Why do religious people make the most self-refuting arguments?

[Tenres]

Saw this post from @yandex99 where he posted a video from a Christian trying to disprove evolution.



Ignoring the completely erroneous appeals to science, the central argument is that there is not empirical evidence of life coming from non-life. That is, even though we know life exists, there's no empirical for the exact process that is posited by scientists. Now for some reason, because we don't know exactly how life formed, we should assume that the basis is a supernatural being which is by definition empirically unprovable. If there is no evidence of life from non-life, then there is also no evidence of life from non-life being done through a teological process.

Moreover, the context is that life does exist and changes through processes of duplication, gene transfer, hybridization, and mutation, so the most reasonable induction you can make is that the way we changed in the past was also by the same / similar process as we are changing today. So we have observable evidence, as he agreed, in changes from natural selection, but none for changes from supernatural causes. If we have evidence for this, then it's immediately the more grounded hypothesis.

There are some good religious arguments, but whenever they try to make arguments like this it fails horrendously. If you're religious, rely on arguments about consciousness, first causes, whatever else but this shit is so bad.

 

[mcmentalonthemic]

I'm tired of religious and atheist threads on offtopic ngl, I would genuinely rather sit through a 3 hour english lesson than discuss religion with orcels

 

[cooIguy]

we ALL posted this typa thread at least once trying to be high iq

 

[Tenres]

I'm tired of religious and atheist threads on offtopic ngl, I would genuinely rather sit through a 3 hour english lesson than discuss religion with orcels

I'm just postmaxxing and thought it would be a good thing to write up. Its water if you're not retarded but its better than doing nothing

 

[Tenres]

we ALL posted this typa thread at least once trying to be high iq

Add to the conversation you retarded subhuman animal. Black ass nigger

 

[cooIguy]

Add to the conversation you retarded subhuman animal. Black ass nigger

 

[Informationcapitali]

@Clavicular

 

[yandex99]

 

[Tenres]

Guy's probably a troll tbh, I respect it.

 

[yandex99]

Guy's probably a troll tbh, I respect it.

Quantum physics accepts God

Biologists have no say In matters of physics

 

[brotato78]

we ALL posted this typa thread at least once trying to be high iq

Who’s we

 

[Tenres]

Quantum physics accepts God

Biologists have no say In matters of physics

Where was quantum physics ever mentioned?

 

[Deleted member 274700]

Your threads are based and true.
But at the end of day let the masses sip on their opium. The world needs useful idiots like them.
(The founding fathers were extremely based with separation of church and state in America).

 

[cooIguy]

Who’s we

me and you brotato

 

[carljung]

god is real. cry in hell fag. fuck you and your science

 

[Tenres]

god is real. cry in hell fag. fuck you and your science

So do you have any argument retard, if you are against science (process of empirical testing and verification) then you can make an appeal to rationality? Do you perhaps worship the Jewish rabbi, or the Arabic Warlord? Admittedly, if its the latter, you can at least claim to be a man.

Edit: Some basic challenges, produce a theodicy that isn't contradicted by the fact heaven exists with simultaneously 0 suffering and free will. Explain why belief in different religions is geographically dependent, therefore making your fate (you believe this) completely dependent on where and when you were born. Justify why we can't find ''God'' in his creations, that is, in nature, but instead find it in man-made religious institutions and fallible clergy.

Have fun pussy.

 

[JasGews69x]

Dnr
N*ggas being atheists in 2025

 

[carljung]

So do you have any argument retard, if you are against science (process of empirical testing and verification) then you can make an appeal to rationality? Do you perhaps worship the Jewish rabbi, or the Arabic Warlord? Admittedly, if its the latter, you can at least claim to be a man.

Edit: Some basic challenges, produce a theodicy that isn't contradicted by the fact heaven exists with simultaneously 0 suffering and free will. Explain why belief in different religions is geographically dependent, therefore making your fate (you believe this) completely dependent on where and when you were born. Justify why we can't find ''God'' in his creations, that is, in nature, but instead find it in man-made religious institutions and fallible clergy.

