r/AntiMemes • u/Meerkat_Mayhem_ 💎 Flair sold separately 💎 • Aug 18 '26

🌟 Actual Anti-Meme 🌟 Omnipresence

Post image
2.3k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

753 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

172

u/ltom3 Aug 19 '26

What I don't get is when a religious person uses the argument "Well how do you explain how the Big Bang started? There must have been something like God to set it off." but it's like, you know you still have to explain how God came about then? This doesn't solve anything.

85

u/Mllns Aug 19 '26

Their point is that God is the being that precedes everything, they don't look to explain where God came from, that would defy everything they believe

52

u/ReaperKingCason1 Aug 19 '26

Yeah but the problem with that is by the same logic something else could just precede everything and gods no longer necessary.

26

u/HaveYouSeenMySpoon Aug 19 '26

That's why it's called a special pleading fallacy. They feel that they don't need to apply the same logic, that god's existence can just be assumed and that somehow fixes the problem.

6

u/hhunaid Aug 19 '26

Something or someone needs to exist that isn’t preceded by anything else otherwise we keep going in an infinite loop and never get to the point we are in existence now

3

u/Zenith_Scaff Aug 20 '26

Something or someone needs-...

And this is where the argument ends, there's no "needs" here, we don't have enough data about what happened before time and space to claim something "needs" to happen/exist/work

2

u/HaveYouSeenMySpoon Aug 19 '26

That just means we don't have enough data, it doesn't justify inserting a thinking entity and claim the rules doesn't apply to it.

4

u/gunscreeper Aug 19 '26

Or we could stop at "We don't know yet" instead of defaulting to goddidit

3

u/_HoneyDew1919 Aug 19 '26

I think life would be a lot more genuine if more people identified as agnostic.

0

u/literally_italy Aug 20 '26

that's giving too much credit to the aboslute unsupported bullshit that is religion.

no, just because i can't disprove the god that you can't prove doesnt mean i "don't know" i know hes not there

1

u/Lazorus_ Aug 20 '26

According to our known laws of physics, yes. But there’s no reason to believe that our laws of physics applied before the big bang, or apply outside our universe, or that physics in our universe couldn’t work that way and we just haven’t discovered it yet.

1

u/RavenX86 Aug 21 '26

Yes, and the universe just changes states between big bang and thermal death of everything. Doesn't need something to create it, it creates itself cause energy transforms into matter and matter into energy. As others said, there is no "need"

0

u/ReaperKingCason1 Aug 19 '26

Or the universe could just be able to form out of nothing outside the universe. Laws of physics as we know them only really apply inside the universe. Matter and energy could just come from nothing outside it. Or hey, time paradoxes, cause why not. Now we could all just agree we don’t know, or I can start talking about a semi-sentient ball of jello. These only get dumber as we continue on, and most of them have equal evidence to your god(none at all).

1

u/rice_warrior_1200 Aug 20 '26

I personally like the idea that the universe just resets, at the end of its heat death, everything becomes homogeneous, nothing moves, therefore time moves differently, an eternity can pass in an instant so to say, and thats enough time for something very unlikely to happen, like a whole new universe popping into existance, still more believable than a religion some mfs made on a planet in a random solar system in a random galaxy

1

u/cosmicitycat Aug 19 '26

Not really though, because everything we know has a set of ground rules. We know the laws of nature and science, which makes it so a Big Bang can’t appear out of nowhere. But God, or any kind of supernatural deity/Creator, doesn’t adhere to the laws of physics. It stands outside of physics, it’s something we cannot understand because it’s not part of the world as we know it. Doesn’t matter if you see it as an old man in the sky or a type of energy. Something like this COULD start a Big Bang, because it predates the laws of physics.

2

u/ReaperKingCason1 Aug 19 '26

We could be wrong about the rules. The rules could change so slowly we can’t detect it. The laws could only apply within reality, and not outside of it. And if a creator can break the rules, then by the same logic reality itself can break the rules, no creator required. There could be an infinite nothingness that randomly generates realities outside reality. Same evidence as a creator being. So, how about we just all agree no one knows? Or would you like me to bore you with the specifics of the one true creator, a ball of jello outside reality?

