>Atheists must believe in a multi-universe in order to discount the evidence of intelligent design in nature

>Atheists must believe in a multi-universe in order to discount the evidence of intelligent design in nature
>The lack of evidence of God is enough to negate a reasonable belief him, but the lack of evidence for a multi-verse is sufficient for belief in such.
>mfw atheists rely on faith as much as theists do.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    must believe in a multi-universe in order to discount the evidence of intelligent design in nature
    multiverse theory has nothing to do with intelligent design, our current univserse is largely inhospitable to life aside from Earth

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >multiverse theory has nothing to do with intelligent design
      In order to account for the fine tuning that is found within Stars that enables them to create elements or in the fine tuning found in the human cell, the extreme rarity for all these, it is not sufficient to say all of these things happened to occur by random chance UNLESS they employ the mult-verse theory, which states that if there were an infinite number of universes withh different laws, one is inevitably bound to encompass what was needed for life in our universe.
      Infinite universes = enough possibility for randomness to create the necessary conditions of life.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >he has faith in le scientists

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        no it isnt.
        i love that theists primary method of argument has become to make a fake version of atheists arguments thats fricking stupid. Because the actual arguments atheists make are too hard to argue against.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          atheists employing the multiverse argument is the only way they can write off intelligent design, do you have an argument or just cope?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            See

            must believe in a multi-universe in order to discount the evidence of intelligent design in nature

            No they don't, intelligent design ignores the survivorship bias

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >survivorship bias
            doesn't account for how "randomness" is incapable of providing countless goldy locks zones and conditions without a multiverse

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes it is, nature simply uses trial and error to discover those, and we don't see all the times when one of those wasn't discovered

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why wouldn't it be?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            because things had to work out perfectly for us to end up existing, early conditions of the universe, stars creating elements that remain stable, the complexity of cellular information, to say these things just "happened by chance" is really grasping at straws, so much so, that you have to consider infinite universes more plausible than so many things happening by chance.
            >how many times will you flip a coin and have it land on heads before you ask yourself if the coin is rigged?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >because things had to work out perfectly for us to end up existing
            That's rather meaningless. Might as well say things had to "work out perfectly" for some random rock to exist. I suppose in some sense, that's also true, but you wouldn't say that because you think the rock's existence is irrelevant and banal, whereas our existence is super duper important, but it's actually not, and is no more important than the rock's existence.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >a person is no more important than a random rock
            Least nihilistic atheist.
            But yeah, humans beings existing is just part of the argument

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >a person is no more important than a random rock
            Yes. That's objectively true and you have no ability whatsoever to advance the opposite statement using reason and scientific evidence.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >i can throw a rock in a volcano and no one cares
            >i can throw a commie out of a helicopter into a volcano and no one cares
            Hey, I guess you're actually right.dh

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Once again, that just looks at all the winners of evolution, and completely ignores all the elements that didn't turn out to be stable, and all the life forms that failed miserably. All intelligent design is, is just intentionally ignoring all these failures and then crafting a story how the success was 'just meant to be' or due to 'hard work and morality'. Rich people do the exact same shit to justify their wealth, when a lot of them are rich because of plain dumb luck

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Once again, that just looks at all the winners of evolution
            I think you misunderstand astronomical improbability of such conditions

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's irrelevant how improbable you imagine it is; it happened, so the improbable dice roll is the one that happened. Just get over it, I guess.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it happened
            that's the point. Occams razor would rather have an intelligent designer or a multiverse than your "randomness" theory

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not really, since an infinite mind that picks sides in desert skirmishes isn't exactly simple

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >strawman
            Neo-classical theism and rational theology in general has nothing to do with Christianity. (Not to say that they are incompatible)

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Gibberish

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You admit that a more simple explanation would be a designer or multiverse instead of randomness.
            You can become a theist via your own reason.
            You don't have to bring up muh desert skirmishes because it's not applicable to the conversation we were having, moron.

            >israelite worshiper views his moronic wiener snipper fairy tales as ultimate truth
            >thinks not only is it intellectually valid but that it should be forced on those who don't worship israelites

            Jesus opposed circumcision

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You admit that a more simple explanation would be a designer or multiverse instead of randomness.

            No? Like I've been saying for multiple times now, a designer ignores the survivorship bias. Also, no explanation is given for the existence of this designer, and it's mostly just a pathetic attempt to push your religion back onto the intellectual stage it got laughed off of. Most 'intelligent design' is literally Protestantism with pseudo-scientific jargon

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The designer needs to be finetuned for creating exactly the world we are in, moron. It's not a solution at all.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why would the infinitely intelligent source of everything (God) need to be fine tuned?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because it needs to produce the exact results that you see, you absolute sub-80IQ moron.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Occam's razor is dumb.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is a fallacy but a useful one.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, because the sample that that 'astronomical probability' is based upon, just contains all the winners. This makes it a hopelessly biased sample, and completely useless as a statistic to derive any conclusion from

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >it is not sufficient to say all of these things happened to occur by random chance
        Yes it is.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        That is to say that fine tuning is even a thing. It could be an illusion as far as we know.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why do you need to believe there is a multi-verse just because you don't believe in a god creating this one?