Have fun pussy.

god is real nigga. regardless of what your jew sciences tell you. shove that empirical evidence up your ass lol. i dont need to prove it. and you dont need to believe but guess what he is still real. i dont debate atheist faggots.

 

[subhuman1996]

OP be like

 

[Tenres]

god is real nigga. regardless of what your jew sciences tell you. shove that empirical evidence up your ass lol. i dont need to prove it. and you dont need to believe but guess what he is still real. i dont debate atheist faggots.

Natural philosophy and logic developed by Europeans is not Jewish, but Jesus was, without question.

 

[Tenres]

Dnr
N*ggas being atheists in 2025

Do you worship a Jew too? How many Jewish dicks are you sucking weekly? How does it feel to be the best goy?

 

[JasGews69x]

Do you worship a Jew too? How many Jewish dicks are you sucking weekly? How does it feel to be the best goy?

No goofy
I dont believe the Universe came from nothing...Unlike you

 

[Tenres]

No goofy
I dont believe the Universe came from nothing...Unlike you

Yes, but you do believe in an eternal, personal being who created the universe, so I can just posit an eternal, impersonal being. Or an eternal, personal, being, that is not defined by organized religion.

 

[JasGews69x]

Yes, but you do believe in an eternal, personal being who created the universe, so I can just posit an eternal, impersonal being. Or an eternal, personal, being, that is not defined by organized religion.

Ok
but which one do you choose?
you seem to be on the fence about this

 

[Tenres]

Ok
but which one do you choose?
you seem to be on the fence about this

Well we have no context about what exists outside our universe or even a complete understanding of what's in it, so I wouldn't make a claim. If I had to guess though, I would say that things have always existed, and that non-existence merely a concept, given that non-existence is impossible to demonstrate, and if things have always existed, then things have always fallen into order and out of order.

 

[JasGews69x]

Well we have no context about what exists outside our universe or even a complete understanding of what's in it, so I wouldn't make a claim. If I had to guess though, I would say that things have always existed, and that non-existence merely a concept, given that non-existence is impossible to demonstrate, and if things have always existed, then things have always fallen into order and out of order.

So the 'Universe' is eternal?

 

[Tenres]

So the 'Universe' is eternal?

Sure. Why not?

 

[JasGews69x]

Sure. Why not?

ok
Because traversing an infinite past is impossible
Its like typing an infinite amount letters with a keyboard - would you ever stop typing and send a reply?

If the Universe was Eternal , it would have reached maximum entropy but since but we observe usable energy, stars burning meaning entropy has not maxed out. which means the Universe has a beginning.

The Universe is expanding and is 93 billion light years across, if it was Eternal it would be infinite in size but since its not which points to a finite universe which means it has beginning.

Logically and scientifically, everything indicates a finite universe not a Infinite universe.

Since the Universe has a beginning, it has a cause...

 

[Tenres]

ok
Because traversing an infinite past is impossible
Its like typing an infinite amount letters with a keyboard - would you ever stop typing and send a reply?

If the Universe was Eternal , it would have reached maximum entropy but since but we observe usable energy, stars burning meaning entropy has not maxed out. which means the Universe has a beginning.

The Universe is expanding and is 93 billion light years across, if it was Eternal it would be infinite in size but since its not which points to a finite universe which means it has beginning.

Logically and scientifically, everything indicates a finite universe not a Infinite universe.

Since the Universe has a beginning, it has a cause...

The universe started expanding at a finite point which explains everything you said about entropy, yet did not come into existence at a finite point. It starting to expand, does not prove a true beginning. That is, that the universe came from nothing into something.

Edit: existent --> existence

 

[JasGews69x]

The universe started expanding at a finite point which explains everything you said about entropy, yet did not come into existent at a finite point. It starting to expand, does not prove a true beginning. That is, that the universe came from nothing into something.