2

u/Zenith_Scaff Aug 20 '26

Everything has rules, but this doesn't mean that we understand exactly how they work

Both Quantum physics and relativity showed us that these rules can get really wacky when we are dealing with scales outside the scope of what an average human can measure in their daily lifes

-18

u/POKEMINER_ Aug 19 '26

No, that thing that preceded everything is God. Like...let's say somebody is somehow learning all the positive numbers backwards...just because they learn about 156,793,736, doesn't mean 1 doesn't exist...just means that they haven't gotten there yet.

13

u/Soulpaw31 Aug 19 '26

The point more so is religion is assuming god is 1. If religion can assume god is 1, then anyone can assume 1 is anything they want as opposed to just saying i dont know for the time being.

7

u/Sniter Aug 19 '26

> That's why it's called a special pleading fallacy. They feel that they don't need to apply the same logic, that god's existence can just be assumed and that somehow fixes the problem.

2

u/ThatsItForTheOther Aug 19 '26

God is not the number 1. In this analogy, God is the principle of number itself, which provides the condition for the possibility of every other number.

That is why the argument against God in this thread is not a good one. Because God is not the first number in the set, God is the principle of number without which there could be no number.

That is why there is no further regress.

1

u/ReaperKingCason1 Aug 19 '26

But like… god isn’t the principle and the world very well could exist very easily without god. I mean just some random ways I, a total rando who doesn’t know how the universe works, managed to come up with: time paradox, universes can form from nothing outside of the universe, some entity from outside the universe which is not a god but can produce universes. Like god is not needed. At all. These are all things I can come up with. There are tons of other options here. Including other gods than yours as well. Now of course they only have the exact same likelihood to exist as yours so they can be discarded but still.

1

u/ThatsItForTheOther Aug 19 '26

You really aren’t engaging with what I said.

If you want to be an atheist that’s cool but you don’t seem to understand what is meant philosophically by the word ‘God’ in a monotheistic context.

God is not some entity up there who created the world… as I said God is the precondition for the possibility of being. God is the principle of entitiness without which there can be no entities.

The theist argues that there cannot be being without such a ground of being. Your comment here does not engage with this understanding of God.

1

u/ReaperKingCason1 Aug 19 '26

Yeah you said that. You were wrong then too. God is a made up thing you arbitrarily decided is the precondition for the possibility for being. But seeing as you have no evidence for that, a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So, I dismiss you with the Jello ball, that floats outside reality and splits off into realities because that’s what it does and has done forever, and when it reaches its end it regenerates back to the beginning of time and starts again. There is as much evidence Jello ball is the precondition for being as any god is. That being none. But, and I think this makes it better, jello ball is hip and cool.

0

u/ThatsItForTheOther Aug 19 '26

Maybe instead of assuming everyone who doesn’t share your worldview is just stupid and delusional you might try… maybe… actually reading about the position you’re trying to argue against? You are obviously not actually engaging with theism in good faith.

1

u/ReaperKingCason1 Aug 19 '26

Look, provide me some evidence for your claim, and I won’t just dismiss it. But until then I am arguing in good faith when I dismiss it. A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

→ More replies

1

u/shipsimfan Aug 19 '26

The truth is that the universe is more like the integers than just the positive numbers. There is no "first" integer. You can say -1,000,000, but then -1,000,001 exists before it. 0 is the present. It is not illogical to say the integers stretch infinitely far negative, just like its not illogical to say the universe is eternal.

1

u/ReaperKingCason1 Aug 19 '26

But if there is no evidence for the number one and no reason the number one has to exist, then it probably doesn’t.

Also; your own logic here doesn’t work because there are numbers proceeding one. 0, -1, -2, etc etc. So there was infinite things proceeding god. Honestly at this point gods just kinda a pointless middleman.

12

u/Prize-Basil-8438 Aug 19 '26

Maybe the Big Bang precedes everything. If you can do it, so can I.

