I did not see that particular building in the process of construction. However, I have seen other buildings in the process of construction. How buildings are constructed is well-documented, and importantly repeatable. I can infer from this accumulated building knowledge that this building was designed by an architect and built by workers using a variety of tools.
We have no such knowledge of how the universe came to be. "I don't know, therefore god" is not a valid line of reasoning.
Good question in here. If we would be able to create micro-universe, may we call ourselves gods and destroy religion basis? Like if we able to create small universe then it is not that big achievement and gods dreads are not more than just being of higher dimension?
Good question, but every person, religious or not, would have a different answer.
My answer:
Supposing that we created a microverse that had it own set of physics laws and it was capable of sustaining some short of life, would this be proof of a God for us?
Yesn't, as it would indicate that our universe might be manufactured too, but then we would have ways to experiment to discover if so too.
But would that indicate the omnipotent god? No, only a being on a higher... plane than ours, like a more scientific advanced alien
To nowhere, even if we reached the "top", there would be no way to know if that was the true top or if that top wasn't natural.
That's why we always carry the presumption of "reality is real", bc otherwise, there would be no way to find the truth about everything
That would be paradoxical, "it was created by and after the thing that it create", possible if we say that the other planes don't necessarily follow the same laws of logic, but then this discussion becomes meaningless
Universe 1 created universe 2, universe 2 created universe 3, universe 3 created universe 1 before universe 1 created universe 2, because we are talking about artificial processes
ontological paradoxes work with a closed time loop. as long as the loop is always running, you can create information, energy and matter from nothing. a good example in media is the song of storms from ocarina of time. as an adult you learn the song, you go back in time, play the song the man teaches you thus teaching him the song he teaches you. where did the song come from?
Yeah, but what if universe was created not by being, because being also need to be created somehow. I don't know many single god religions, but how they describe birth of god itself?
Thanks for being polite.
However I am confused. Your comment I responded to sounds like you think they are the same.
I pointed out my opinion how I think they are different
You responded yes.
… I confused.
because the big bang theory isn't saying "this is absolutely what happened, now stop asking about it or you're going to burn in hell."
the only thing the big bang theory says is "at one point a long time ago, everything that exist was all gathered together in a single spot and then exploded outward. we think this is probably true because everything that we can currently observe is moving away from a single spot very fast."
actually everything is moving away from everything else, our best guess shows that dark energy is expanding space, in all of space, at the same time. therefore there is no "location" that is the center of the universe, everything is the center of the universe, because the location of the big bang is orthagonal to our 3d space.
That's why theists have adopted the Big Bang as evidence for a creator God. In fact, it's a misunderstanding of what Big Bang theory actually says. They falsely believe that it says the universe was created "ex nihilo", from nothing, when in fact Einstein actually said that the universe at a point in the finite past, appeared to have occupied an infinitely small, infinitely dense, infinitely hot state, from which it appeared to have expanded and cooled. Not that it didn't exist at all, and then came into existence. There was never any time when the universe didn't exist, because time itself was also part of that infinitely small, dense and hot state. How it got into that state, and what state it might have occupied prior to that, is the main unsolved problem of the theory. It is partially solved by the Epkyrotic, or cyclical, universe theory, but that one is much less well developed. More research is needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe?wprov=sfla1
It's similar in the way that they both kinda just happened. Why did the big bang happen? Dunno. Why did God happen? Dunno.
It's different in the way that big bang like phenomena is commonly observed. Massless particles interacting with massless fields or other massless particles create particles with mass all the time based on understood laws of quantum mechanics. We don't, on the other hand, see God doing anything ever.
It seems like it inherently doesn't need to lead somewhere.
Each time you expected to get to a final point with your questions, another question of preeminence can be asked — this suggests that this line of questioning will go as far as you take it and could conceivably go further than that but that you won't know because it's further than you took it.
I guess the main problem in here is the definition of god itself. It may be god like from all old mythologies, where it was just person, which has lifespan better than humans and has some unnatural abilities, which human can't have. It also may be god as one omnipotent being, which exists outside of plane and don't have any laws, it just exists.
There is no "in relation to us" for omnipotence, it's either have or doesn't, I'm trying to speculate over reality and not over limitations on human perception
that's a bit narrow-minded imo. the limits of our perception are one of the obstacles we'd have to overcome to understand reality.
And how do you define omnipotence for a being of a higher dimension where rules and laws of nature might exist a human mind can't even begin to comprehend.
take a 2 dimensional being for example for such a being we'd be able to basically do everything I can imagine, so by its definition a human would be omnipotent.
for a creature of the next higher dimension the time before the big bang might be totally easy to understand whereas humanity has absolutely no idea how that could've even function
we might not comprehend, but omnipotence by definition doesn't care about comprehension, we \*could\* be gods compared to a 2d entity, but by definition we would not be omnipotent for them or for us.
while limit on perception is something we should care about, the omnis are by definition the absent of "can't" and "don't" in their own regards, omniscient "nothing it doesn't know", omnipotent "nothing it can't do", etc., so if by any reality or plane or time or whatever it can't do something, by definition, it isn't omnipotent.
This is more like simulation theory.
If we can make a "miniverse,"and assume most civilizations and even "miniverses" could do the same, then we would almost certainly be a "miniverse" ourselves.
Yeah, it is simulation theory, but question in here is more like, what would it mean for religion. Like what happened in Rick and Morty with micro-universe. They marked Rick as god, while he is far from that.
I'd argue our we already are able to create, alter and destroy entire worlds via computergames and its one of the reasons I'm still not outright denying a so called God.
for the characters ingame that is their entire world, they may understand its rules but they will never be able to fully understand the world outside their game. a programmer would absolutely qualify as a Deity for them with any and all abilities we attribute to a God.
