You can't prove the existence of god

[Deleted member 6583]

I'm an agnostic atheist, and I'm issuing a challenge to anyone who thinks they can defend the existence of God. Especially if you belong to the Abrahamic faiths, I've got some questions that will really make you think twice.

Ever read Deuteronomy 21:18-21? It's a gem that prescribes stoning a rebellious son. Or how about the permission of slavery in both the Bible and the Quran? These 'holy' books claim moral high ground yet champion archaic and cruel practices.

So, to all the devout Christians, Muslims, and other religious folks: if you're up for defending not just the existence of God, but the moral underpinnings of your faith, step right up. But beware, my arguments are razor-sharp and thoroughly researched.

If you're not ready to question the validity and morality of your beliefs, you might as well avoid this thread. Otherwise, bring your best arguments. This be should cagefuel.

Tagging low IQ religious people:
@skorp
@EXTREME SUBHUMAN

 

[thenewhebbe]

This wouldnt disprove god and just assuming your morality on the creator

 

[Deleted member 20835]

There is no point arguing with religious people.

 

[apocalypse]

water

 

[thickdickdaddy27]

It's a belief after all

 

[try2beme]

 

[Guba]

"Atheists" truly are the most low IQ retards to ever tread this earth. Imagine thinking you're an "atheist" while blindly believing the garbage coming out of the mouths of Jew and Freemason "scientists". Imagine thinking you're an "atheist" while being religious just like the rest of the world.

 

[Deleted member 6583]

This wouldnt disprove god and just assuming your morality on the creator

You're correct that questioning the morality of religious texts doesn't necessarily disprove the existence of God. However, it does throw a wrench into the claim that these texts offer inerrant moral guidance from a supreme being. This is more a critique of the religions that claim to speak for God rather than a disproof of God's existence. But it's still a point worth pondering.

The thing is, my nigga, you can't prove the existence of God.

 

[Deleted member 6583]

It's a belief after all

Thank you for admitting that it's a belief. But let's be clear: beliefs should be based on evidence, especially when those beliefs are as consequential as the existence of an all-powerful deity who governs the universe and determines the fate of human souls. Saying 'it's just a belief' is essentially a concession that there's not sufficient evidence to substantiate that belief.

View attachment 2407752

While the image might be amusing, it doesn't really address the core question we're discussing here: can the existence of God be proven or at least be made plausible through logical argument or evidence? Mocking science and atheism won't make the questions about the existence of God go away.

"Atheists" truly are the most low IQ retards to ever tread this earth. Imagine thinking you're an "atheist" while blindly believing the garbage coming out of the mouths of Jew and Freemason "scientists". Imagine thinking you're an "atheist" while being religious just like the rest of the world.

To the first point, skepticism is a cornerstone of both science and atheism. Most atheists trust scientific theories not out of 'blind belief' but because these theories undergo rigorous, peer-reviewed testing. Also, science is willing to change its views based on new evidence, which is something religion generally does not do.

To your second claim, the label 'atheist' specifically denotes a lack of belief in a deity. If by 'religious,' you mean that some atheists have strongly-held beliefs, then sure, but that's quite different from being 'religious' in the sense of believing in a higher power for which there's no empirical evidence.

 

[Napoleon de Geso]

Is god or no, but Mohammad was based

 

[try2beme]

While the image might be amusing, it doesn't really address the core question we're discussing here: can the existence of God be proven

It does cuz wanting it to be proven suggests evidence is required of some sort

Not everything can be rationalised scientifically

The love I feel for my family is not scientific it’s spiritual
The existence of God cannot be explained scientifically on earth if he transcends it, so athiests will keep begging for evidence until eternity for his existence without even keeping this in mind..

What I believe is one example of evidence is in the Quran where before humans discovered the structure of the earth (the core, the mantle ect) the middle chapter of the Quran is called iron just like what makes up the centre of the earth’s structure. This was before any scientific discovery about it. Even when iron was a common material at the time was no study or scientific understanding of it until far later outlining the earth’s build. If God knew it all first then he is above science.

 

[Deleted member 6583]

It does cuz wanting it to be proven suggests evidence is required of some sort

Not everything can be rationalised scientifically

The love I feel for my family is not scientific it’s spiritual
The existence of God cannot be explained scientifically on earth if he transcends it, so athiests will keep begging for evidence until eternity for his existence without even keeping this in mind..