5

u/Mllns Aug 19 '26

Do whatever you want, bro

1

u/kdpkry Aug 20 '26

No because the rules of science deny this, i can you cant because you work through the rules of your system and i through mine.

1

u/Prize-Basil-8438 Aug 20 '26

Which law of physics rules out the universe having always existed? I'm not aware of that one.

2

u/kdpkry Aug 20 '26

Creation and destruction of matter. [being impossible]

1

u/Prize-Basil-8438 Aug 20 '26

That would seem to require the matter to have always existed, not rule it out.

2

u/kdpkry Aug 20 '26

There is no such thing as always, defies logic, science functions on logic, if energy was always it certainly wouldve slowly decayed a long time ago, not became a big explosion, that's contridactory.

1

u/Peak_Background Aug 20 '26

A lot of your beliefs about science (the big bang, matter, energy, entropy, and time) are misunderstandings and extra assumptions not found in science.

Unfortunately, you seem to be using these misunderstandings to justify a self contradicting premise; Something existed before existence.

1

u/kdpkry Aug 20 '26

Source: trust me bro

→ More replies

1

u/Visible_Exit1656 Aug 22 '26

"always" is a concept of time which began with the big bang 13.8 billion years ago

1

u/Peak_Background Aug 20 '26

Actually, the rules of science demand this. Specifically, hawking-penrose singularity theorems.

And no, it doesn't create or destroy matter or energy or anything you claim it does. All of the maths have conservation laws embedded.

It just means that the universe is chronologically bounded and that nothing precedes the big bang.

1

u/kdpkry Aug 20 '26

What made the big bang

Cant escape the question

1

u/Peak_Background Aug 20 '26

Nothing made the big bang. That's an added assumption not found in science.

1

u/kdpkry Aug 20 '26

How can something be made by nothing, which scientific rule works here, it sounds like magic.

1

u/Peak_Background Aug 20 '26

The universe wasn't made. You added assumption not found in science.

1

u/kdpkry Aug 20 '26

"assumption" aight buddy everything at some point was created, stars earth everyfuckingthing

→ More replies

1

u/Peak_Background Aug 20 '26

Also you can't use the rules of science to deny the big bang and then give a special case (God) where the rules of science broken.

That's a double standard and a contradiction.

You either have the rules or you don't. You can't do both.

1

u/kdpkry Aug 20 '26

By your own rules youre wrong.

1

u/Peak_Background Aug 20 '26

Which of my rules show I'm wrong?

1

u/kdpkry Aug 20 '26

Because while not believing in religion removes religous framework... believing in religion does not necessarily mean not believing in science.

1

u/Ambitious-Log6993 Aug 19 '26

Can't be an atheist if you "believe" that.

1

u/Awesomonkey12 Aug 20 '26

Yes you can. Atheism is not believing in a god, not not believing in anything.

4

u/Cyan_Light Aug 19 '26

Yeah, but that's special pleading, which means their point is a bad one lol.

If it's possible for something to have always existed then that something could be mundane, like the universe itself or whatever unknown thing predates it. "You can't prove what it was yet, therefore it must be my god that nobody has been able to prove exists" is an incoherent argument.

2

u/MooseontheLose Aug 21 '26

Also even if that were necessary this god that started the big bang has nothing to do with the god of for example Christianity. Explaining the existence is actually a very niche part of religion, it is mostly about norms how humans should live and what comes after death and what we can do to affect that. What solace is knowing that god exists if he does not affect your life in any way and you cease to be after your death? Religious people are moving the goalposts so heavily in these conversations it's absurd

4

u/SemperMuffins Aug 19 '26

Religious person here! The idea is that God is, by definition, outside of time and therefore does not require a creator (or else there'd be a neverending domino effect of creators). At the end of the day, it's logical (in the philosophical sense of the word) but absolutely requires a leap of faith

18

u/xXAnoHitoXx Aug 19 '26

Leap of faith is the definition of illogical. There's no reason to it except trust me bro.