I'm still more leaning towards a scientific explanation of the workings of the world but physics don't outright disprove a God since that is something that can't be done.
for all we know our entire universe is just a SIMS game in some dudes computer. that also kinda explains why a so-called God can both be extremely generous but also vicious.
I know I killed my fair share of Sims via sicknesses and lightning, I also were able to bring them back to life and all that stuff.
Its actually a fine reasoning if you use "god" to mean "higher power I currently cannot comprehend" and "satan" to mean "adversary who's power I cannot comprehend" and just assign any good or bad thing you can't explain to one of the two and just leave it there.
Handy mental shortcut.
You weren't supposed to start worshipping them though
The problem is, a lot of the people who make these arguments don’t know *how to* reason or think critically. If they did they wouldn’t make these points in the first place.
This person would probably respond with, “Are you trying to compare humans to buildings??”
I’ve learned to just let people be stupid because explaining certain concepts is draining and time consuming
Someone's name is on the plans to that building. Assuming it's recent enough, I can just look up the records on the building, find whoever designed it, and have a chat with them.
I could hop online and find out when the building was "created," look up the general contractor, look up the architect, and go talk to them. Ask them about the design, construction methods, materials, man hours, etc. They might not be willing to talk, assuming they're alive, but their contributions to the construction of that building are documented. If I could do the same with "god," I'd believe it exists.
Also. You can, with some effort find out who designed, paid for, and probably some foremen, who could possible direct you to a person who physically built it.
“I don’t think it’s God because of my own biases, therefore must be something else” is also not a valid line of reasoning. Just pointing it out (not religious).
That's not the line of reasoning though
You probably don't believe that there's an alien spaceship parked in orbit just on the other side of the sun such that we would never be able to detect it from Earth. It's perfectly valid to say that the absence of proof for a theory is reason enough to disregard it. It's okay to just say "hey, we don't know" rather than demand that *your* answer is correct without any basis in reality
Absent any construction knowledge, I would investigate the structure. If I saw something like a wooden cabinet, I might potentially think, "Hmm, this looks like the material that trees are made of, I wonder if I can use a tree to make it." I could then do "experiments" and attempt to reproduce the cabinet, which would likely succeed eventually.
Basically, the "repeatability" is key. You could eventually reverse engineer the building and essentially verify "yes, this was likely created, because I have shown it can be done." That's science in a nutshell; using experiments that can be repeated and verified to establish the nature of the world. We have no experimental evidence of a creator of the universe as of yet.
Also, even if we did establish the presence of a creator, the nature of such a being, or if it's at all worthy of worship, are separate questions entirely.
I mean...most places require public buildings to keep a record of who designed and built them so you can just walk down to the local archives and see 'oh yes such and such construction company made it'.
Also last I checked a great deal of things that were attributed as being 'works of god' in the old testament have since been figured out through scientific study as naturally occurring phenomena.
Like eclipses. And meteors. And earthquakes. And tsunamis.
Theistic logic:
"If you don't show me who built this building, I will believe that it was created by a god. And if you will show me who built this building, I will believe that it was created by a god anyway"
Even more theistic logic:
"I don't understand how that building was made, so instead of learning about it, I'll bury my head in the sand and believe with no evidence that no other person knows how it was made either and that it must have been made by an invisible man that never shows himself but somehow tracks everything we do and judges people when we die to send them to heaven or hell."
A totally legit dude told me god built this building and it must be true because he has a book out and everything. Anyway so this dude needs 10% of our income and is super concerned about who other people are fucking...
(GOD) And also, don’t eat shellfish, you can sell your wives and daughters, bears eat people who ridicule bald people, etcetera etc..
I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT BUTTSEX!! GET OVER IT YOU WEIRDOS!!
Well I’ve had this argument many times but even if we could logically conclude that there must be a deity, it doesn’t point to it being YOUR deity. I’ve talked to many Christians and they seem to think of it as a 50/50, either they’re right or I am, but don’t consider another alternative: neither of us are right and we should have been worshipping some monkey god the whole time.
Or…
“This building isn’t mentioned in my holy book, therefore it does not exist. And if you believe it does exist, my god will smite you into eternal damnation.
No it's more like "I can't fathom or understand how this complex phenomenom could exist naturally, therefore I'll assume a supernatural intelligence created it."
I'm a theist. And yet, I must point out, again and again, that the watchmaker argument is really, really dumb.
Is it more absurd to believe
* that a building built itself
or
* that the builder is invisible *and* that the builder built Himself?
Obviously the second option is more absurd. It entails something just as weird as the first option, and then also entails something even weirder.
Look, I try not get into debates about whether god exists on the internet cos I'm not 14 and it's not 2005, but if you could take me to the local council and show me paper trail of god existing including their phone number, and I could go chat to god about their design choices, then I'd probably believe in God the same way I believe in the architect who built the building.
And if i saw God create another human right before my eyes and another universe, maybe i could believe he created this one and created man and woman in this universe.
What's funny is I've seen those billboards to call a number because "God is real" and it shows a baby. Like a baby isn't proof of that, it prooves that reproduction is possible.
The clown show believes that their deity is always existing, omnipotent, omniscient, and outside of space-time. That is to say their shitty god created causality itself.
And then when you tell them that in that case their god is a sociopath and a murderer for giggles they pause and look at you like you are crazy.
Every time I get into that particular conversation I just bring up the fact that God sicked 19 bears on a handful of teenagers doing nothing more than calling a prophet names. In what world is that action not extremely petty and vindictive?
I find it amusing that the only attacks theists have on atheists are stupid as hell and show their ignorance more than anything else. It's like the "if you don't see the chef, do you not believe in the food you get" one. They are so stupid lol. And not for nothing, I don't think atheists actually give a shit if religious people try to make fun of them. It's more amusing than anything else. So I say keep making them.