What I believe is one example of evidence is in the Quran where before humans discovered the structure of the earth (the core, the mantle ect) the middle chapter of the Quran is called iron just like what makes up the centre of the earth’s structure. This was before any scientific discovery about it. Even when iron was a common material at the time was no study or scientific understanding of it until far later outlining the earth’s build. If God knew it all first then he is above science.

Firstly, you're correct that science doesn't have all the answers. However, the role of science is to explore the natural world, which includes phenomena previously attributed to gods or spirits. Just because science hasn't explained something yet doesn't automatically validate the existence of God.

Secondly, you mentioned that your love for your family is 'spiritual' rather than scientific. While that term is subjective, it doesn't serve as evidence for the existence of God. Emotions like love can be understood through a range of frameworks, including psychological and biochemical.

Thirdly, you bring up the mention of 'iron' in the Quran as evidence of divine foreknowledge. It's an interesting point, but not a definitive one. Iron was known and used during the time the Quran was written. The mention could be coincidental, metaphorical, or rooted in the common knowledge of the time.

Your argument also falls into the trap of 'post hoc rationalization,' where you revisit old texts to find 'evidence' based on current scientific understanding. This is not a reliable method for establishing something's divine origin.

Lastly, if God is truly above science, then why doesn't He provide evidence that is unequivocally miraculous, leaving no room for doubt or alternate explanations? Saying God is beyond our understanding is a convenient escape, but it doesn't provide any actual proof of His existence.

I've also finally obtained 1000 reputation after being a member of the forum since 2020. As I write this, tears are running down my hollow cheeks.

 

[Deleted member 20835]

blindly believing the garbage coming out of the mouths of Jew and Freemason

who do you think wrote the so called holy books jfl

 

[dimorphism]

@Aladin based or cringe?

 

[Guba]

To the first point, skepticism is a cornerstone of both science and atheism. Most atheists trust scientific theories not out of 'blind belief' but because these theories undergo rigorous, peer-reviewed testing. Also, science is willing to change its views based on new evidence, which is something religion generally does not do.

To your second claim, the label 'atheist' specifically denotes a lack of belief in a deity. If by 'religious,' you mean that some atheists have strongly-held beliefs, then sure, but that's quite different from being 'religious' in the sense of believing in a higher power for which there's no empirical evidence.

So, do tell me, how did the world come into existence? How did humans come into existence? What happens after death? Explain to me your models on how these phenomena occur, and explain to me how your models would hinge on anything more than blind faith? For example, how do you replicate the world coming into existence? Because REAL HARD science can replicate the scientific phenomena it claims in a controlled environment. Anything else is THEORY that is founded on FAITH. Therefore, any model for how the world came into existence, for example, is RELIGIOUS by default because you cannot physically prove it.

Further, "atheism" is an oxymoron since no human who has ever lived has been anything but religious. If an "atheist" goof claims, for example, that the world came into existence through the Big Bang, he is merely stating his religious cosmological belief. Because once again, that "atheist" wasn't there to witness this alleged Big Bang, nor can scientists reproduce and prove the existence of such a phenomenon. This is why I say "atheists" are retards. Conventionally religious people recognize their limitations to know every last secret of the world, therefore taking a leap of faith in a higher power. "Atheists" on the other hand are so stupid that they don't realize that they too are religious, but instead of putting their faith in a higher power they worship other equally retarded humans as the keepers of all knowledge. In other words, "atheists" worship themselves as gods. Imagine a pathetic human thinking he is a god.

 

[Guba]

who do you think wrote the so called holy books jfl

Tell me.

 

[Joe Rogancel]

All religion is cope

 

[Akhi]

"Atheists" truly are the most low IQ retards to ever tread this earth. Imagine thinking you're an "atheist" while blindly believing the garbage coming out of the mouths of Jew and Freemason "scientists". Imagine thinking you're an "atheist" while being religious just like the rest of the world.

Nobody 'blindly' believes in science. Being skeptic and testing theories with as little bias as possible is what scientists do.

You can read the studies yourself but you haven't because you're too stupid. Your lack of understanding makes it easy to generalize science and reduce it to another belief system but thats not true at all. Science is based off rationalism, not belief. Scientists observe nature and come to conclusions, then test their hypothesis with unbiased experiments you moron

 

[Guba]

Nobody 'blindly' believes in science. Being skeptic and testing theories with as little bias as possible is what scientists do.

