UK: 70% of young people are 'not religious' according to a report - Sensationalist Headlines

Or maybe it has something to do with the basic logical structure of the argument which implies there is a thing such that no further explanation is needed and whatever that thing is, it just is. Or, as the name of the abrahamaic god implies "I am that I am". He just is, by definition. You can argue about whether he has a beard and existed as an avatar, but you can't argue that that, at the base of it, is unreasonable, unless ofcourse you want to posit some coherentist position. Furthermore, if you wish to attack something, at least attack the arguments that have been presented throughout history that don't come from some run-of-the-mill bible thumper. How about this: He doesn't need further explanation because he is eternal (existing outside of time and space). He would occupying something like the same region as mathematics or the fundamental laws of physics, whatever they happen to be. The complexity entailed therein is not only something to be thankful for but also, depending on your view of emergent properties, a thing which could arguably be said to have dispositions not unlike a person would.

But maybe the computer scientists who created the simulation are eternal? Again, nothing special about a god on that point either. Hell, maybe the universe itself is eternal. Or cyclical. That's a much simpler explanation that conveniently doesn't require a somehow preexisting intelligent being to create something from nothing. There's literally nothing that would make the existence of a god a more rational explanation to the existence of our than the myriad of other, simpler possibilities. And that's for a non-specific, non-man-like, watchmaker (who create then don't interfere) type of entity. If you want to claim that god happens to be the one specific god you believe in out of the hundreds that have been believed in during the entirety of mankind's existence, the probability of that claim plummets.

Alright, let's take these in order: Computer scientists point: If this universe as we know it is a simulation in another, larger universe also contained within time, then that universe too would require an explanation due to its temporal aspect. Unless those computer scientists existed in space with no time, then no, and if they did then they begin to resemble theistic concepts. If the universe itself was eternal then there would be no time. We experience time and thereby take it as an assumption unless you really want to stick hard to the belief that there isn't any time in which case you will have to explain why it seems like there is time, and why you yourself are seemingly constantly swapping across those points in time. If the universe was cyclical then the universe itself would need to be situated in some unchanging substrate such that it would explain its real cyclicality as experienced by people during the 'real point in time'. You would still need to explain change as compared to the eternal features. And thirdly, I never posited a specific god yet, I just said that belief in such an object is perfectly reasonable give the provided evidence.

Damnit, I was just thinking about posting the idea of a cyclical universe as a way of making the universe "eternal", and therefore, not needing something to have created it (in the minds of those who insist that god always existed and therefore doesn't need to be created). You beat me to it.

I can argue that the base of it is unreasonable, actually, because it is unreasonable. You can throw around sophistic nonsense like "he just is" or "he's outside of the universe" until you're blue in the face, but you're using the same circular reasoning. Let just list some of the ways it isn't an argument: 1: It's special pleading and circular reasoning. No matter what pseudoscientific way you try and restate it, there is no rational way to make "he's special" a valid argument. 2. It doesn't actually explain anything. Hiding the first cause behind some vague, ineffability is not one more iota more satisfactory an explanation than just saying we don't know. 3. If there can be an "exception" to the causality or the laws of physics, than they aren't actually rules. If "God" can break the rules, than the rules don't need him to be broken. 4. There is absolutely zero reason to reason to ascribe any intelligence or personality to this outside force, apart from typical "god of the gaps" reasoning

Well it's unlikely that those scientists and their world, if they exist, are anything like us and our world. Them being eternal is a possibility (as it is for our own universe after all). Maybe you could say that that makes them god-like, but they're certainly not like any god any religious person believes in currently. Uh, what? Why would there be no time if the universe was eternal? This sentence doesn't make sense. This doesn't make any sense either. Why should the universe be situated in a "substrate" if it's cyclical but not if it's temporarily finite? Can't it simply be cyclical on its own? You're making a ton of baseless assumptions on metaphysical concepts. There's no need that we know of for the universe to be finite for time to exist, nor for it to be situated in a 'substrate' for it to warm back on itself time-wise. I feel you're just making up requirements to make your claim more plausible in comparison. Nope. Cyclical or eternal universes are simpler, and thus more probable models.

Why can't time exist if the universe is eternal? I don't really get why you think they would be mutually exclusive.

Saying that god must exist because, based on our current knowledge, someone must have created the universe is like a 13th century peasant saying god must exist because someone must have created the earth. We have no idea how in the fuck the universe came to be. How do you know if things like causality or time even exist in the way we conceive of them in whatever predated the big bang? We have no way of knowing. Trying to speculate on what would or wouldn't be necessary for the universe's creation is impossible.