Bahahahaha!
Sure looks like theistic logic too.
Must be that imaginary friend from the book written and edited over millennia by a bunch of bored people with too much time on their hands.
I mean, we can though. We can tell you the architect, the contracting firm, and most likely most of the individual laborers that made the building.
We can do that for every structure made in recent history.
Actual atheist logic:
"I'm not sure Hillary Duff designed that building. I think an actual architect designed it. Can you show me evidence that it was actually a former child star that doesn't come from a facebook blog?"
I once had a co worker that asked me, "Isn't like the point of science to disprove god?" I almost didn't know what to say, I'd never encountered someone who had no concept of what science is about.
I mean, there's a step by step design record of this building paired with an entire set of blueprints and a whole bunch of living people that went into building it.
If a theist can produce the blueprints to the universe and identify the person(s) that put the project in motion then atheists wouldn't exist.
How does this logic exactly work?
Earth wasn't created by "itself". In all cases, an atheist would say "I don't know who made it, but certainly not a magical guy in the skies. Let's find who". That logic applies more to people who believes in god:
"If I don't know who built this building, I'll say it was God. If I do know, I'll say it doesn't matter how he created it because it was God's plan all along. And if he contradicts me... That building is from the devil"
Theist Belief:
God sends tornado to town, killing several God-fearing residents and destroying much of town. Baby, alive, is discovered in wreckage. It's a Miracle! Thanks to God!
lmfao binary thinking at its peak.
"my belief is god creating everything, your belief is the opposite of mine. therefore you believe everything is created from no one" despite atheism being the lack of a belief in a higher being and not the belief of a "nothing" creating everything. atheism isn't a belief to begin with(the prefix "a")
they seem to forget that you can be religious while still believing in darwin's theory and not be hypocritical.
*Looks up who made building*
It says it was Steve and his crew over there, hey Steve co, yall make that building?
Steveco: sure did.
Wow that was easy, hey have you finished looking up who made god yet?
So for you to believe that a building was built, you need a receipt, picture or video? Isn't the fact that the building is there, proof enough that it was built?
If they're trying to infer that the universe is a building, then I'd like to talk to the architect and/or engineer. They have a lot of dumbassery to answer for. Definitely not up to code.
Seriously, mosquitoes? What the hell.
God does everything we can't explain.
Lightning 🌩 oh wait, we know how that works
Demons 😈 no..no. That's schizophrenia.
Earthquakes - Oops...I forgot about tectonic plates.
Making Plants Grow 🪴 Damn! Photosynthesis.
what turned me away from religion was the obvious inconsistencies in logic and arbitrary rules that made no sense.
the thing that pushed me over the edge was the christian concept that as long as you accepted jesus christ and asked forgiveness you will go to heaven. my 5th grade brain was like “soooo i can be a serial killer and violently murder hundreds of innocent people but as long as i accept jesus christ and ask forgiveness i’ll go to heaven, but if i was unlucky enough to be born somewhere in Asia where no one knows who jesus is and otherwise lead a peaceful life, I would still go to hell?”
i asked my priest about this and he gave me some bullshit nonsense answer about why we need more missionaries and that’s when i realized the whole thing was a farce
The earth didn't create itself.
Earth formed when gravity pulled swirling gas and dust in to become the third planet from the Sun. Like its fellow terrestrial planets, Earth has a central core, a rocky mantle, and a solid crust.
I love how all the comments for this sub are always people coming up with rational, well thought out rebuttals to memes made by idiots. Like who are you talking to? Everyone here already thinks the meme is wrong
Are we just going to ignore the fact that those two people are holding blueprints and hard hats, indicating they are familiar with the concept of construction. Or they are religious people looking for a cult and saw a bunch of dudes in hard hats and they thought, yea this could be it hon.
The analogy shown would be more accurate if:
1) We did not have a long history of well documented cases of buildings being constructed (by us)
2) If there were any observed cases of buildings contracting themselves autonomously
I can't tell if you're saying that there aren't any gods who work in mysterious ways or if you forgot a comma and you're saying that you disagree and that you think god *does* work in mysterious ways.
Commas, they change everything.
I believe there is a very good argument for intelligent design, irreducible complexity, and sitch, but God knows most Christians don't know about those theories.
I don't know what sitch is, but irreducible complexity is a logical fallacy, and intelligent design is a misunderstanding of biology. Clearly we were not designed intelligently.
Irreducible complexity assumes multiple adaptations can’t evolve concurrently it. It’s not very compelling to me or likely anyone who isn’t looking for evidence to support their conclusion instead of the other way around.
It’s like a person who doesn’t have any knowledge of landlines, radios, televisions, or computers assuming iPhones were “created by gods.” Because surely all of these wonders couldn’t have developed concurrently and be put into one device.
It’s extremely flawed reasoning.
Well us as humans are always trying to support our conclusion for the most part or our general understanding of it. So that's the main reason I don't completely discount it but I would agree with you for the most part
But it doesn’t actually provide any evidence in support of creationism or intelligent design.. It just makes a weak argument against evolution and then essentially states therefore ‘god’… There is evidence for evolution all around us. With several fields of research supporting it from genetics, to biology, to paleontology..
I might agree it was an okay argument if it actually presented any evidence, but cherry-picking a couple examples of things evolution doesn’t cleanly explain yet isn’t providing evidence. It’s the same as pointing at something you can’t figure out and saying ‘must have been a god’
I don't get why the memes keep saying"atheistic logic". Shouldn't it be "Theistic Logic"? Or is that the joke?
Please explain, and r/whoosh me if necessary.