So you're saying the materials that expanded into the Universe is Eternal but it started expanding for no reason?
A change in the universe’s expansion indicates there was something that caused that change.

Expansion is not a unbroken process, this means that it began, slowed, and later increased. Every change in a system requires a previous condition/mechanism, so the shift from non-expanding to expanding cant happen in an eternal and causeless universe.

And because the beginning of expansion involves setting precise starting conditions, it indicates to a mind/intentional cause behind that change.

This all proves a beginning...saying it doesnt prove a 'true beginning' is meaningless

 

[takethewhitepill]

Nigga really said erroneous

 

[Tenres]

So you're saying the materials that expanded into the Universe is Eternal but it started expanding for no reason?
A change in the universe’s expansion indicates there was something that caused that change.

Expansion is not a unbroken process, this means that it began, slowed, and later increased. Every change in a system requires a previous condition/mechanism, so the shift from non-expanding to expanding cant happen in an eternal and causeless universe.

And because the beginning of expansion involves setting precise starting conditions, it indicates to a mind/intentional cause behind that change.

This all proves a beginning...saying it doesnt prove a 'true beginning' is meaningless

A causeless universe indicates an unending sequences of cause and effect, not that there can be no isolated cause and effect within the chain. Only that the chain has no finite start and end. This does not mean that the infinite system can not have internal dynamics that change its form.

You have no way of knowing this, because we have no way of knowing how many times the universe has expanded or collapsed, without that, then any claim that the universe ending up in this way is unlikely is completely unfounded as we do not know the number of trials. Nor do we know the mechanism behind which the universe started to expand. So you lack any context to say the conditions are indicative of an agent.

 

[Tenres]

So you're saying the materials that expanded into the Universe is Eternal but it started expanding for no reason?
A change in the universe’s expansion indicates there was something that caused that change.

Expansion is not a unbroken process, this means that it began, slowed, and later increased. Every change in a system requires a previous condition/mechanism, so the shift from non-expanding to expanding cant happen in an eternal and causeless universe.

And because the beginning of expansion involves setting precise starting conditions, it indicates to a mind/intentional cause behind that change.

This all proves a beginning...saying it doesnt prove a 'true beginning' is meaningless

Out of necessity, the mind that created the universe must be causeless. And in that case, why is the mind not under the same scrutiny?

 

[JasGews69x]

A causeless universe indicates an unending sequences of cause and effect, not that there can be no isolated cause and effect within the chain. Only that the chain has no finite start and end. This does not mean that the infinite system can not have internal dynamics that change its form.

No, a causeless universe doesnt indicate an infinite cause and effect.
If the chain has no start or end then there would be an infinite regress which is impossible.

Stars form and die, galaxies collide, and cosmic structures change over time - all internal dynamics within a finite system.
Everything in the universe proves it is finite and not an infinite system.

You have no way of knowing this, because we have no way of knowing how many times the universe has expanded or collapsed, without that, then any claim that the universe ending up in this way is unlikely is completely unfounded as we do not know the number of trials. Nor do we know the mechanism behind which the universe started to expand. So you lack any context to say the conditions are indicative of an agent.

It doesnt matter - what i do know that an amount of infinite big bangs are impossible.
The present moment proves it has a finite amount of 'expansions' which means there is a cause to it.

Yeah we do know - something that can cause expansion.
The Universe either:
-Came from nothing - which is impossible since there is nothing to come out of
-Created itself - which is a contradiction since if you create yourself, you would already be there so there is no need to create yourself
-Is Eternal - which i have refuted

-Came from something external to itself which has Power/knowledge/Eternal/Choice which is what people refer to as God

I just gave context to indicate an agent

Out of necessity, the mind that created the universe must be causeless. And in that case, why is the mind not under the same scrutiny?