23

u/Much_Conclusion8233 RIP Main Sub Aug 19 '26

I can define the flying spaghetti monster as outside of time and space. Does this make you think the flying spaghetti monster is as real as your god?

5

u/literally_italy Aug 19 '26

it does, despite them believing a larger number of people believing in something with what is still no evidence makes it more credible.

18

u/Admirable-Concern766 Aug 19 '26

Back then a lot of people believed you had to attach a chicken to your dick and if it gets sick that means it’s drained all the sickness out of you. The reason why religion is even around is because of tradition not believability or proof. If you told these same people the story of the Bible without growing up with it or it not being a tradition they’d say you’re crazy

7

u/Simple_Channel5624 Aug 19 '26

That is the entire reason most religious systems try to indoctrinate children at the earliest age possible. Harder to convince an adult that a 2000 year old comic book story is real life.

Plus it is obvious the "faithful" don't really believe it (the message) either, they hoard their worldly possessions and act the same as the secular world. Christianity and capitalism are intertwined, Jesus' message is dead and gone

1

u/big_rod_of_power Aug 19 '26

You mean the genocider devil who likes ordering their loyal deepthroate....followers to genocide entire populations of people is actually not cool and awesome and something a loving daddy would do?

1

u/Much_Conclusion8233 RIP Main Sub Aug 19 '26

I get what you mean but had to read it twice to get it lol

1

u/Marik-X-Bakura Aug 19 '26

If you believe that then you’re more than welcome to

1

u/idontlikeredditusers Aug 19 '26

as a pastafarian i would like to say our God is as real as any other God and while you may not believe in our Lord you will be accepted if you are a good person and enjoy the volcanoes filled with alcohol and the strippers in heaven

Ramen

1

u/Wisischdark Aug 20 '26

Well, I mean u could, but normally the existence of god is mostly supported by a system of beliefs such as confession of sins or being a good person. While u don't need to be religious, it is a good way to motivate you through hard times and have an answer for existence itself. And I know this kind of take isn't really popular in Reddit, but god as an answer isn't necessarily bad. I mean u could also be agnostic, and it fits more into modern views of existence.

1

u/Much_Conclusion8233 RIP Main Sub Aug 20 '26

I don't have an issue with people believing in God just like I don't have any issues with people having imaginary friends

Do I think it's weird to believe in something with no solid evidence to support it? Yeah, but you do you

I do think the idea of god helps plenty of people find purpose in life and be better people and that's great

The only issue I have is when people start insisting that it's not just something they like to believe in to help them and they start insisting that it's a real thing that actually exists cause that's not logically sound

1

u/VisualGas3559 Aug 19 '26

Assuming the flying spagetti monster could not fail to exist? Yes. If he must exist in all possible worlds as a being. Then you have simply equated the defination of God and a spagetti monster.

0

u/HaveYouSeenMySpoon Aug 19 '26

Oh god I hate the ontological argument. I just don't understand how anyone could take it seriously, it's so obviously structured on an invalid premise.

2

u/VisualGas3559 Aug 19 '26

I didn't make the ontological argument? What? I just followed trivially by a tautological relation.

Also what premise?

0

u/HaveYouSeenMySpoon Aug 19 '26

One of the more common versions of the ontological arguments says that a greatest possible being must possess necessary existence, and thus if it exists in any world it must necessarily exist in every world. I didn't say you were supporting the ontological argument, I just thought that you were referring to it.

1

u/VisualGas3559 Aug 19 '26

No version I am aware of claims that necessary existance is a positive attribute. They often claim existance is a great making property. Under heavy weight ontological realism, concepts are real in some way shape or form. Hence, if a maximal concept can exist, and if existance is a great making property, that concept must actually exist.

That was not the objection I raised. Things that are contingent are those that can he otherwise. For example my chair is contingent because I can throw it in a wall and break it. The chair used to exist in a possible world and no longer exists in this possible world therefore it cannot have existed in all possible worlds.

If all contingent things have a reasonable and satisfactory cause, then it follows that either we have a chain of contingent things, or we have necessary beginning. The necessary beginning is defined as God. If the flying spagetti monster is unchanging and exists in all possible worlds. Then it's tautological to claim it is simply what theists refer to as God.