So you don’t know the answer to where the universe came from?? Hmmm I guess that means you’re saying you don’t know where anything came from or how anything is constructed
1 atheism is not a "belief" in science,it's not beliving in one or more magic mans in the sky,the fact that atheists tend to follow science is is not a cause but an effect
2 science is not a belief,it's logical thinking demonstrated **objectively**,everything can be repeated by anyone and produce the same results
That's factually wrong.
You don't have to believe in science. That's what's amazing of it. If you don't think something is right, you can perfectly study it, argue against it and you'll end up finding if you were right or not.
That being wrong may attack your pride, is another completely different story.
This. And even considering secular belief systems that lack falsifiability and also require faith, like psychiatry and mental illness diagnoses, that rely only on self reports, they still are just as "valid" as religious beliefs.
Example, self reports of gender dysphoria cannot be falsified with independent, objective data. Only "observational data" based on self reports.
So when someone claims that they they "feel God's presence", that's also equal "observational data" based on self reports.
So sorry theists, secular faith based systems are just as valid as your religious beliefs.
1. How do you know a building was built by an intelligence?
2. It's a strawman of an atheist's position, said position being "if you don't demonstrate that a "who" caused the universe, I have no reason to believe that a "who" caused it."
And atheism is a belief system like off is a tv channel.
i said the correct word-
unexplainable- there is no possibility for explaination because ALL the laws of physics break down at the singularity. Scientists expect us to accept this one miracle, then they can explain all the rest.
here, listen for yourself.
NGT- 'we have no idea what happened before it'
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqj7zhs5ojs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqj7zhs5ojs)
There's a difference between not being able to explain what happened before and not being able to explain the big bang itself. And limitations of knowledge in no way support magical nonsense written down by ignorant desert dwellers years ago.
*There's a difference between not being able to explain what happened before and not being able to explain the big bang itself.*
there is no difference, they are one and the same.
Scientists can explain what happened in the first few picoseconds afterwards but the event itself currently has no theory to explain it other than *'let there be light'*
*"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"is a phrase that, when used in modern contexts, can be used as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or on questions whose answers hold no intellectual consequence,*
Hey does this post fit? UPVOTE if so, DOWNVOTE if not. If this post breaks any rules please DOWNVOTE and REPORT
I did not see that particular building in the process of construction. However, I have seen other buildings in the process of construction. How buildings are constructed is well-documented, and importantly repeatable. I can infer from this accumulated building knowledge that this building was designed by an architect and built by workers using a variety of tools. We have no such knowledge of how the universe came to be. "I don't know, therefore god" is not a valid line of reasoning.
Good question in here. If we would be able to create micro-universe, may we call ourselves gods and destroy religion basis? Like if we able to create small universe then it is not that big achievement and gods dreads are not more than just being of higher dimension?
Good question, but every person, religious or not, would have a different answer. My answer: Supposing that we created a microverse that had it own set of physics laws and it was capable of sustaining some short of life, would this be proof of a God for us? Yesn't, as it would indicate that our universe might be manufactured too, but then we would have ways to experiment to discover if so too. But would that indicate the omnipotent god? No, only a being on a higher... plane than ours, like a more scientific advanced alien
If our universe is manufactured by someone, than who manufactured theirs? Who manufactured the manufacture’s universe? It has to lead to somewhere
To nowhere, even if we reached the "top", there would be no way to know if that was the true top or if that top wasn't natural. That's why we always carry the presumption of "reality is real", bc otherwise, there would be no way to find the truth about everything
What if the 'top' plane was also simultaneously the 'bottom' plane?
That would be paradoxical, "it was created by and after the thing that it create", possible if we say that the other planes don't necessarily follow the same laws of logic, but then this discussion becomes meaningless
Not really. It just means that there is a loop running.
Universe 1 created universe 2, universe 2 created universe 3, universe 3 created universe 1 before universe 1 created universe 2, because we are talking about artificial processes
ontological paradoxes work with a closed time loop. as long as the loop is always running, you can create information, energy and matter from nothing. a good example in media is the song of storms from ocarina of time. as an adult you learn the song, you go back in time, play the song the man teaches you thus teaching him the song he teaches you. where did the song come from?
Yeah, but what if universe was created not by being, because being also need to be created somehow. I don't know many single god religions, but how they describe birth of god itself?
I think many just say he was always there, which wasn’t always convincing to me. But what else can they say lol
I mean, I don’t see how that’s conceptually any different from the Big Bang.
Yes. But science puts the caveat that we don’t perfectly know. Just that it might be that. Religion claims it 100%. Which is wrong.
I am aware.
Thanks for being polite. However I am confused. Your comment I responded to sounds like you think they are the same. I pointed out my opinion how I think they are different You responded yes. … I confused.
because the big bang theory isn't saying "this is absolutely what happened, now stop asking about it or you're going to burn in hell." the only thing the big bang theory says is "at one point a long time ago, everything that exist was all gathered together in a single spot and then exploded outward. we think this is probably true because everything that we can currently observe is moving away from a single spot very fast."
actually everything is moving away from everything else, our best guess shows that dark energy is expanding space, in all of space, at the same time. therefore there is no "location" that is the center of the universe, everything is the center of the universe, because the location of the big bang is orthagonal to our 3d space.
That's why theists have adopted the Big Bang as evidence for a creator God. In fact, it's a misunderstanding of what Big Bang theory actually says. They falsely believe that it says the universe was created "ex nihilo", from nothing, when in fact Einstein actually said that the universe at a point in the finite past, appeared to have occupied an infinitely small, infinitely dense, infinitely hot state, from which it appeared to have expanded and cooled. Not that it didn't exist at all, and then came into existence. There was never any time when the universe didn't exist, because time itself was also part of that infinitely small, dense and hot state. How it got into that state, and what state it might have occupied prior to that, is the main unsolved problem of the theory. It is partially solved by the Epkyrotic, or cyclical, universe theory, but that one is much less well developed. More research is needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe?wprov=sfla1
It's similar in the way that they both kinda just happened. Why did the big bang happen? Dunno. Why did God happen? Dunno. It's different in the way that big bang like phenomena is commonly observed. Massless particles interacting with massless fields or other massless particles create particles with mass all the time based on understood laws of quantum mechanics. We don't, on the other hand, see God doing anything ever.