You can read the studies yourself but you haven't because you're too stupid. Your lack of understanding makes it easy to generalize science and reduce it to another belief system but thats not true at all. Science is based off rationalism, not belief. Scientists observe nature and come to conclusions, then test their hypothesis with unbiased experiments you moron

Typical response from a low IQ troglodyte. Why are you confusing real science with theory? Too stupid to know the difference? I ask you, where is the scientifically controlled simulation of things like evolution or the Big Bang? Because trust me, plenty of people believe in these models blindly.

 

[try2beme]

Firstly, you're correct that science doesn't have all the answers. However, the role of science is to explore the natural world, which includes phenomena previously attributed to gods or spirits. Just because science hasn't explained something yet doesn't automatically validate the existence of God.

Secondly, you mentioned that your love for your family is 'spiritual' rather than scientific. While that term is subjective, it doesn't serve as evidence for the existence of God. Emotions like love can be understood through a range of frameworks, including psychological and biochemical.

Thirdly, you bring up the mention of 'iron' in the Quran as evidence of divine foreknowledge. It's an interesting point, but not a definitive one. Iron was known and used during the time the Quran was written. The mention could be coincidental, metaphorical, or rooted in the common knowledge of the time.

Your argument also falls into the trap of 'post hoc rationalization,' where you revisit old texts to find 'evidence' based on current scientific understanding. This is not a reliable method for establishing something's divine origin.

Lastly, if God is truly above science, then why doesn't He provide evidence that is unequivocally miraculous, leaving no room for doubt or alternate explanations? Saying God is beyond our understanding is a convenient escape, but it doesn't provide any actual proof of His existence.

I've also finally obtained 1000 reputation after being a member of the forum since 2020. As I write this, tears are running down my hollow cheeks.

Then it would not be faith it would be an understanding of Islam
Also mirin hollow cheeks

 

[standardcel]

the existence of life is proof enough

 

[Deleted member 6583]

So, do tell me, how did the world come into existence? How did humans come into existence? What happens after death? Explain to me your models on how these phenomena occur, and explain to me how your models would hinge on anything more than blind faith? For example, how do you replicate the world coming into existence? Because REAL HARD science can replicate the scientific phenomena it claims in a controlled environment. Anything else is THEORY that is founded on FAITH. Therefore, any model for how the world came into existence, for example, is RELIGIOUS by default because you cannot physically prove it.

Further, "atheism" is an oxymoron since no human who has ever lived has been anything but religious. If an "atheist" goof claims, for example, that the world came into existence through the Big Bang, he is merely stating his religious cosmological belief. Because once again, that "atheist" wasn't there to witness this alleged Big Bang, nor can scientists reproduce and prove the existence of such a phenomenon. This is why I say "atheists" are retards. Conventionally religious people recognize their limitations to know every last secret of the world, therefore taking a leap of faith in a higher power. "Atheists" on the other hand are so stupid that they don't realize that they too are religious, but instead of putting their faith in a higher power they worship other equally retarded humans as the keepers of all knowledge. In other words, "atheists" worship themselves as gods. Imagine a pathetic human thinking he is a god.

Firstly, you bring up the notion that science should be able to replicate phenomena to be valid. While replication is an important aspect of scientific validity, it's not the only criteria. For instance, theories like the Big Bang are supported by a constellation of evidence like cosmic microwave background radiation and the redshift of distant galaxies. We may not be able to 'replicate' the Big Bang, but that doesn't mean the theory is unsupported. Also, in science, the term 'theory' is not synonymous with 'guess'; it is an evidence-backed explanation of an aspect of the natural world.

Secondly, you equate the inability to replicate certain phenomena with the notion that scientific theories are founded on faith. This misunderstands the scientific method. Science is based on evidence and openly admits its limitations. It doesn't claim to have all the answers, which is a stark contrast to many religious frameworks that claim complete, divine knowledge.

Thirdly, you argue that atheism is 'religious' because it requires faith in something unproven. However, atheism is specifically a lack of belief in gods. It doesn't propose specific alternatives; it merely rejects existing claims due to a lack of evidence. Admitting that we don't have all the answers is not a belief system; it's an acknowledgment of our current limits of understanding.

Lastly, you say that religious people accept a 'leap of faith' due to human limitations. However, acknowledging our limitations does not automatically validate a leap of faith in any particular direction.

 

[thenewhebbe]

the existence of life is proof enough

How

 

[Deleted member 20835]

Why are you confusing real science with theory?

tf happened to this site bruh.i swear this website used to have actually smart people like no way this nigga just wrote this sentence and thought it made sense

 

[_MVP_]

Keep believing in millennia old fairytales.