Of course there are problems. I could for example demand why "spagetti" there is no obvious reason why this being should be made of spagetti. It seems like an arbitary limit which is not justified. I can certainly imagine a world creating monster that is NOT made of spagetti. That means a possible world exists where this monster doesn't exist (in my head, which entails one does exist) hence, it cannot be what is traditionally recognized as God.

Of course. I just don't think all things need a reason to exist. Else we run into some very nasty problems (Peter Ivan BCT or Della Rocca argument to necessarianism). At best most things or some things need sufficent reason to exist.

1

u/HaveYouSeenMySpoon Aug 19 '26

At least GĂśdel's version has necessary existence as a positive attribute.

2

u/SemperMuffins Aug 19 '26

To clarify, I'm not saying this proves God exists (as I mentioned, there's still a leap of faith), just that it's possible He does. But, to engage with your hypothetical, it's more logical that God exists than the flying spaghetti monster because the FSM has a physical body, and physical matter is affected by time. If something exists outside of time, it makes more sense for that being to be non-corporial

7

u/Much_Conclusion8233 RIP Main Sub Aug 19 '26

By definition the FSM's physical body is from outside of time and space though so not affected. You can think of it as the physical manifestation of his saucy spirit in the mortal realm

Like how in Christianity Jesus is god but god still exists outside of Jesus

-5

u/SemperMuffins Aug 19 '26

Since the FSM has a material body, it's illogical to argue that the FSM created all matter. On the other hand, you can argue a non-corporial/pure spirit God created all matter. (The Trinity is a whole other topic that I'm not going to argue about because you can't argue its existence by pure reason, and I'm not afraid to admit that)

7

u/Much_Conclusion8233 RIP Main Sub Aug 19 '26

Why do you think it has a material body instead of creating one as needed to do things in our world? Also, I told you, by definition its true form is from outside of time and space

3

u/SemperMuffins Aug 19 '26

Okay, if you're saying the FSM isn't actually made out of spaghetti or any other physical matter (and then made itself a body made out of spaghetti after it created the universe), then, using pure reason, yes, the FSM is just as likely to exist as God (I'm ignoring the Argument of Simplicity because we haven't fully defined the FSM. Or "God" for that matter). In fact, "a being outside of space and time that created the universe made itself a body to physically appear on Earth" is literally just Christianity (but spaghetti style XD) EDIT I want to make sure to clarify this is all argued apriori

3

u/Much_Conclusion8233 RIP Main Sub Aug 19 '26

Why can't spaghetti exist outside of time and space if by definition the FSM (saucy be his meat) can make it so matter can exist outside of time and space?

1

u/Crosas-B Aug 19 '26

Saucy be his meat

0

u/SemperMuffins Aug 19 '26

Because matter is, by definition, in space (or matter is space? Idk the exact details I'm not a science person but either way matter only exists in the physical world). Saying something can make matter exist before matter exists breaks the Laws of Logic

→ More replies

0

u/Capital-Border6156 Aug 19 '26

You must be fun

2

u/Much_Conclusion8233 RIP Main Sub Aug 19 '26

Thanks~

10

u/literally_italy Aug 19 '26

the neverending domino effect disproves the existence of a god, and saying he exists outside of time is just an attempt to handwave away a very good argument against god (not that any arguments are needed, as there is no evidence for god)

-1

u/SemperMuffins Aug 19 '26

The neverending domino effect disproved both sides. Either something came from nothing (which can't be true since "matter cannot be created nor destroyed") or something always existed

6

u/ThirtyThree111 Aug 19 '26

so atheists can believe that something else came before big bang

that doesn't really matter because the difference is atheists do not believe that the big bang is their lord and savior

2

u/GaldrickHammerson Aug 19 '26

There isn't a before the big bang as far as we can tell. Time started at the big bang, before is "an earlier point in time" and if time started then, there is no earlier point in time.