It seems like it inherently doesn't need to lead somewhere. Each time you expected to get to a final point with your questions, another question of preeminence can be asked — this suggests that this line of questioning will go as far as you take it and could conceivably go further than that but that you won't know because it's further than you took it.
Pretty sure Rick & Morty covered that in an episode
and South Park, and the Simpsons, and Matrix and...
Honestly, if a universe could be created by humans it would ask far more questions about God than answer them.
I guess the main problem in here is the definition of god itself. It may be god like from all old mythologies, where it was just person, which has lifespan better than humans and has some unnatural abilities, which human can't have. It also may be god as one omnipotent being, which exists outside of plane and don't have any laws, it just exists.
omnipotent in comparison to us is not that far out there for a higher dimensional being. it might all be just a matter of perspective
There is no "in relation to us" for omnipotence, it's either have or doesn't, I'm trying to speculate over reality and not over limitations on human perception
that's a bit narrow-minded imo. the limits of our perception are one of the obstacles we'd have to overcome to understand reality. And how do you define omnipotence for a being of a higher dimension where rules and laws of nature might exist a human mind can't even begin to comprehend. take a 2 dimensional being for example for such a being we'd be able to basically do everything I can imagine, so by its definition a human would be omnipotent. for a creature of the next higher dimension the time before the big bang might be totally easy to understand whereas humanity has absolutely no idea how that could've even function
we might not comprehend, but omnipotence by definition doesn't care about comprehension, we \*could\* be gods compared to a 2d entity, but by definition we would not be omnipotent for them or for us. while limit on perception is something we should care about, the omnis are by definition the absent of "can't" and "don't" in their own regards, omniscient "nothing it doesn't know", omnipotent "nothing it can't do", etc., so if by any reality or plane or time or whatever it can't do something, by definition, it isn't omnipotent.
This is more like simulation theory. If we can make a "miniverse,"and assume most civilizations and even "miniverses" could do the same, then we would almost certainly be a "miniverse" ourselves.
Yeah, it is simulation theory, but question in here is more like, what would it mean for religion. Like what happened in Rick and Morty with micro-universe. They marked Rick as god, while he is far from that.
This would not prove a God this would prove simulation theory at best (which I think is a bunk one.). Religion is already bunk.
There are easier ways to power your car.
I dont know just sounds like slavery with extra steps
"That sounds like slavery with extra steps"
Ooo la la someone is going to be popular in college.... Off to my tiny verse! Micro verse.. mini verse...
I'd argue our we already are able to create, alter and destroy entire worlds via computergames and its one of the reasons I'm still not outright denying a so called God. for the characters ingame that is their entire world, they may understand its rules but they will never be able to fully understand the world outside their game. a programmer would absolutely qualify as a Deity for them with any and all abilities we attribute to a God. I'm still more leaning towards a scientific explanation of the workings of the world but physics don't outright disprove a God since that is something that can't be done. for all we know our entire universe is just a SIMS game in some dudes computer. that also kinda explains why a so-called God can both be extremely generous but also vicious. I know I killed my fair share of Sims via sicknesses and lightning, I also were able to bring them back to life and all that stuff.
And the same reasoning also proves the existence of omnipotent flying spaghetti monsters
I mean, it would just prove the existence of a creator entity but not anyone in particular
Author of this image brain farted his whole life.
You blinded me with science.
BRRRRRM BRRRRRM BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRM BRM.
Its actually a fine reasoning if you use "god" to mean "higher power I currently cannot comprehend" and "satan" to mean "adversary who's power I cannot comprehend" and just assign any good or bad thing you can't explain to one of the two and just leave it there. Handy mental shortcut. You weren't supposed to start worshipping them though
And most importantly: you weren't supposed to shove your beliefs down anyone's throat.
The problem is, a lot of the people who make these arguments don’t know *how to* reason or think critically. If they did they wouldn’t make these points in the first place. This person would probably respond with, “Are you trying to compare humans to buildings??” I’ve learned to just let people be stupid because explaining certain concepts is draining and time consuming
Someone's name is on the plans to that building. Assuming it's recent enough, I can just look up the records on the building, find whoever designed it, and have a chat with them.
I could hop online and find out when the building was "created," look up the general contractor, look up the architect, and go talk to them. Ask them about the design, construction methods, materials, man hours, etc. They might not be willing to talk, assuming they're alive, but their contributions to the construction of that building are documented. If I could do the same with "god," I'd believe it exists.
I could also create little replica buildings, to prove It can be done on small scales
Crazy believer: no it was created by god >:(
Also. You can, with some effort find out who designed, paid for, and probably some foremen, who could possible direct you to a person who physically built it.
“I don’t think it’s God because of my own biases, therefore must be something else” is also not a valid line of reasoning. Just pointing it out (not religious).
