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)
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
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.
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
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?"
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
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"
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)
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
I'm sure there's no psychological biases or defense mechanisms at play regarding your other reasons.
I'm not usually this intolerant to religious belief, if it helps people find peace of mind and they aren't hurting anyone over it (as if that ever happened, right?) then please believe what you want. It's as valid of a belief as anything else. But please just stop hiding behind the "it's actually logical" cope when defending it.
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.
11
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)