        >fine tuning
        not a scientific term and totally subjective

        thread/

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >le god real/no real thread #72826825282929651
    tiresome

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      why aren't these threads banned

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because they are the only posts that generate traffic on this slow ass board. The religious and atheist shit flingers have effectively driven out all of the posters who originally discussed history. Mods don't delete these insanely spammed and redundant threads because otherwise 90% of the board would be dead.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          where else can we have a coherent discussion of history? Obviously religion and theism is important to history and philosophy.
          Obviously /misc/ is not the place for such discussions.
          We can't discuss religion on Oyish because they focus on the empirical.
          Oyish is mostly for discussing specific doctrines.
          So Oyish is the place to argue about religion, you don't have to be a homosexual about it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So Oyish is the place to argue about religion, you don't have to be a homosexual about it.
            Kek nobody discusses doctrine or religious historiography here. It's always
            >if God real why do I get rejected on dating apps
            >if God no real, why do atheists like poopdick?

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Atheists must believe in a multi-universe
    No
    >in order to discount the evidence of intelligent design in nature
    There's none

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >>in order to discount the evidence of intelligent design in nature
      >There's none
      yes there is, and anyone being honest would say so

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >anyone being honest would say so
        two can play that game: only morons believe in intelligent design.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the evidence: I don’t understand [thing] therefore a magic man made it

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't get the strawman of
      >all this proof of God exists and you deny it because you want to be an atheist!
      Man I desperately wish I could believe in some kind of higher power or meaning. But there is zero evidence. There is zero indication of anything special at all about reality.

      no it isnt.
      i love that theists primary method of argument has become to make a fake version of atheists arguments thats fricking stupid. Because the actual arguments atheists make are too hard to argue against.

      I submit that the size and age of THIS universe is sufficient for the application of the anthropic principle. Not only is this possible within the established scientific framework it's practically axiomatic.

      So shut the frick up you illiterate christ Black person.

      >Darwin doesn't explain the origin of the Universe, for that, I invoke the anthropic principle and the multiverse t. Richard Dawkins

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        cool I dont agree with dawkins, thankfully there is no book that dictates my orthodoxy so my point is as valid as his since we have the same amount of proof.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I submit that the size and age of THIS universe is sufficient for the application of the anthropic principle. Not only is this possible within the established scientific framework it's practically axiomatic.

    So shut the frick up you illiterate christ Black person.

    • 6 months ago
      Ο Σολιταίρ

      oh MY SCIENCE!!
      YES! now go cut your dick off. The established scientific framework says that that's empowering.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >trannies are cringe so evolution is fake

        Nice argument bro.

        • 6 months ago
          Ο Σολιταίρ

          Ben pantera also told his followers to cut their dicks off.

          >science is fake and gay when it challenges my israeli tall tales
          >trannies? c'mon bro, men can't be women, it's basic biological science
          lol

          lol
          okay so you all affirm the "current scientific framework(s)" as currently posited?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't accept anything as truth since there is no relevance in the idea. There is more validancy in the ideas posited by modern science than the falsehoods created by israeli fools written on papyrus

          • 6 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            either way it's israeli fools it seems

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Most modern science is done by European men you delusional israelite. israelites have contributed little of value to science.

          • 6 months ago
            Ο Σολιταίρ

            okay so multiverse theory is NOT a israelite myth?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Of course it is like most cosmology
            Big bang also seems very unlikely or even impossible
            Just because israelites use modern science to create new religons doesn't mean much

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I take it you have cut your dick off as yeshua commanded?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Ben pantera also told his followers to cut their dicks off.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >science is fake and gay when it challenges my israeli tall tales
        >trannies? c'mon bro, men can't be women, it's basic biological science
        lol

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        but Anon, I'm not a christian, I don't have to accept and welcome trannies into my community

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        You have to love and pray for those people as per your own doctrine. But you won't because you're just another right wing grifter who cited the parts where gays go to hell and wipes his ass with the parts of the bible inconvenient with your political stance, which you believe in more than you believe in God himself.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        based

        https://i.imgur.com/4Je7KHL.jpg

        >Atheists must believe in a multi-universe in order to discount the evidence of intelligent design in nature
        >The lack of evidence of God is enough to negate a reasonable belief him, but the lack of evidence for a multi-verse is sufficient for belief in such.
        >mfw atheists rely on faith as much as theists do.

        Yeah it’s strange how modern science is becoming more lolcow’y than Christian tards. I miss the old days

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ben pantera told his followers to eat excrement. Nasty!

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    But muh quantum foam! Muh Marvel Multiverse of Madness! Muh infinite contractions and expansions! Muh monkey morality!