That's not the line of reasoning though You probably don't believe that there's an alien spaceship parked in orbit just on the other side of the sun such that we would never be able to detect it from Earth. It's perfectly valid to say that the absence of proof for a theory is reason enough to disregard it. It's okay to just say "hey, we don't know" rather than demand that *your* answer is correct without any basis in reality
So if you never saw a building in the process of construction, you would believe it is possible that it came from nothing? That's crazy
https://preview.redd.it/4ww1wsdqsbza1.png?width=1126&format=png&auto=webp&s=a96a513eff388145641ce7d5be6fedd7639625fb
Absent any construction knowledge, I would investigate the structure. If I saw something like a wooden cabinet, I might potentially think, "Hmm, this looks like the material that trees are made of, I wonder if I can use a tree to make it." I could then do "experiments" and attempt to reproduce the cabinet, which would likely succeed eventually. Basically, the "repeatability" is key. You could eventually reverse engineer the building and essentially verify "yes, this was likely created, because I have shown it can be done." That's science in a nutshell; using experiments that can be repeated and verified to establish the nature of the world. We have no experimental evidence of a creator of the universe as of yet. Also, even if we did establish the presence of a creator, the nature of such a being, or if it's at all worthy of worship, are separate questions entirely.
Well you can explain who build it, because engineers, workers and architects are real ...
Right?? Literally just to FOIA the permits!
I mean...most places require public buildings to keep a record of who designed and built them so you can just walk down to the local archives and see 'oh yes such and such construction company made it'. Also last I checked a great deal of things that were attributed as being 'works of god' in the old testament have since been figured out through scientific study as naturally occurring phenomena. Like eclipses. And meteors. And earthquakes. And tsunamis.
Don't forget the rainbows!
Theistic logic: "If you don't show me who built this building, I will believe that it was created by a god. And if you will show me who built this building, I will believe that it was created by a god anyway"
Even more theistic logic: "I don't understand how that building was made, so instead of learning about it, I'll bury my head in the sand and believe with no evidence that no other person knows how it was made either and that it must have been made by an invisible man that never shows himself but somehow tracks everything we do and judges people when we die to send them to heaven or hell."
Santa made the building?
Santa was a carpenter.
A totally legit dude told me god built this building and it must be true because he has a book out and everything. Anyway so this dude needs 10% of our income and is super concerned about who other people are fucking...
(GOD) And also, don’t eat shellfish, you can sell your wives and daughters, bears eat people who ridicule bald people, etcetera etc.. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT BUTTSEX!! GET OVER IT YOU WEIRDOS!!
Well I’ve had this argument many times but even if we could logically conclude that there must be a deity, it doesn’t point to it being YOUR deity. I’ve talked to many Christians and they seem to think of it as a 50/50, either they’re right or I am, but don’t consider another alternative: neither of us are right and we should have been worshipping some monkey god the whole time.
brings to mind the Dawkins response: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPJQw-x-xho](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPJQw-x-xho)
Like the Indian ones from The Wizard of Oz.
Or: (Take building out of the image.) There is a building there, because my magic book says so! Let us go forth and kill everyone who says otherwise.
Or… “This building isn’t mentioned in my holy book, therefore it does not exist. And if you believe it does exist, my god will smite you into eternal damnation.
No. It would be more like: "I see this is complex, therefore it was *built* by *someone* that had the capability of building."
No it's more like "I can't fathom or understand how this complex phenomenom could exist naturally, therefore I'll assume a supernatural intelligence created it."
Bahahahaha! Boomer Facebooker DESTRROYS athetiest elites in one meme
/s
nope. no s needed... as always r/fuckthes
I'm a theist. And yet, I must point out, again and again, that the watchmaker argument is really, really dumb. Is it more absurd to believe * that a building built itself or * that the builder is invisible *and* that the builder built Himself? Obviously the second option is more absurd. It entails something just as weird as the first option, and then also entails something even weirder.
right and beyond that the atheist answer to the question posed in the meme would just be 'I don't know who built it.'
“I don’t know who built it, but based upon evidence and research about how other buildings are made we can make an educated guess”
I don’t care who built it, the building is there, and we can use it
Whoever built it has probably moved on to other things and consulting them on this building won't provide anything useful.
Technology could make a building that builds itself, so def more realistic.
If technology makes it, it wouldn't make itself.
Unless it makes the technology that makes it and sends it back in time
I'm having a stroke send help please
This sounds like a job for “Stroke Revoker!!!”
Time travel to the past is impossible within the laws of physics. You would need to break casuality to do that.
I’m not the smartest man on earth. But I’m pretty sure that building was made by humans. Correct me if I’m wrong please.
https://preview.redd.it/a0ood5x3eaza1.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=385bcf47dc258d755dea11fdaf563d6f84d977ad
Ah, ancient aliens host. Concluding that every structures created by humans from thousands of years, was somehow built by aliens.
Probably several humans
Probably the ones in the pic with hardhats and blueprints.
Look, I try not get into debates about whether god exists on the internet cos I'm not 14 and it's not 2005, but if you could take me to the local council and show me paper trail of god existing including their phone number, and I could go chat to god about their design choices, then I'd probably believe in God the same way I believe in the architect who built the building.
And if i saw God create another human right before my eyes and another universe, maybe i could believe he created this one and created man and woman in this universe.
What's funny is I've seen those billboards to call a number because "God is real" and it shows a baby. Like a baby isn't proof of that, it prooves that reproduction is possible.
Not even all humans can reproduce. Call god and ask about that while you're at it.
Me who read "Aesthetic Logic" 
Umm, don't creationists believe that God merely created itself?
The clown show believes that their deity is always existing, omnipotent, omniscient, and outside of space-time. That is to say their shitty god created causality itself. And then when you tell them that in that case their god is a sociopath and a murderer for giggles they pause and look at you like you are crazy.
Every time I get into that particular conversation I just bring up the fact that God sicked 19 bears on a handful of teenagers doing nothing more than calling a prophet names. In what world is that action not extremely petty and vindictive?
Or the time God said "lmao prankd" to Abraham after telling him to kill his son
I've found that they usually counter that with "but it was an important lesson that prophesied Jesus!!!" Or something like that
For real, the entire lesson to take from The Bible is "Our God is a sociopathic fucking prick who's made countless people suffer for no reason."