 

[Pendejo]

I am a god nigga that's all proof you need, med god

 

[Akhi]

Typical response from a low IQ troglodyte. Why are you confusing real science with theory? Too stupid to know the difference? I ask you, where is the scientifically controlled simulation of things like evolution or the Big Bang? Because trust me, plenty of people believe in these models blindly.

Ironic that you're calling me low IQ jfl. Explain to me then, what is the difference between 'real' science and theory? Because science is theory, nothing can be proven to a 100%. Go read about the scientific method you uneducated moron.

Evolution and the Big Bang are the best theories that explain the world how it is today. Read about background radiation, the universe can be tracked down to a singular point in time and space when matter spacetime expanded. Evolution is also the best theory on how species change and develop. Its very easy to understand but sadly you're an idiot.

People devote their whole lives to these subjects, but ofc moronic conspiracy-theorists like you know it better. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. You're too stupid to understand the complexity of the subjects so reduce it to some generalization. I'm sure you can come up with some better explanations than 300 years of science you retarded ape.

 

[Pendejo]

@Aladin based or cringe?
View attachment 2407782

@SecularIslamist JFL is this legit?

 

[SecularIslamist]

@SecularIslamist JFL is this legit?

Based and idgaf.

Actually it wasn't unordinary but can't be bothered to deal with regurgitated thoughtless incels.

Islam is last hope for humanity from descending into postmodern madness.

 

[Deleted member 6583]

the existence of life is proof enough

The idea that "the existence of life is proof enough" for a deity has some logical holes. For one, complexity doesn't automatically imply a designer; that's a "god of the gaps" fallacy. Secondly, if complexity needs a creator, wouldn't that creator also need a creator, leading to an infinite loop? Third, we have natural explanations like evolution that account for life's complexity without needing a deity. Lastly, Occam's Razor suggests we shouldn't add unnecessary elements like an untestable god to explain life. In short, life's existence alone isn't solid proof of a deity.

Based and idgaf.

Actually it wasn't unordinary but can't be bothered to deal with regurgitated thoughtless incels.

Islam is last hope for humanity from descending into postmodern madness.

I understand that marriage customs during the time of Prophet Muhammad were different and that it was more commonplace for lolis to be married off. However, the question at hand is not just what was 'normal' at the time but whether or not such practices should be considered morally exemplary today. If Prophet Muhammad is upheld as the "ideal man" within Islam, should those ideals not be timeless?

You mention that "Islam is the last hope for humanity from descending into postmodern madness." I'd be interested to hear more about what you consider to be "postmodern madness" and why you believe Islam is the remedy.

 

[SecularIslamist]

The idea that "the existence of life is proof enough" for a deity has some logical holes. For one, complexity doesn't automatically imply a designer; that's a "god of the gaps" fallacy. Secondly, if complexity needs a creator, wouldn't that creator also need a creator, leading to an infinite loop? Third, we have natural explanations like evolution that account for life's complexity without needing a deity. Lastly, Occam's Razor suggests we shouldn't add unnecessary elements like an untestable god to explain life. In short, life's existence alone isn't solid proof of a deity.


I understand that marriage customs during the time of Prophet Muhammad were different and that it was more commonplace for lolis to be married off. However, the question at hand is not just what was 'normal' at the time but whether or not such practices should be considered morally exemplary today. If Prophet Muhammad is upheld as the "ideal man" within Islam, should those ideals not be timeless?

You mention that "Islam is the last hope for humanity from descending into postmodern madness." I'd be interested to hear more about what you consider to be "postmodern madness" and why you believe Islam is the remedy.

Holy shit we actually have a guy wanting a r/religion discussion here.

This has been talked about endlessly here. I'm strictly staying away from these threads from now on - even though I get tagged into them because of my name. You seem more higher IQ and less shitposty but you're in the wrong sub nigga.

 

[RAITEIII]

You're correct that questioning the morality of religious texts doesn't necessarily disprove the existence of God. However, it does throw a wrench into the claim that these texts offer inerrant moral guidance from a supreme being. This is more a critique of the religions that claim to speak for God rather than a disproof of God's existence. But it's still a point worth pondering.

The thing is, my nigga, you can't prove the existence of God.

During my study of biology and biochemistry for my looksmax endevours I noticed something:

How can your cels, DNA and genome work in such a way to work perfectly? Evolution itself seems like a panel of instructions for the human body to reach a certain final stage. I don't see how this whole process can be a casuality.