Because in infinite regress is impossible which would lead us nowhere again

 

[Tenres]

No, a causeless universe doesnt indicate an infinite cause and effect.
If the chain has no start or end then there would be an infinite regress which is impossible.

Stars form and die, galaxies collide, and cosmic structures change over time - all internal dynamics within a finite system.
Everything in the universe proves it is finite and not an infinite system.

An infinite sequence does not contradict any of the laws of logic. It is not contradictory to think that before us, there have been an infinite amount of temporal successions, and that it will continue without end. If time were not to exist, then there would be nothing to cause it, because causality is temporal by nature. Causality can only be understood when there is a temporal relation between two objects (at one point, this happened, and in the next, that happened). So, for there to be a start to time is a contradiction. Therefore, time has always existed.

There can be changes to an infinite system according to internal dynamics. So, as long as the system itself is ordered, then the system can alter itself without relying on an internal mind.

It doesnt matter - what i do know that an amount of infinite big bangs are impossible.
The present moment proves it has a finite amount of 'expansions' which means there is a cause to it.

I agree, however, you still are making an unfounded assertion because we are local to the system, and are limited by our understanding. If the universe does have a cause, then it is from a system that is not local to our system. So enforcing your epistemology onto is incoherent. To claim that it must be a mind is therefore incoherent.

The Universe either:
-Came from nothing - which is impossible since there is nothing to come out of
-Created itself - which is a contradiction since if you create yourself, you would already be there so there is no need to create yourself
-Is Eternal - which i have refuted

-Came from something external to itself which has Power/knowledge/Eternal/Choice which is what people refer to as God

I just gave context to indicate an agent

You are basing this off the principle of sufficient reason, but even that would only apply if you can prove a cause. Therefore you need to be prove that an infinite regress is incoherent.
--

This will be my last reply of the day. There's so many different ways you could argue either position here but its kind've autistic. I'll pick up tommorow.

 

[JasGews69x]

An infinite sequence does not contradict any of the laws of logic. It is not contradictory to think that before us, there have been an infinite amount of temporal successions, and that it will continue without end.

An infinite sequence is not infinite regression.
Infinities dont exist physically - this is a potential infinite not an actual infinite, it seems like you're conflating the two...

If time were not to exist, then there would be nothing to cause it, because causality is temporal by nature. Causality can only be understood when there is a temporal relation between two objects (at one point, this happened, and in the next, that happened). So, for there to be a start to time is a contradiction. Therefore, time has always existed.

Just because a infinite sequence in math is coherent doesn’t mean it can manifest in reality. Physical reality has constraints

The argument assumes all types causality is temporal which means cause must precede effect in time.
This ignores non-temporal causality such as metaphysical explanations.
'therefore time has always existed' is just begging the question. It presupposes time is eternal to say time is and always existed.

There can be changes to an infinite system according to internal dynamics. So, as long as the system itself is ordered, then the system can alter itself without relying on an internal mind.

Internal dynamics require constraints or laws, but the claim assumes the system is self contained and ordered without showing why this order is sufficient to guarantee change.
'the system can alter itself without an internal mind'
How?
Self-altering systems still need an explanation for why the laws themselves exist and are consistent. Simply saying that a system “orders itself” doesn’t explain the origin of order - it just is going one step back.
Even infinite systems cannot generate lawful order from nothing a grounding principle seems necessary such as a mind

These systems are still governed by laws - these laws are just descriptions of how reality works.
These laws cant come from inanimate matter by itself , since rocks cant discover or make them. These laws were discovered by humans who do have a mind to discover them.
Therefore,these pre-existing laws were put in place by a pre-existing mind.

agree, however, you still are making an unfounded assertion because we are local to the system, and are limited by our understanding. If the universe does have a cause, then it is from a system that is not local to our system. So enforcing your epistemology onto is incoherent. To claim that it must be a mind is therefore incoherent.

It isnt - i am just extrapolating the necessary attributes required to cause a universe. It isnt forcing epistemology onto you.
I explained earlier why it has a mind.