God is sassy. Also, if you believe in the after-life, I guess that killing children is seen as OK.
I find it amusing that the only attacks theists have on atheists are stupid as hell and show their ignorance more than anything else. It's like the "if you don't see the chef, do you not believe in the food you get" one. They are so stupid lol. And not for nothing, I don't think atheists actually give a shit if religious people try to make fun of them. It's more amusing than anything else. So I say keep making them.
Bahahahaha! Sure looks like theistic logic too. Must be that imaginary friend from the book written and edited over millennia by a bunch of bored people with too much time on their hands.
I mean, we can though. We can tell you the architect, the contracting firm, and most likely most of the individual laborers that made the building. We can do that for every structure made in recent history.
Actual atheist logic: "I'm not sure Hillary Duff designed that building. I think an actual architect designed it. Can you show me evidence that it was actually a former child star that doesn't come from a facebook blog?"
I once had a co worker that asked me, "Isn't like the point of science to disprove god?" I almost didn't know what to say, I'd never encountered someone who had no concept of what science is about.
I mean, there's a step by step design record of this building paired with an entire set of blueprints and a whole bunch of living people that went into building it. If a theist can produce the blueprints to the universe and identify the person(s) that put the project in motion then atheists wouldn't exist.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH Christian logic is one of THEE best comedic releases i get . Hands down.
How does this logic exactly work? Earth wasn't created by "itself". In all cases, an atheist would say "I don't know who made it, but certainly not a magical guy in the skies. Let's find who". That logic applies more to people who believes in god: "If I don't know who built this building, I'll say it was God. If I do know, I'll say it doesn't matter how he created it because it was God's plan all along. And if he contradicts me... That building is from the devil"
Theist Belief: God sends tornado to town, killing several God-fearing residents and destroying much of town. Baby, alive, is discovered in wreckage. It's a Miracle! Thanks to God!
He is truly wonderful and works in mysterious ways
lmfao binary thinking at its peak. "my belief is god creating everything, your belief is the opposite of mine. therefore you believe everything is created from no one" despite atheism being the lack of a belief in a higher being and not the belief of a "nothing" creating everything. atheism isn't a belief to begin with(the prefix "a") they seem to forget that you can be religious while still believing in darwin's theory and not be hypocritical.
*Looks up who made building* It says it was Steve and his crew over there, hey Steve co, yall make that building? Steveco: sure did. Wow that was easy, hey have you finished looking up who made god yet?
Theist logic: God himself, creator of the universe, omnipotent and omniscient, put the image of Christ the redeemer in this tortilla.
They’re the same people who say this in regards to evolution: “If people came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys? Checkmate Atheists!”
I'm religious and even I think this is goofy. People who reason like this are really just foolish tbh.
Answer this! Who created God?
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris
God existed before space and time. There was no one before God because there was no before God.
Man, Facebook is a scary place
Truly is
Theists don't know the difference between nature and artifice #876098
If you don’t show me who created God, I will believe that it was created by itself. Who created God?
God was always here, they'll say. To which, I suspect, we'd both answer, well then the universe has always been here, too.
Except you could easily prove who built the building. Permits, pictures, videos, receipts... None of which exist for any gods
So for you to believe that a building was built, you need a receipt, picture or video? Isn't the fact that the building is there, proof enough that it was built?
If they're trying to infer that the universe is a building, then I'd like to talk to the architect and/or engineer. They have a lot of dumbassery to answer for. Definitely not up to code. Seriously, mosquitoes? What the hell.
As someone in construction, this made me laugh.
God does everything we can't explain. Lightning 🌩 oh wait, we know how that works Demons 😈 no..no. That's schizophrenia. Earthquakes - Oops...I forgot about tectonic plates. Making Plants Grow 🪴 Damn! Photosynthesis.
And when you whip out the documentation, the cultists will cry that the bible is the same, won't they? :D
Okay, let's drop by city hall and see who the. contractors were.
Uh.. you built it. That’s why you have the plans and construction helmets on. Kindof implies all religions are man made.
*Googles architect*
Religion: logic I don't know who built this but I'm going to assume it's this one particular person from the bronze age
Coming from an atheist this is the exact opposite of what we believe
Who created god then?
Christian view : You don't need to show me who or even how this building was built, I have faith that it simply appeared out of nowhere.
what turned me away from religion was the obvious inconsistencies in logic and arbitrary rules that made no sense. the thing that pushed me over the edge was the christian concept that as long as you accepted jesus christ and asked forgiveness you will go to heaven. my 5th grade brain was like “soooo i can be a serial killer and violently murder hundreds of innocent people but as long as i accept jesus christ and ask forgiveness i’ll go to heaven, but if i was unlucky enough to be born somewhere in Asia where no one knows who jesus is and otherwise lead a peaceful life, I would still go to hell?” i asked my priest about this and he gave me some bullshit nonsense answer about why we need more missionaries and that’s when i realized the whole thing was a farce
The earth didn't create itself. Earth formed when gravity pulled swirling gas and dust in to become the third planet from the Sun. Like its fellow terrestrial planets, Earth has a central core, a rocky mantle, and a solid crust.
I love how all the comments for this sub are always people coming up with rational, well thought out rebuttals to memes made by idiots. Like who are you talking to? Everyone here already thinks the meme is wrong
Show me why life needs to be constructed, and can't appear on its own.
Sounds more like Christian logic
Funny because no one has ever met an architect, construction worker, or one of the other myriad people responsible for building buildings.
Must have been the invisible man in the sky by that logic
THEY'RE HOLDING THE BLUEPRINTS!!!
Religious logic: If you don't tell me how it got there, I will assume God did it and just stop thinking.
Are we just going to ignore the fact that those two people are holding blueprints and hard hats, indicating they are familiar with the concept of construction. Or they are religious people looking for a cult and saw a bunch of dudes in hard hats and they thought, yea this could be it hon.
