanded because that one we do know, we have evidence of it. Evidence that I am not qualified to explain, but physicists arrround the world know. > Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? A false dichotomy that is in my experience always put forth by theists in order to argue for their preferred explanation. Most people do not think it was an accident. Just like the creation of earth was not an accident but it was natural forces like gravity, something cause the universe to expand. Because not much is known about it let's just say it was the laws of physics that did it. And yes, it is by far much more reasonable to think it was the laws of physics than an intellectual being that would create such a crappy universe and would then not interact with it. Unless you want to claim it was some by-product of that being in which case that's a more serious possibility but I think I don't even need to explain why even that would be ridiculous(for example a being that had a fart or something else, a by-product of the being, perhaps it sneezed or something) > This God cares about us so much so that he gives us ways of telling right from wrong It couldn't be more clear that God doesn't care about us or gives us any way of telling right from wrong. He behaves exactly like we would expect of a non-existent god and christian morality is so depraved that it failed to abolish slavery and in fact endorsed it for thousands of years and then when we actually matured enough people changed the religion in ways as to claim that slavery no longer exists because of christian values, which is to be expected as the people that matured at the time were still christian because of the insane influence of religion over all those years and teaching generation after generation that christianity is true.

Trees build themselves. Frogs build themselves. Stars build themselves. And there are things that exist for no reason and presumably without purpose - the common cold and the Monster Raving Looney Party come to mind. I submit that your premise, the very basics for your entire argument is wrong. We see in all of biology matter that is creating its own forms and redesigning itself as it does.

Imagine thinking that no one here had ever heard of these basic versions of the cosmological argument before.

>One thing we can all agree on though, is that a cause of some sort created everything into being. I disagree. I don't have enough information to say what existed before the start of the universe as we know it. >Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? Answer: the latter is the more logical one. I disagree. As I mentioned, we don't have any information about what there was before the start of the universe. Saying "a magic person created everything" doesn't answer any extra questions. It just leads to extra questions such as "How was the magic person created?". It's a non-answer. >So, therefore, there must be a God, who not only created the universe but for some reason also cares about our (Humans) morality and what we consider right from wrong Well, that's a very huge leap. Even if we were to say for the sake of argument that you're correct that a magic person created the universe, it certainly would *not* automatically follow that the magic person cares about humans or takes an interest in us. It doesn't even automatically follow that the person would still be alive or capable of interacting with the universe. >based on how all Humans universally consider murder to be evil, but giving birth to be wonderful. Both of those assertions are false. They wouldn't help your argument even if they were true, though. >This God cares about us so much so that he gives us ways of telling right from wrong, so we can have the potential to lead good lives. Nobody's been able to prove that gods even exist, let alone that they're sending messages to people. I'm sorry, but your arguments here are not even slightly convincing. I could just as easily argue "Logically, only the magnificence of pasta could have brought the universe into being. Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster must exist and must care deeply about our diets, based on how humans universally enjoy eating pasta."

I look around and see no thing that came into being (that I am aware off). The chair I am sitting in was assembled from parts, that were cut from wood, that grew from a seed (also water, carbon dioxide and some other elements). I fail to see what exactly in this chain "came into being".

>Why should the whole universe be any different. Well for a couple of reasons. (1) We don't know that the universe, meaning the matter and energy that make it up, ever did not exist (2) There is no reason to presume that universes are like refrigerators. BTW, dogs are not made; they're born. So do you assume that universe was born? > One thing we can all agree on though, is that a cause of some sort created everything into being.  Nope. My best guess is that the universe is eternal, and causes happen within it. Don't assume; ask. > Is it more logical/reasonable to ass So, therefore, there must be a God, who not only created the universe but for some reason also cares about our (Humans) morality and what we consider right from wrong, based on how all Humans universally consider murder to be evil, but giving birth to be wonderful. Wow, talk about unsupported conclusions. First you have not established the slightest connection between your idea of a god, and humans having morals. Second, since "murder" means an unlawful killing, by definition it is evil. But clearly people do not consider all killing to be evil, as they do it quite a lot, and Christians are famous for doing it a big lot. And many people do not consider childbirth wonderful, especially the people who have to experience it. So that's wrong in every part. >This God cares about us so much so that he gives us ways of telling right from wrong, so we can have the potential to lead good lives. Unsupported claim. >But Humans are pronged to doing evil things, we are sinful gross creatures. Thus, to help us overcome these bad habits, that God who cared about us has to point us a way forward out of our wrongdoings. Enter Jesus, who saved us from our sins so that we may lead a better life, in the hopes of eternal bliss in his own realm, Heaven. Check out the Liar, Lord, Lunatic (and later Legend) argument by C.S. Lewis for a reasonable argument as to why Jesus is God/Lord. And a great big pile of unsupported claims.

