And we know that the simple hole in the ground was created by water erosion because we see it. It really isn't that complex.

@Cheeki Breeki I think a prime mover can be rationalized through causality, but that prime mover doesn’t have to be an intelligent creator

All that can be rationed out with this line of reasoning is that something is responsible for the first action, and that thing may be acausal, it doesn’t however provide proof that this thing is God as you understand it

Yo

Like that’s how I understand God, but I understand an amoral acausal force as God, as opposed to a moral, intelligent creator concerned with our well-being

Or with much of anything because like I said I can’t even confirm if it’s intelligent

I think there's possibly some sort of powers beyond our universe and I have no evidence to back this up

@Cobra Commander same

GG @⭐ trunks ⭐, you just advanced to level 7!

oh cool

@Cheeki Breeki

> Everything had to have been created by supernatural means

Propose something that is.

> Becaude 2 particles slamming together isn't going to create an explosion that creates everything as is

This is not what the big bang is, it is simply an expansion.

> You need 3 things in order to have a universe: time, space and matter.

No you don't, your friend is wrong and is not a physicist. We cannot conclude that these three things are needed for a universe, hence multiverse theory.

> If you gave time and matter, but no space, where are you going to put it?

Things like this already exist, they're called abstract properties, mathematics is an example of this.

> Saying the Earth is millions of years old makes no sense.

Why doesn't it make any sense? You didn't have the debate with me, nor can you propose your statement is correct.

Um

you just repeated what he siad bro

As for the builder analogy.

>:v

@⭐ trunks ⭐ No I picked out statements and criticised them

@Deleted User no you didnt

lol

what are you talkinng about

Yes I did.

no you didnt.

you just repeated what he. Said

gtg

<:peepoDetective:583235938621194241>

No he responded to them <:waitwhat:583236680903950355>

This argument from analogy fails to explains the universe. We have seen a material object such as a building being built, hence we know it has a builder, this does not extend to the universe. Nor do I think the universe popped into existence unless I take Krauss' position with Quantum Fluctuations. Another criticism raised comes from David Hume, who Louis Loeb writes that Hume, in his Enquiry, “insists that inductive inference cannot justify belief in extended objects.” 

We observe neither God nor other universes, and hence no conjunction involving them. There is no observed conjunction to ground an inference either to extended objects or to God, as unobserved causes, this is the problem with the telelogical argument.

Furthermore, Salmon actually used Bayes Theorem to conclude that it is very improbable that the universe was created by the type of intelligent being theists argue for.

It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god we can only follow the arguments of those who have their own predictions about the beginning of the universe.

Throttles has a smooth brain and refuses to stare into the infinite fractal expanse

For to stare into the expanse is to witness something greater than god

@Deleted User not according to deductive arguments in philosophy

@Pelth You don't know what you're talking about.

Fractal expanse?

He doesn’t even know fractal geometry

<:yikes:455253397755527170>

I know what it is.

But it has no relevance to this.

@Deleted User these deductive arguments have led to nothing proven, no accurate widely agreed upon beginning. Therefor it is safe to assume that we will not fully understand the beginning for a long time

GG @Deleted User, you just advanced to level 2!

It's mostly guesswork

@Deleted User Wdym deductive arguments always have true conclusions

because we can't fully comprehend something so massive