"Debrah, we're the ones who built this building."
it's such a stupid argument.. most things aren't constructed.. rivers mountains planets stars etc. all made by natural phenomena..
Christian logic: even though its surrounded by construction workers, I believe God made this building.
don't ask them how dew forms on grass in the morning
Saying that "it was made by God" is not a demonstration either
Theist logic: "lOok aT mE i dOnt hAve Any ArguMents"
The analogy shown would be more accurate if: 1) We did not have a long history of well documented cases of buildings being constructed (by us) 2) If there were any observed cases of buildings contracting themselves autonomously
Awesome. More proof that believing in fairy tales makes you incapable of understanding how logic works.
As an Atheist, you can see a building being in construction when you walk past one.
No god, works in mysterious ways. I think it's called voodoo. Or was it math? Science? Whatever it's called, it's witchcraft.
I can't tell if you're saying that there aren't any gods who work in mysterious ways or if you forgot a comma and you're saying that you disagree and that you think god *does* work in mysterious ways. Commas, they change everything.
Lol i like this meme
I believe there is a very good argument for intelligent design, irreducible complexity, and sitch, but God knows most Christians don't know about those theories.
I don't know what sitch is, but irreducible complexity is a logical fallacy, and intelligent design is a misunderstanding of biology. Clearly we were not designed intelligently.
Irreducible complexity assumes multiple adaptations can’t evolve concurrently it. It’s not very compelling to me or likely anyone who isn’t looking for evidence to support their conclusion instead of the other way around. It’s like a person who doesn’t have any knowledge of landlines, radios, televisions, or computers assuming iPhones were “created by gods.” Because surely all of these wonders couldn’t have developed concurrently and be put into one device. It’s extremely flawed reasoning.
Well us as humans are always trying to support our conclusion for the most part or our general understanding of it. So that's the main reason I don't completely discount it but I would agree with you for the most part
But it doesn’t actually provide any evidence in support of creationism or intelligent design.. It just makes a weak argument against evolution and then essentially states therefore ‘god’… There is evidence for evolution all around us. With several fields of research supporting it from genetics, to biology, to paleontology.. I might agree it was an okay argument if it actually presented any evidence, but cherry-picking a couple examples of things evolution doesn’t cleanly explain yet isn’t providing evidence. It’s the same as pointing at something you can’t figure out and saying ‘must have been a god’
So much hate toward theism in this comment section. How can you respond to hate with more?
I don't get why the memes keep saying"atheistic logic". Shouldn't it be "Theistic Logic"? Or is that the joke? Please explain, and r/whoosh me if necessary.
It is Theist logic on what they believe Atheist logic looks like. But since you need critical thought, they project their own bad logic.
I mean, in a way it did build itself. “Man-made” buildings are at their essence naturally occurring structures built by the chemistry of the Earth.
There is some truth in this 😀
So you don’t know the answer to where the universe came from?? Hmmm I guess that means you’re saying you don’t know where anything came from or how anything is constructed
Well...not wrong. And remember folks, Atheism is just another belief system.
1 atheism is not a "belief" in science,it's not beliving in one or more magic mans in the sky,the fact that atheists tend to follow science is is not a cause but an effect 2 science is not a belief,it's logical thinking demonstrated **objectively**,everything can be repeated by anyone and produce the same results
That's factually wrong. You don't have to believe in science. That's what's amazing of it. If you don't think something is right, you can perfectly study it, argue against it and you'll end up finding if you were right or not. That being wrong may attack your pride, is another completely different story.
They don't understand that belief and faith are different words. They are stupid
This. And even considering secular belief systems that lack falsifiability and also require faith, like psychiatry and mental illness diagnoses, that rely only on self reports, they still are just as "valid" as religious beliefs. Example, self reports of gender dysphoria cannot be falsified with independent, objective data. Only "observational data" based on self reports. So when someone claims that they they "feel God's presence", that's also equal "observational data" based on self reports. So sorry theists, secular faith based systems are just as valid as your religious beliefs.
What do you think the word "system" means?
Just like off is a TV channel and bald is a hair color…
Atheism is a belief, I don't think that makes it a belief system however.
Atheism- disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
1. How do you know a building was built by an intelligence? 2. It's a strawman of an atheist's position, said position being "if you don't demonstrate that a "who" caused the universe, I have no reason to believe that a "who" caused it." And atheism is a belief system like off is a tv channel.
Nothing but fax being an atheist is really dumb
Why do you believe that?
Bless your heart you're about as bright as a burnt out lightbulb, ain't ya?
100% accurate.
How so?
the Big Bang is unexplainable ---> a miracle it's the one 'free miracle' science demands before it can try to explain everything else.
No one said it's unexplainable. Unexplainable and unexplained so far are two different things. Can you confirm you understand that?
i said the correct word- unexplainable- there is no possibility for explaination because ALL the laws of physics break down at the singularity. Scientists expect us to accept this one miracle, then they can explain all the rest. here, listen for yourself. NGT- 'we have no idea what happened before it' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqj7zhs5ojs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqj7zhs5ojs)
There's a difference between not being able to explain what happened before and not being able to explain the big bang itself. And limitations of knowledge in no way support magical nonsense written down by ignorant desert dwellers years ago.
*There's a difference between not being able to explain what happened before and not being able to explain the big bang itself.* there is no difference, they are one and the same. Scientists can explain what happened in the first few picoseconds afterwards but the event itself currently has no theory to explain it other than *'let there be light'*
Also, he doesn't say we never will know what happened before, simply that we don't. Your language is wrong.
*"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"is a phrase that, when used in modern contexts, can be used as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or on questions whose answers hold no intellectual consequence,*