Time on earth is much faster than in the outer space. It seems like ideal an ideal condition for us to be an observable experiment, right?

I don't have the answers. Too many unknowns.

 

[Deleted member 20835]

Islam is last hope for humanity from descending into postmodern madness.

 

[optimisticzoomer]

"Atheists" truly are the most low IQ retards to ever tread this earth. Imagine thinking you're an "atheist" while blindly believing the garbage coming out of the mouths of Jew and Freemason "scientists". Imagine thinking you're an "atheist" while being religious just like the rest of the world.

Ironic when religion was created as a way of controlling the masses

 

[Akhi]

During my study of biology and biochemistry for my looksmax endevours I noticed something:

How can your cels, DNA and genome work in such a way to work perfectly? Evolution itself seems like a panel of instructions for the human body to reach a certain final stage. I don't see how this whole process can be a casuality.

Study more, theres an answer to almost all of this

Time on earth is much faster than in the outer space. It seems like ideal an ideal condition for us to be an observable experiment, right?

elaborate on the time part, thats not true

 

[Psychophilly]

God is sun. its right in front of you every day. it's light always reaches you and benefits you even during night.
your whole existence is a result of sun.
you can even commune to this entity, sun absorbs light and emits data in form of photons and solar flares based on the lights it absorbs.

 

[standardcel]

The idea that "the existence of life is proof enough" for a deity has some logical holes. For one, complexity doesn't automatically imply a designer; that's a "god of the gaps" fallacy. Secondly, if complexity needs a creator, wouldn't that creator also need a creator, leading to an infinite loop? Third, we have natural explanations like evolution that account for life's complexity without needing a deity. Lastly, Occam's Razor suggests we shouldn't add unnecessary elements like an untestable god to explain life. In short, life's existence alone isn't solid proof of a deity.

God doesn't have a beginning. At the beginning he existed already. Evolution is a lie god created everything.

 

[WeiWei]

No shit

 

[Guba]

Ironic when religion was created as a way of controlling the masses

You must be a 12-year-old.

 

[RAITEIII]

Study more, theres an answer to almost all of this

What's exactly your instance regarding the topic?

 

[Psychophilly]

are you retarded son? i just proved to you, Sol is your creator. all life form is a result of sol, what do you have against it?

 

[gribsufer1]

not gonna leave it chance

 

[Deleted member 6583]

During my study of biology and biochemistry for my looksmax endevours I noticed something:

How can your cels, DNA and genome work in such a way to work perfectly? Evolution itself seems like a panel of instructions for the human body to reach a certain final stage. I don't see how this whole process can be a casuality.

Time on earth is much faster than in the outer space. It seems like ideal an ideal condition for us to be an observable experiment, right?

I don't have the answers. Too many unknowns.

Wow, sounds like you've stumbled upon the great mysteries of the universe in your quest to maximize your looks. Good for you!

But you need to understand that evolution isn't some grand master plan with a final stage. It's random mutations and natural selection. It's all about what helps you survive and make babies. No celestial designer necessary!

And this idea that everything works 'perfectly'—really? Have you heard of genetic diseases, cancer, or, I don't know, balding? Nature is as flawed as it is remarkable.

Now, about Earth being an 'ideal condition for an observable experiment.' That's some grade-A science fiction right there! Why not throw in some intergalactic overlords while we're at it? Earth's time scale has more to do with physics and gravity than some grand cosmic experiment.

And finally, the good ol' 'too many unknowns.' Sure, there's a lot we don't know. But just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean we insert a god into every gap in our understanding. That's like saying, 'I don't know how this magic trick works, so it must be real magic!'

So, while the universe is undeniably mysterious, it's best not to jump to divine conclusions. Unless, of course, you're scripting the next bollywood movie. In that case, carry on!

God doesn't have a beginning. At the beginning he existed already. Evolution is a lie god created everything.

The classic "God has no beginning" argument. If we're willing to accept that a deity can exist without a beginning, why can't we extend the same courtesy to the universe itself? What's stopping the universe or the fundamental laws of physics from being eternal or self-originating? Invoking a God that exists without a beginning solves nothing; it merely shifts the question from 'Why does the universe exist?' to 'Why does God exist?'

 

[Guba]

Ironic that you're calling me low IQ jfl. Explain to me then, what is the difference between 'real' science and theory? Because science is theory, nothing can be proven to a 100%. Go read about the scientific method you uneducated moron.