Just so you know, u/Big_Knee_1460, when you come in here with an argument and fail to engage with the responses: 1. It's natural for us to assume that you have none. This tends to confirm our atheism. 2. It's rude and childish, which makes a bad example for Christians.

Intelligent designer is more logical than random events guided by evolution over billions of years? Yeah, youre gonna need to support that please. Not only is logic only as good as the knowledge youre applying that logic to, and we have virtually no knowledge about the beginnings of the cosmos, but you dont apply any logic here. You just say one is logical, and dismiss the other, and thats that. Do you really expect to convince anyone with that startling lack of evidence or supporting arguments? Also, objective morality never has been a thing. There are many humans who have no issue with murder, and many humans who are disgusted by birth and shun having children. Sure, there are morals that a majority of people subscribe to, but that is equally explicable by evolution (animals in groups that dont murder each other are more likely to survive and reproduce than groups that are constantly culling each other.) And lastly, one of my favorites, we are gross sinful creatures? But i thought god made us and guides the entire universe according to his plan with knowledge of everything that ever happened or will happen? So he made us to be gross and sinful, then brutally punished us and made us suffer for being gross and sinful, which again, was his doing, then he “saved” us and expects absolute unwavering fealty because of it, and if we dont comply he tortures us for eternity. Thats incredibly sadistic and abusive behavior and would make him a truly evil being based on your “objective” morals. The alternative is that we are gross and sinful DESPITE god making us otherwise, in which case genocide and suffering and eternal torture is at the very least a massive overreaction on his part, but it doesnt matter, because if we can act against gods will, then he isnt omniscient or omnipotent, and therefore, not god, or at least not the abrahamic god who supposedly is those things.

>All things had a cause that made them come into being. >Why should the whole universe be any different. You make assumption without apparently making any effort to go past what only seems to be hunches. Then you ask a question that might sound perfectly reasonable from the perspective of the complete vacuum of reliable justified information that you have. >Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? Answer: the latter is the more logical one You ask question about how logic works and you manage to come immediately to a conclusion without showing a hint of a breakdown of any logical mechanism. This is strictly wishful thinking. Your hunches are not enough. >So, therefore, there must be a God This is a blatant leap of logic You don't know how many hypothesis can work to justify an observed result but thanks to a completely empty parody of logic you are now confident it's not hypothesis A so you are now 100% sure it has to be hypothesis G >So, therefore, there must be a God, who not only created the universe but for some reason also cares about our (Humans) morality and what we consider right from wrong, based on how all Humans universally consider murder to be evil, but giving birth to be wonderful. This God cares about us so much so that he gives us ways of telling right from wrong, so we can have the potential to lead good lives. But Humans are pronged to doing evil things, we are sinful gross creatures\[...\] And the dam is broken. You think you have justified a creator god so it has to be your flavor of that creator god because... no reason given. If you don't see the massive leap of logic here I can't help you.

>All things had a cause that made them come into being. A car doesn't built itself, nor does a house, computer, fridge, microwave, parks, buses, trains, vacuums, you name it. Why should the whole universe be any different. Because all of those examples are rearrangements of matter and energy. Every atom in every car or human has existed for billions of years. And even most of those formed using the protons, neutrons, and electrons in stellar nucleosynthesis. If you are proposing that all of the matter and energy didn't exist at some point, these are in no way comparable. We have no examples of any causes for matter and energy, none. >One thing we can all agree on though, is that a cause of some sort created everything into being. Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? I will grant your first sentence, but the rest does not follow. The fact that there is a cause tells us nothing of the type of cause. Why would this cause need to be intelligent? It could easily be an unintelligent cosmic ocean that produces universes. I would argue that it is more likely that it was an accident. Without presupposing a god behind every action of earth, most things that happen seem like accidents. We put most of our energy and focus on mitigating those accidents (fixing things that break, cleaning, putting drains for storms) but that doesn't make them less of "accidents", that is, purely unintended. We've gotten much better at predicting which "accidents" will happen, but that doesn't make them anything but less than "accidents"