These sound a lot like simple statements made to sound smarter than they really are. That first sentence is "he is what he is", just in 35 words instead of 5.

Ive been getting that impression a lot throughout this thread. If you strip away the language intended to make the statements seem more clever than they really are, a lot of them just boil down to stuff like "It just feels right to me so I don't need evidence"

Arguing whether god exists or not doesn’t matter, other to inflate one’s ego briefly until the discussion is forgotten. All of this will pass from memory and one day it as will these pages pass from the hardrives of the forum. In the end does life have any real significance? Is faith just blind trust? Is a lack of belief just a submission of trust altogether? Who on this earth can be truly trusted except oneself? Do we deserve anything?

I'm not arguing that God doesn't exist, because that's a futile effort. Sgman91 said God was the logical solution to the whole "universe existing" thing, and that's what we're discussing. I'd point out the irony of your post, but yeah it speaks for itself.

posting this doesn't matter, except to inflate ones ego until all is forgotten. Word salad words words and words. We're all blips on the cosmic radar. Words words.

It’s true, everything is a waste of time so the best we can do is use it to how we see fit. And this post has given me great pleasure.

It's always followed by "well god is eternal" but that doesn't matter either for an eternal being he was in a fucking hurry to make the earth within, apparently, '7 days'

Vast majority of Christians do not take Genesis as literal, especially with the 7 Days aspect. In any case, if a being were eternal I'm certain that several billion years is an irrelevant amount of time to wait when there is an infinite amount of time for the being to experience.

Wouldn’t you say humans are ironic creatures? We make up our own meaning to a meaningless universe.

I think it's unfortunate that so many turn away from all religious systems after renouncing the religion that they were raised with instead of looking in other systems for answers. God is without cause. All phenomenon within creation are caused by another, which necessitates some ultimate cause that is aloof from the chain of causation and itself without cause, an unmoved mover. If there was no unmoved mover, then a casual paradox would result.

Or maybe the universe has no initial cause and has always existed? Or maybe it's cyclical and there's thus no need for a beginning or end to the chain of causation? Hell, even if the universe was finite time-wise, why even need an "unmoved mover"? If you're going to allow your god to have no cause, then why not simply allow the initial state of the universe to have no cause, to just be like your god supposedly is? If there's no need for someone to create god, why is there a need for a god to create the universe? Again, you're operating on the assumption that your god enjoys metaphysical privileges that the universe itself doesn't, for no reason other than your willingness to make your belief appear plausible.

Actually if you really think about it; We all know deep inside that the world was carved from Ymer's carcass in ginnungagap, and Odin, Vile and Ve made the humans from a couple of logs they found on the beach as a goof.

Fuck, you know I think you might have me there.

How can you not see the circular logic here? "This thing can't have just existed forever... So it was definitely created by this other thing, which has just existed forever". Even if we assume that there must be an 'unmoved mover', why do you assume it is anything worthy of calling 'God'? What reason is there to think it must have had any level of consciousness at all?

If the universe itself was causeless, then all of its contents would also be causeless as they are one in the same. A tree is a part and parcel of the universe, but it has a definite cause to its existence. The unmoved mover has to be aloof from the universe.

I don't see what's so weird about the idea of a initial state of a universe that is without cause. What's wrong with things being causeless if you go far enough back to the origin? Eternal or cyclical models for the universe don't even result in this sort of conundrum, and they're much simpler. You're creating yourself a problem that doesn't need to exist just so that your god can solve it.

Meh I don't see the problem if you personally think a god or whatever is behind everything, the problems come when you start pushing it as truth

Why would it need a primer? Why does the causal chain needs a beginning and an end? Can't it just have been going on forever, and go on forever? And what's wrong with that? You'll need to properly define "consciousness" for me to consider that to be a problem. As far as I'm concerned, consciousness is just a dogwhistle for souls, which there is no evidence for the existence of whatsoever.

You're claiming a priori info as to how the universe functions but you don't have that knowledge

Lol this "unmoved mover" stuff sounds like something from a video game or some shit. Like the atom cultists from fallout. "all hail the unmoved mover!!"

If assuming that A and B are the only thing in existence and they don't have the capacity to act independently, then how did they come to act in the first place? Existence would be inert with no phenomenon occurring. I mean consciousness as the capacity of awareness itself, the life force of a person that is not present in a corpse.

You didn't define it as anything. And you're "A and B' example is just straight up not-understandable as an argument.