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't get the strawman of
    >all this proof of God exists and you deny it because you want to be an atheist!
    Man I desperately wish I could believe in some kind of higher power or meaning. But there is zero evidence. There is zero indication of anything special at all about reality.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I desperately wish I could believe in some kind of higher power or meaning
      You could, you just choose not to.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Look at your wall right now which I assume will be white as walls are typically painted white. Convince yourself that it is painted black. Fully convince yourself. Then I will admit God is real.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          What evidence do you have that God is not real?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What evidence do you have that your wall is not painted black? It could actually be black and you simply refuse to have faith that whitr is black. Oh ye of little faith, can you not even tell me white is black?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're looking at a white wall and saying "The wall is black. I have no evidence the wall is black but prove to me without me looking at the evidence that the wall is white. You're stupid for thinking the wall is actually white when I can see with my eyes closed that it is black."

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            How many spoonfuls of poo did you eat after the fifth one today, as jeshua ben pantera commanded?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      This, i think if religious people could atleast all agree on one religion that could be enough for me. But with zero evidence and a dozen major religions all with parallel beliefs. Its simply not rational to believe.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      yeah religious people don't understand that the overly optimistic positions they hold about existence is exactly why I'm skeptical. Deists are more understandable in this regard.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Deism isn't comforting in any way
        Assume there is a Creator Being, some type of entity which is the cause of reality.
        Unlike religion this is in no way optimistic vompared to a lack of such being. What evidence do we haveto go on that this entity has beliefs or predispositions? If it has motivations they could be everything humans consider evil, or incomprehensible in an alien way that yet results only in human suffering by coincidence. Certainly there would be no evidence it is something worthy of praise rather than condemnation, love rather than hate. Without religion there is no basis to even call this entity God as there is no axiomatic proof of authority, it is in a moral sense equal to us just more powerful. So all we havesaid is there is an alien power that created everything and might be an evil insane being which loves our suffering as likely as anything.

        Deism is a cop out

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Calvinism or deism are the only denominations compatible with the current paradigms of reality as understood by skeptics. Many deists hold the opinion that God(s) exists, the universe was created, and bad thing happen because he doesn't want to be a celestial janny.
          Calvinism sidesteps every question that gets thrown at them by atheists with, "because God said so".

          everything else is cope and mental gymnastics

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Calvinism has zero proof or evidence to suggest an afterlife exists it is schizo tier

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >intelligent design
    The universe itself is this, comparing life to the universe and calling life intelligent design is extremely moronic

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a theist but I really do not understand the fine tuning argument, it doesn't intuitively feel like the smoking gun in the same way that the cosmological argument does so I must be missing something

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Cosmological argument is stupid but I'm not going to explain basic philosophy to you
      Read a book
      Even the fricking indians dismissed the argument thousands of years ago

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      No scientist would claim to know the preponderance of reality. So how does the fine tuning argument make any sense when we have zero idea of the size of anything.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    must believe in a multi-universe in order to discount the evidence of intelligent design in nature

    No they don't, intelligent design ignores the survivorship bias

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    must believe in a multi-universe in order to discount the evidence of intelligent design in nature
    There's no evidence of intelligent design in nature, and a "multi-universe" isn't any less plausible than ""intelligent design"".

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    None of that is necessary.
    For the answer to how the universe came to be for an atheist's perspective it can be unknown. Which is intellectually honest.
    Scientists have ideas and they are the ones taking interest in figuring it out. It rightly should be left to scientist to figure out.

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    must believe in a multi-universe in order to discount the evidence of intelligent design in nature
    No we don't

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >israelite worshiper views his moronic wiener snipper fairy tales as ultimate truth
    >thinks not only is it intellectually valid but that it should be forced on those who don't worship israelites

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Do you rely on faith that there's no leprechauns?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, what level is your reading comprehension at?

  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >evidence of intelligent design means the magic israelite in the sky is real
    egocentric christian cope, Gaia anf Uranus created the universe.

  17. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    they also rely on the idea of big bang/heliocentrism/evolution/globe earth being true, despite lacking any evidence whatsoever

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >globe earth lacking any evidence
      >he says this when people back in fricking antiquity have not only been able to not only determine the earth is round, but even get a rough estimate of its size

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        idea that people in antiquity determined that earth was round is a meme
        memes are not evidence
        try again

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          forgot the pic

  18. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can be an atheist and still believe in intelligent design.

  19. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The problem is, the intelligent design/fine tuned universe model doesn't get you very far. The logical jump from 'the universe has been created' to belief in this desert god or that elephant divinity is vast and completely unjustifiable.

  20. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    EVERYBODY SHUT THE FRICK UP
    >EVERYBODY SHUT THE FRICK UP
    EVERYBODY SHUT THE FRICK UP
    >EVERYBODY SHUT THE FRICK UP

    Suppose the universe was created by God.
    Why did God create it the way it is?
    And why is God the way he is?
    These questions are relevant even if we don't know which god is the true one.
    If you think about it for one nanosecond, the probability that God is the way he is in the order of one ligmallionth.
    Since rare random events never happen randomly, it could only mean one of two things:
    1. There are infinitely many parallel ever-so-slightly-differing gods who each created their own ever-so-slightly different universe with each their own life;
    2. God was intelligently designed by an infinitely wise creator.
    But alternative 1 is basically a cope for people who don't want to accept the truth, so 2 simply HAS TO BE TRUE!
    It henceforth follows from the fundamental laws of probability that all non-believers in God-God are COPING moronS.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *