Message from @⭐ trunks ⭐
Discord ID: 631136303450161152
@Cheeki Breeki That’s such a meme argument. The fact that existence is there doesn’t necessarily logically imply intelligent design
Lots of things have causes which don’t resemble an intelligent creator. You can explain how a ravine comes into being as the result of a river eroding earth over centuries, and there’s nothing intelligent or intentional about its creation, however complex the result might be
Also that’s another meme opinion and a misunderstanding of how physical force functions. Unless you’re an idealist and epistemic anti-realist, truth cannot be determined simply through superior physical force. @Pelth
It is actual smooth brain thinking.
Why are you saying that it is easily refutable without actually giving evidence against it. A hole in the ground isn't as complicated as a universe
GG @Cheeki Breeki, you just advanced to level 5!
How
Was
The
Universe
Created?
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!
@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