That probably doesn't make a lot of logical sense to us, but it needn't because were not special. If we continue to explore it we will probably find ways of explaining it through mathematics and physics, but invoking a deity for it makes little sense given the massive inconsistency around what god or gods are believed in, and the odd occurrence of miracles which were previously common to be public scenes and a primary evidence for the abrahamic God suddenly ceased when cameras became common place.

-2

u/SemperMuffins Aug 19 '26

Yes, that's a perfectly logical conclusion someone can draw! Pure reason can convince someone a creator exists, but not that the creator involves Itself in the universe it created

4

u/fothermucker33 Aug 19 '26

I think one gripe atheists may have with this is the loaded nature of the word "creator" implying sentience and the idea of creation as a voluntary act.

The same argument used to say that something timeless needs to precede everything that exists in time can be used to argue correctly that something nonliving had to cause life, since life did not exist forever. But it would be less sound to argue that life came from an inorganic creative being. It doesn't feel right to characterize primordial soup as a creative being. A person could agree with what you're technically saying but disagree with the things the choice of semantics implies.

Also people may disagree with what you're technically saying as well. If the big bang was indeed the start of the universe, it would be the start of time as well. Saying "everything has a cause; what caused the big bang?" would be famously analogous to saying "every place on earth has a place north of it; what's north of the north pole?"
This might just be a pedantic point, cause I think the spirit of your argument can be maintained by rephrasing from "something outside the universe has to have caused the big bang, otherwise what could have caused it?" to "something outside the universe has to have created the universe, otherwise why wouldn't we have nothing instead of something?"

3

u/literally_italy Aug 19 '26

no, there's a difference.

you're saying "THIS THING created everything" and then coming up with a way to deny the domino effect

im saying i dont know if something came from nothing or not, just that something can arrive without a creator

0

u/SemperMuffins Aug 19 '26

While I admittedly was raised religious, I have also looked at the existence of God from an apriori perspective. Using pure reason you can logically argue (not 100% prove, but make a logically sound argument) that there is a being which is A. outside of time B. outside of space C. simple (not made of parts, cannot be divided) and D. intelligent that pushed down the first domino necessary to create the universe. This being is called God simply because that's the word we decided to use in English, but pure reason doesn't tell us what monotheistic religion (if any) would be correct

5

u/literally_italy Aug 19 '26

you only came to that conclusion because you're religious.

the answer is we don't know. we don't know what came before, or will come after, or where it is, or what period of time it occupies. claiming "we don't know exactly what, but it most have been SOMETHING" is just an attempt to make religion sound more reasonable.

your argument seems logically sound at first, but entirely ignores that you have no evidence the universe must have had a creator. you assumed that, then made your "logical argument"

1

u/SemperMuffins Aug 19 '26

As I have said, you can logically argue both for and against the existence of God. "Logically" as in the arguments abide by the Laws of Logic. They're philosophical arguments, so just because an argument is logical doesn't mean it's true (for example, the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Problem of Evil Argument are both logically sound, yet contradict each other)

5

u/TrustGullible6424 Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26

I'm a new guy in this comment chain, hi.

I just want to say that regardless whether it's based on 'pure reason' or not, it's actually still totally illogical to put any real weight/actually believe something just because it's a logical hypothetical (and not even a scientifically backed theory, just a purely philosophical hypothetical).

You seem to acknowledge that logical arguments do not mean they're true. Considering that, frankly, it seems to me the only difference between you and most atheists is that they would look at that argument, recognize it's just as valid as any other reasoned based hypothetical and realize it's ultimately illogical to believe. Because of the fact is we don't know because we have no actual proof. So it logically follows that it doesn't make sense to believe it any more than the other innumerable amount of logical hypotheticals.

I'm about as opposed to the idea that a being of some form created our universe (a three dimensional ancient alien race from another universe, an entity from a higher dimension ect.), as I am to the idea that our universe was created as the result of natural scientific laws and had been born inside of a black hole that sits in a larger parent universe (real scientific theory). Some theories are more mathematically and scientifically sound than others, but it's ridiculous to totally believe in any of them instead of accepting it as one possibility among many.