Evolution and the Big Bang are the best theories that explain the world how it is today. Read about background radiation, the universe can be tracked down to a singular point in time and space when matter spacetime expanded. Evolution is also the best theory on how species change and develop. Its very easy to understand but sadly you're an idiot.

People devote their whole lives to these subjects, but ofc moronic conspiracy-theorists like you know it better. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. You're too stupid to understand the complexity of the subjects so reduce it to some generalization. I'm sure you can come up with some better explanations than 300 years of science you retarded ape.

Wow ok. I thought you were the "science guy", but now it looks like I need to explain to you even the most basic stuff. Science is NOT theory. Usually as the basis of a scientific experiment you have a theory, yes, but there are plenty of theories that can be proven my hard science, for example the harnessing of hydropower through watermills. Someone came up with the theory that this can be done, and indeed it can be done and endlessly reproduced. That is real science. Some Jew or vegetable in a wheelchair hypothesizing about an ever expanding universe without ever being able to physically demonstrate this is NOT science, it's religion. If you can't prove it, it's not science. The fact that you think science is all theory goes to show that real science has been replaced by the religion of unsubstantiated theories.

Since you brought up evolution, care to explain the physical proof that one species can evolve into a whole different fucking species? Because this is an extremely wild claim that requires extremely heavy evidence. I love it, you think you're smart because of your slavish trust in authorities, people who put on white coats and therefore become gods in your eyes. I mean, buddy, you're the one who thinks he evolved from an ape. Go figure.

 

[RecessedChinCel]

Bump

 

[Akhi]

What's exactly your instance regarding the topic?

You say evolution is a panel of instructions for the human body to reach its final stage. What do you mean by that? If you're talking about how a human delevops these instructions are in your DNA, evolution is something different.

Evolution is how species develop and change by random mutations and natural selection, and it's perfectly logical. Also, what do you mean by ' I don't see how this whole process can be a casuality', you mean how can evolution be the reason for different species or what?

 

[RecessedChinCel]

Science is NOT theory

Lmfao at your IQ. You know that GRAVITY is a theory right? Muh gravity is just a theory brah so it isn’t science

 

[Ragnar]

this discussion always ends on an endless loop, its a waste of time.

 

[RecessedChinCel]

Since you brought up evolution, care to explain the physical proof that one species can evolve into a whole different fucking species?

.

 

[RAITEIII]

But you need to understand that evolution isn't some grand master plan with a final stage. It's random mutations and natural selection. It's all about what helps you survive and make babies. No celestial designer necessary!

And this idea that everything works 'perfectly'—really? Have you heard of genetic diseases, cancer, or, I don't know, balding? Nature is as flawed as it is remarkable.

Wow, sounds like you've stumbled upon the great mysteries of the universe in your quest to maximize your looks. Good for you!

But you need to understand that evolution isn't some grand master plan with a final stage. It's random mutations and natural selection. It's all about what helps you survive and make babies. No celestial designer necessary!

And this idea that everything works 'perfectly'—really? Have you heard of genetic diseases, cancer, or, I don't know, balding? Nature is as flawed as it is remarkable.

Now, about Earth being an 'ideal condition for an observable experiment.' That's some grade-A science fiction right there! Why not throw in some intergalactic overlords while we're at it? Earth's time scale has more to do with physics and gravity than some grand cosmic experiment.

And finally, the good ol' 'too many unknowns.' Sure, there's a lot we don't know. But just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean we insert a god into every gap in our understanding. That's like saying, 'I don't know how this magic trick works, so it must be real magic!'

So, while the universe is undeniably mysterious, it's best not to jump to divine conclusions. Unless, of course, you're scripting the next bollywood movie. In that case, carry on!


The classic "God has no beginning" argument. If we're willing to accept that a deity can exist without a beginning, why can't we extend the same courtesy to the universe itself? What's stopping the universe or the fundamental laws of physics from being eternal or self-originating? Invoking a God that exists without a beginning solves nothing; it merely shifts the question from 'Why does the universe exist?' to 'Why does God exist?'

It doesn't look like random mutations. If you were to go from the smallest unicelular form of life in the past to actual human form I really cannot see the argument to support that the whole thing is random and unpredicted. Too much can go wrong. This is not to sustain the argument of religious God - I don't consider none to have a real holy nature. I just say think there are more advanced forms of life. Some might call it God, some others ET, but human life itself doesn't seem random.