You are basing this off the principle of sufficient reason, but even that would only apply if you can prove a cause. Therefore you need to be prove that an infinite regress is incoherent.

You're basing the infinite regress on an infinite sequence when they are distinct to each other.
Actual infinities dont exist irl - only in math which i said earlier
I already proved that infinite regress is incoherent

 

[Tenres]

An infinite sequence is not infinite regression.
Infinities dont exist physically - this is a potential infinite not an actual infinite, it seems like you're conflating the two...

What I am defending is an infinite series of causes explained by prior events that are determined by internal dynamics. That is an infinite sequence. Infinite sequences do not contradict any law of logic, you have not demonstrated that. Cantor's set theory uses actual infinity all the time with no problems.

My argument doesn't require infinite space because the causes do not all have to exist simultaneously, in the same way a chain of dominoes does not require the first domino to stay existent after it's already tipped the next and so on. As I have explained also, the observable cosmos started a finite time ago, so a finite cosmos does not contradict an eternal pre-big bang universe.

Just because a infinite sequence in math is coherent doesn’t mean it can manifest in reality. Physical reality has constraints

The argument assumes all types causality is temporal which means cause must precede effect in time.
This ignores non-temporal causality such as metaphysical explanations.
'therefore time has always existed' is just begging the question. It presupposes time is eternal to say time is and always existed.

That is true, but you'd need to demonstrate those constraints exist in a way that contradicts my position.

Timeless causation is incoherent. Whatever the case, you still need an ordered succession of events to say "God wanted to create the universe, then he created the universe."

God cannot be timeless and able to change things, that requires causality which requires duration (even if not measured in the way we would). So if God has changed things, he is not timeless. If he is not timeless, then he has existed forever. Then God has an infinite amount of prior states that were succeeded by the present.

So either God is incoherent or there's an infinite regress which is your counter to my argument.

Self-altering systems still need an explanation for why the laws themselves exist and are consistent. Simply saying that a system “orders itself” doesn’t explain the origin of order - it just is going one step back.
Even infinite systems cannot generate lawful order from nothing a grounding principle seems necessary such as a mind

These systems are still governed by laws - these laws are just descriptions of how reality works.
These laws cant come from inanimate matter by itself , since rocks cant discover or make them. These laws were discovered by humans who do have a mind to discover them.
Therefore,these pre-existing laws were put in place by a pre-existing mind.

They need no more explanation than there is a necessary existence of the universe. This would be the same justification you would have to use for God, that he has always existed, not placed by a pre-existing mind, but because he's a necessary being.


Just a quick conclusion: Things that do not begin to exist, do not require a cause. If the universe did not being to exist, it does not require a cause. We both believe there are things that have always existed without cause (God or the universe), I am committed to an infinite regress of of internal causes, but you are committed to an even more 'absurd' position because you have to either acknowledge an infinite regress of God's states (contradiction of your argument) or defend "timeless causation" which is considered incoherent in philo of time. You're position also presupposes way too many things, much more than mine (which only supposed things that you too suppose, like the ability to always exist out of necessity): you believe an immaterial being can cause a material world + this God can create substance out of nothing.

 

[JasGews69x]

What I am defending is an infinite series of causes explained by prior events that are determined by internal dynamics. That is an infinite sequence. Infinite sequences do not contradict any law of logic, you have not demonstrated that. Cantor's set theory uses actual infinity all the time with no problems.

My argument doesn't require infinite space because the causes do not all have to exist simultaneously, in the same way a chain of dominoes does not require the first domino to stay existent after it's already tipped the next and so on. As I have explained also, the observable cosmos started a finite time ago, so a finite cosmos does not contradict an eternal pre-big bang universe.