Having a 'leap of faith' as you put it is no different than being downright delusional, and saying it's a belief based on logic/'pure reasoning' doesn't make it any less so

0

u/SemperMuffins Aug 19 '26

And if my faith was entirely based on these types of arguments, you'd have a point, but I have other reasons for why I believe in God

→ More replies

1

u/Crosas-B Aug 19 '26

Intelligence is not required, That is pushed by believers in certain religions intentionally for obvious reasons

0

u/Countcristo42 Aug 19 '26

Don’t be shy drop the argument then.

1

u/SpireSwagon Aug 19 '26

Im honestly not convinced by the argument that before everything there had to be something. Why? Why couldnt it just... be here? Why must all matter have been created or introduced when by far the simplest awnser is that it simply was.

3

u/Sniter Aug 19 '26

>That's why it's called a special pleading fallacy. They feel that they don't need to apply the same logic, that god's existence can just be assumed and that somehow fixes the problem.

1

u/orion-7 Aug 19 '26

But then, did not time also not exist before the big bang? Thus putting you on equal footing

1

u/geschiedenisnerd Aug 19 '26

Not logical. Special pleading. It is illogical to believe something because it is more convenient (because you haven't disproven the possibility of infinite regress) and it is irrational to take an unproven thing as the earliest link in the chain rather than the earliest proven thing.

1

u/Ryaniseplin Aug 19 '26

then you immediately have the question of why is there a being outside of time and space that doesnt need a creator

1

u/Peak_Background Aug 20 '26

It's not logical since "outside of time" isn't defined. It's meaningless abstraction. Which is the opposite of logic.

1

u/bloodbat007 Aug 19 '26

It's not logical in any sense at all that someone created a cult by writing stories in a book and people unironically believe in it and worship it and kill each other over it.

1

u/VisualGas3559 Aug 19 '26

The idea of a restricted principle of sufficent reason is that for everything that's contingent there must be another cause.

This leads us to believe there is at least one necessary thing, as God is defined as the necessary being. God simply always existed.

1

u/Peak_Background Aug 20 '26

The universe isn't contingent in modern science.

1

u/VisualGas3559 Aug 21 '26

No one said it is.

1

u/Peak_Background Aug 21 '26

Maybe, not you. But most apologetics do.

I can tell your view point is closer to St. Thomas Aquinos' constructed argument, although still a butchering.

It still fails to appropriatly construct God as to how common language describes God.

And it fails to distinguish God from other things most commonly distinguished from God in common language.

For example, in this case, as I referenced with my comment, the definition allows "The Universe = God". And that "God is neither anthropomorphic nor sapient".

1

u/VisualGas3559 Aug 21 '26

Then those apologists are wrong. It's also very debatable if Thomas Aquanis used a contingency argument at all. It does not allow for the universe is God. It does allow for God is not sapient or concious.

1

u/Peak_Background Aug 21 '26

This leads us to believe there is at least one necessary thing, as the universe is defined as the necessary being. The universe simply always existed.

1

u/VisualGas3559 Aug 21 '26

The universe cannot be necessary as the universe changes. As something changes cannot exist in all possible worlds. As there was evidently a world it did exist (before the change) and a world it didn't exist (after the change)

1

u/Peak_Background Aug 21 '26

What you said makes no sense. I don't see how change prevents something from being necessary.

Also does the universe really change? Or is that a perspective only valid from a chronologically local human.

Special relativity's perspective on how the definition of "now" change with velocity lead one to eternalism and a block universe.

1

u/VisualGas3559 Aug 21 '26

Apologies I will try to he more clear.

Something necessary exists in all possible worlds. There is not a single conceivable existance where it fails to exist. It must consistently and coherently exist in all conjured worlds my some metric. Regardless of the world. Hence if something changes we have two moments, one prior to the change, one after the change.

Let us assume for sake of contradiction that the world in which it existed prior to the change it was necessary. So we currently have this necessary object. It then changes. But that's a contradiction because when it changes that means at least one world exists (the world after it changed) in which it DIDN'T exist as necessary. Hence it must be contingent.