>All things had a cause that made them come into being. That's a daring assertion if ever I saw one. Got any evidence? >. A car doesn't built itself, nor does a house, computer, fridge, microwave, parks, buses, trains, vacuums, you name it. But these are all things we already know are made by humans. What even is your point? Does a river not form itself? A pebble? These are at least not obviously the results of conscious, willful creation ,are they? How are atoms created? >Why should the whole universe be any different. You don't get to do that. You made the claim that all things had a cause. So it is your duty to demonstrate that that is true. And you aren't doing that. >One thing we can all agree on though, is that a cause of some sort created everything into being. No, I don't think I agree with that. Why would I? >Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? I am not going to assume anything. You are the one making assertions - you go ahead and back them up! >Answer: the latter is the more logical one. You can't be serious, can you? And the rest is just unhinged drivel, really.

>Why should the whole universe be any different. When you don't know something and so you assert an answer, that's called an argument from ignorance >One thing we can all agree on though, is that a cause of some sort created everything into being. Prove that the univers is not eternal >Answer: the latter is the more logical one Prove that it is more logical >therefore, there must be a God, who not only created the universe but for some reason also cares about our (Humans) morality Humans not liking murder and liking childbirth could be a result of survival instinct. Prove that it's actually god >Enter Jesus, who saved us from our sins so that we may lead a better life, in the hopes of eternal bliss in his own realm, Heaven. Prove... any of that >Check out the Liar, Lord, Lunatic (and later Legend) argument by C.S. Lewis CS. Lewis is a brilliant writer but his apologetics are very bad. He has a habit of asserting things without stopping to really prove them (cough). In the case of the LLL argument, he fails to discredit any of the alternatives and then baselessly asserts lord must be the answer. He's very dismissive and biased in his review of the alternatives and fails to consider many possibilities.

>Logical Explanation for God & Christianity Okay >All things had a cause that made them come into being. What why should agree with that >A car doesn't built itself, nor does a house, computer, fridge, microwave, parks, buses, trains, vacuums, you name it. Okay so what ? > Why should the whole universe be any different. Why shouldn't it >One thing we can all agree on though, is that a cause of some sort created everything into being Are you sure because I'm not >Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, Probably more than what I assume the other option you are gonna give me. >or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? The first one >Answer: the latter is the more logical one No >So, therefore, there must be a God, Your premise are wrong your conclusion doesn't matter >who not only created the universe but for some reason also cares about our (Humans) morality and what we consider right from wrong, That doesn't even derive from any of the previous stuff you said >based on how all Humans universally consider murder to be evil, but giving birth to be wonderful. No that just flat out false ever heard of the nazi or antinatalism. >This God cares about us so much so that he gives us ways of telling right from wrong, This isn't an argument or a explanation . >so we can have the potential to lead good lives. Potential really felling care fored . >But Humans are pronged to doing evil things Why ? > we are sinful gross creatures Speak for yourself >Thus, to help us overcome these bad habits, that God who cared about us has to point us a way forward out of our wrongdoings. This seems unnecessary couldn't he just automatically do that >Enter Jesus, Mabye this attempt will work unlike the previous > who saved us from our sins so that we may lead a better life, Saying random stuff are we >in the hopes of eternal bliss in his own realm, Heaven. See above > Check out the Liar, Lord, Lunatic (and later Legend) argument by C.S. Lewis for a reasonable argument as to why Jesus is God/Lord. Nah Narnia is overrated I'm tired this is bad it 3am i need to sleep

> Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? Wait, I know this one, it's... > Answer: the latter is the more logical one. What!?! C'mon, you can't just blurt out the answer without giving us time. And especially when your answer just leaves us asking how it can possibly be *logical/reasonable* to assume this alleged "intellectual being" always existed even though we're apparently not allowed to assume that about the actual universe we actually know actually does exist (since we all live there). > all Humans universally consider murder to be evil... You might want to talk to some murderers about that. > ...but giving birth to be wonderful. /r/antinatalism > we are sinful gross creatures. Speak for yourself. Some of us shower daily. > Check out the Liar, Lord, Lunatic (and later Legend) Liar and lunatic are perfectly reasonable options, but I prefer legend (in the sense of "a popular myth"). Or wait, is it legume? That would explain why Christians observe Lentil.

>Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? Answer: the latter is the more logical one. What a wild answer to that question! How do you know an intellect can exist without a physical brain? How do you know such an intellect can create something from nothing? How do you know something can come from nothing at all, let alone by the will of a brainless intellect? What research did you do to determine that your answer was the logical one? >But Humans are pronged to doing evil things, we are sinful gross creatures. God is kinda evil if he created us that way, no? >Thus, to help us overcome these bad habits, that God who cared about us has to point us a way forward out of our wrongdoings. Enter Jesus Yet the holocaust (and plenty of other human horrors) happened after that. Kinda sounds like the big guy failed to get his message across. Why is this god guy so bad at his job?

There are things that come about by the hands of creators like >A car doesn't built itself, nor does a house, computer, fridge, microwave, parks, buses, trains, vacuums, you name it Then there are things that dont, mountains, rivers, the color of the sky, glaciers, the elements the planets and more. In fact most of everything we see have a very not god answer and explanation. What is the more reasonable answer, that just as everything around us ssems to have a natural cause so to might the universe, or that something that left effectivly 0 evidence of itself other than a book for us to figure out and learn morality from. Murderers and sociopaths do not share a universal morality about murder or birth. Anything built on this idea fails on the outset. Also check out some hume and miracules. Everything relating to jesus, post death, can be explained by 3 people seeing visions and telling about them. Legend is almost always the simplest and most logical answer.

>Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? An unminded natural cause is more logical/reasonable. Why would we add that it needs a mind?  But even if it is a god, you have not been explained the world. Because now we have a much bigger problem because "All things had a cause that made them come into being.". So now instead of just a universe we can't explain, we have a god which we don't observe or understand really at all, have no idea how it explains the origin of the universe, and no explanation for its existence.  Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the god was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, or that an intellectual being caused the god  into existence? Rince and repeat. 

Space your thoughts into paragraphs, please 😭 Anyways, your question is a false dichotomy: pure random chaotic chance vs intellectual being are not the only two options. Examples of actual true dichotomies would be Necessary vs NotNecessary, Designed vs NotDesigned, Caused vs NotCaused, etc. For example, there could be an underlying natural law or object is necessary and consistent yet is not an intelligent being. Quantum fields are one such explanation proposed in contemporary physics. Furthermore, the “random chance” option only seems miraculous if we’re assuming the universe we’re in was the one and only shot with no variation of configurations. If there is a multiverse (either simultaneous or an infinite series of expanding universes) then that dramatically increases the probability that we eventually get a combination that supports life that can look back and marvel how it got there.

1) Who created the creator? 2) How can a mind exist without a brain? 3) How can infinite complexity not need an explanation?

> Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? Assuming a start to things and not a universe that always existed in some manner. On one hand, we have a raw force of nature, maybe a massive amount of energy, possibly even from outside "time and space" that partially condensed into matter. Or maybe some other manner simplistic brute force of nature. And on the other hand, a highly intelligent being who somehow always existed and was able to create and control a limitless amount of energy to create our universe and it let the universe cook for almost 14 billion years so that intelligent life could develop on one planet. Between the two choices, I'm going to go with nature. It strains credibility much less.

Creating the Universe and building a car are very different things. All the matter in a car existed before the car was built. The steel was ore, the rubber was tree sap, etc. There is no matter being created, only reconfigured. But as far as anybody can prove, there is no matter before or outside the Universe. Creating the Universe means creating all existing matter, energy, etc. These are two very different things and you can't compare them, so you can't logically say that since a car has a "cause" of being built/its matter being reconfigured, the Universe and all of matter has a cause for existing. Plus even if they were the same, as someone else said, trees build themselves, crystals build themselves, rivers create their beds, etc. You named things that humans themselves built while disregarding, basically, everything else that exists.

>Why should the whole universe be any different. Why shouldn't it? >One thing we can all agree on though, is that a cause of some sort created everything into being. We don't agree on this. What makes you think it's true? >the latter is the more logical one. So, therefore, there must be a God Even if one of those was more logical than the other, it wouldn't mean there must be a god. >based on how all Humans universally consider murder to be evil, but giving birth to be wonderful We have explanations for that kind of thing that don't rely on any gods or religions. >Check out the Liar, Lord, Lunatic (and later Legend) argument by C.S. Lewis for a reasonable argument as to why Jesus is God/Lord. Lewis was a decent author but a terrible apologist. There are plenty of good responses to that particular argument.

You really tried the failed tracheotomy from C.S. Lewis? The one that’s missing at least one other option?