Its potential infinite not actual infinite that can manifest in reality...
Ik its logically coherent but the infinite set of natural numbers exists in mathematics, but no physical process or object can contain all numbers.
Cantors concept of actual infinity exists in mathematics, but it doesnt and cant manifest in physical reality, because the universe is finite in its age and will end. No physical process or sequence can express a completed infinite, since there is a beginning and an eventual end to all that exists in the universe which means this set theory is irrelevant.

hat is true, but you'd need to demonstrate those constraints exist in a way that contradicts my position.

Timeless causation is incoherent. Whatever the case, you still need an ordered succession of events to say "God wanted to create the universe, then he created the universe."

God cannot be timeless and able to change things, that requires causality which requires duration (even if not measured in the way we would). So if God has changed things, he is not timeless. If he is not timeless, then he has existed forever. Then God has an infinite amount of prior states that were succeeded by the present.

So either God is incoherent or there's an infinite regress which is your counter to my argument.

Time came in at the big bang which means that the pre-big bang state is incoherent which destroys your position since you said time required to change things

God existing without a beginning(which is what believe) isnt the same as an infinitely prior states existing God which means your argument is not my position.
Nah its not incoherent...you just missed the distinction between them.
God isnt affected by time like we are so when 'time' began He started a temporal relationship with the 'Universe'

Just a quick conclusion: Things that do not begin to exist, do not require a cause. If the universe did not being to exist, it does not require a cause. We both believe there are things that have always existed without cause (God or the universe), I am committed to an infinite regress of of internal causes, but you are committed to an even more 'absurd' position because you have to either acknowledge an infinite regress of God's states (contradiction of your argument) or defend "timeless causation" which is considered incoherent in philo of time. You're position also presupposes way too many things, much more than mine (which only supposed things that you too suppose, like the ability to always exist out of necessity): you believe an immaterial being can cause a material world + this God can create substance out of nothing.

Things that dont being to exist dont need a cause is something i agree with...but all signs show that the universe is finite which you even said.

In its age, the pre big bang state(even if i grant this) CANT be eternal because all the Universe contains will die off which shows that the pre big bang state does not have the property of being eternal which refutes your position.

 

[Tenres]

Its potential infinite not actual infinite that can manifest in reality...
Ik its logically coherent but the infinite set of natural numbers exists in mathematics, but no physical process or object can contain all numbers.
Cantors concept of actual infinity exists in mathematics, but it doesnt and cant manifest in physical reality, because the universe is finite in its age and will end. No physical process or sequence can express a completed infinite, since there is a beginning and an eventual end to all that exists in the universe which means this set theory is irrelevant.

No physical process that you know of, but there are plenty of proposed models of the universe beyond classical GR that suppose an eternal past (e.g., Hartle-Hawking, Steady State Eternal Inflation). Classical physics does not explain the big bang, so there being no classical models by which the universe can be eternal isn't proof of anything beyond that classical physics can not explain it.

Neither of us are physicists, nor am I claiming these models say what I am saying. But it is not clear that an eternal universe is impossible due to non-infinite entropy, even if classical physics would suggest it.

Time came in at the big bang which means that the pre-big bang state is incoherent which destroys your position since you said time required to change things

Philosophically, these is incoherent as an idea. Either the universe truly did pop out of nothing with no cause, which isn't something you agree with, or there was a cause, introducing temporal order (time). Time as defined by classical physics is not defined the same way philosophers due and to be clear, we are both using the philosophical definition as time outside the universe has no meaning in classical physics.

The point is, beginning has no meaning beyond a reference frame of time. So for there to be a beginning you need time.

God isnt affected by time like we are so when 'time' began He started a temporal relationship with the 'Universe

God creates a causal reality by creating the universe and fine tuning it. So inevitably, we have a God that has to be in time such that he can effect things in an asymmetrical way.

In its age, the pre big bang state(even if i grant this) CANT be eternal because all the Universe contains will die off which shows that the pre big bang state does not have the property of being eternal which refutes your position.

Yeah but its only clear that certain things in the universe are finite, or even that the current state is finite. Still wouldn't get to the whole universe being finite in it's entirety.