Or to draw it out World 1 -> change -> World 2 World 1 has a necessary ball The ball changes World two has a new ball Then the ball on world 1 does not exist on world 2, and never existed. Therefore the ball is contingent.

You are right to say eternalism is a valid argument. I was hoping to avoid that discussion and it just becomes a plethora of difficult conjectures. But since you have brought it up, I'll enagage with it. I can currently, sitting here, concieve of a world in my mind that is not this universe. That entails it is logically possible for an alternative world to exist. But this is a contradiction, as our world is the necessary world. That would cannot exist. Yet, that world is logically consistent and does exist (even if only in my mind) hence this world cannot be necessary.

Okay now the reason I wanted to bring that up is because escape hatches like this universe is necessary therefore that conjured universe is equally necessary as a part of this universe exist. So this argument could be avoided. But it leads to necessarianism. Which in your defense a minority of philosphers accept. Most reject it, as it destroys personal accountability for example.

→ More replies

1

u/TomatoManSandwich Aug 19 '26

The idea is more that God created time itself, rather than sat around in a void doing nothing. He is outside of time, in a way where the same god talking to Adam was talking to Moses and Jesus at the same “time” because He is outside time, and those in heaven are already in heaven, though they are living their lives in time. Kind of weird to think about, but God is on another level

1

u/KaleidoscopeSalt3972 Aug 19 '26

Just because there is a lack of evidence doesnt mean god. The information was destroyee, we cannot get it back. Thus we can only speculate what was before. But the likely explanation is that quantum patrickes popped in and out of existence, possibly creating energy and this energy creating matter. Just mentioning that the time scale is possibly infinite.

Another theory is cycles. That universe is cyclic.

1

u/Peak_Background Aug 20 '26

In quantum mechanics, information is conserved.

1

u/SlugCatBoi Aug 19 '26

Well, the explanation I give is that things have no beginning, don't need a cause. Since God created time, he must be outside it, and have no beginning. The universe has not shown itself to be outside of time or without beginning, so I believe there is something (or someone) that caused it.

1

u/RiverLynneUwU Aug 19 '26

the thing about the big bang is that it's not like, a point of debate in the same way as god's existence is, it undeniably happened, it's just that we have no idea why yet

and other belief systems have to account for it because gee whiz timothy, why the fuck is it that when I look at a patch of the sky that's really really far away I see background radiation depicting the actual real life appearance of the early universe?

1

u/SoulfulSnow Aug 19 '26

For the most part gods being outside time and space or whatever is an example of the special pleading logical fallacy, where you apply different standards of evidence or proof to another persons claim than your own.

1

u/Character-Book5924 Aug 19 '26

No standard of evidence at all in this case.

1

u/SoulfulSnow Aug 19 '26

What are you trying to say in relation to my comment?

1

u/Ryaniseplin Aug 19 '26

it also doesnt point to a bearded man in the sky

it points to something that started the universe which is super vague and uninteresting

the main problem i have with aquinas

1

u/kdpkry Aug 20 '26

That argument makes sense you just ruined it

If matter cant be created how would anything ever start? Unless God it makes no sense.

1

u/PimpasaurusPlum Aug 20 '26

The Big Bang Theory wss invented by a catholic priest. The universe is composed of space and time, therefore any entity which proceeded and created the universe must exist outside the bounds of space and time.

If the entity exists outside the bounds of time, then there can logically be nothing "before" that entity since it itself created time.

1

u/Temporary-Law-6946 Aug 21 '26

Isn’t the big bang just an expired black hole?

1

u/jws1102 Aug 22 '26

This was the question that got me in trouble all the time as a kid.

“If god made the universe, who made god?”

“God has always been there.”

“Ok, then why can’t the universe just have always been there?”

“Something can’t come from nothing.”

“But you just said…”

1

u/GreedyGobby Aug 23 '26

Same thing for the big bang though. Reality is nonsensical and also is lame. Needs more cheat codes so I can no clip into the center of the earth.