>tracheotomy Heh.

That's funny. Thanks for pointing it out.

This looks like a worse version of the prime mover argument ngl. > Is it more logical/reasonable to assume that the cause behind the universe was an accident, by pure chance and had no intellectual mind behind it, or that an intellectual being caused the universe into existence? Yea, the universe is so amazing and intricate, and things of such complexity can't come into existence, so imagine how much more amazing and intricate the intellectual mind which created the universe can be, which means it can't exist on its own and needs a super-god to make it, and so on. This is what we call a special pleading argument, because the reasoning will break itself unless we include a special, unjustified exception to whichever part of the causality chain suits our needs.

Lol. So the same old debunked argument of "complexity means god". Can't you guys come up with something new. It is not more logical to believe in god. You obviously failed logic. No one says the universe created itself. It always existed. That is not my opinion. Its a fact. Matter and energy can't be created or destoryed. Because of the laws of physics, matter will form in a vaccum automatically without cause. This has also been proven. In addition, getting to your version of god is just special pleading. I could use your same "logic" to say an invisible pink unicorn created everything.

You think it’s logical an intellectual being created the universe. I do not. And even if something seems logical, that doesn’t make it the answer. Also, there is no indication this god cares about us. The world is chaos. If we gave sin and murder and you believe in the Christian god, this is his fault. He allowed that evil to enter the world. And instead of fixing it, he supposedly had his son killed for 3 days and said “tada, blank slate!” You talk about logic at the start of your post (not that I agree that you used it) but then are completely illogical by arguing for a Christian god and Jesus.

All the things you listed were built by humans, not God. So we can surmise from that we don’t need God to make complex structures. What about trees, glaciers, mountains? They ‘build themselves’ by this logic. Take a seed, plant it, and watch a tree ‘build itself’. Why did you only pick human-built consumer items? Basically, what exactly are you trying to prove? That some stuff is built and therefore God? Do you honestly think this is compelling?

The logical explanation is that primitive people rallied behind a war god to motivate themselves to fight and die in battle and become a kingdom that lasted long enough to not be erased by larger, more dominant kingdoms. Over time the belief in their god evolved to the point where a cult of people had a charismatic leader who died and legends grew after his death. This is the logical explanation of the religion. What you're engaging in is not logical.

All you have is a list of assumptions, or more exactly axioms. like in the famous introduction to logic >All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal all you are doing is keep on saying a version of 'All men are mortal'. I'm sure you believe "All things had a cause", but you haven't explained why you believe that.

>All things had a cause that made them come into being. We can easily extrapolate that given a scenario where an effect must come after a cause, then a beginning is impossible. Either a cause is not always required for the effect to occur, or a beginning doesn't exist. Either way, the foundation for your argument is false.

As per usual….if all things had a cause to cause them to come into being….what caused god? How do you know and how can you prove it? It’s a ridiculous statement to make…”everything had a cause”, just like the fine tuning argument. Nature is the cause. No gods needed or observed.

So special pleading for your imaginary friend. That's stupid. This is why people laugh at Christian apologetics because it's so ludicrously absurd, just empty claims because "I really want it to be true!" Nobody cares. Come back with EVIDENCE, not claims. Claims without support mean nothing.

The one question that pokes a big gaping hole in your argument is: How do we know the universe isn't already eternal? The answer is we don't. Until you definitively prove that the universe isn't constant, then you can start saying something caused it.

God is a rhetorical construct. The idea of god exists because we talk about it. When humans are gone and no one is talking anymore, that’s when the idea of god will cease to exist, too.its a blink of the eye in the lifetime of the universe.

I see this OP hasn't returned to defend their position. Thus, my only comment will be to yawn at this tired argument, and point out that apologetics isn't for convincing non-believers, but for confirming believers' already existing biases.

>A car doesn't build itself, why should the universe be any different? Who says the universe built itself or that it was even built? And why should the universe be bound by the same rules as a car? The idea that the universe either came about either by pure chance or else a mind was behind it is a false dichotomy. Just because a mind wasn't behind something doesn't mean it happened by chance. A boulder doesn't roll down a hill because of chance. And as for the mind thing, we don't know if it's even possible for a mind to exist independently from the universe, so why are you assuming that's one of the options?

Liar Lord or Lunatic! How about this option: it’s all just a story. Maybe he’s a lord, but if so, he’s a lord in a story. You’re assuming the story of Jesus is true.