>>15631468
>the universe is a meaningless accident
huh? It just randomly happened that something exists instead of nothing? That makes no sense anon.
Even if the big bang was a quantum fluctuation, that fluctuation had to arise in something, and that something wasn't an accident.

File: 1680677097214355197.png (3.04 MB, 1200x1600)

3.04 MB PNG

>>15631468
You believe that the universe is random and meaningless. However, I believe that there is meaning in everything... even in the most inconspicuous things. The universe is not a series of accidents — it is a result of an intelligent and purposeful Creator. Even the act of creation is a sacred and mystical event.

Jesus was a real person — that is a historical fact. The existence of God is not a myth. God is a divine being who has created this universe. Even if you don't believe in his existence, it is still true.

>>15631479
>That makes no sense anon.
But sky fairies and talking snakes are perfectly reasonable

>>15631489
>Jesus was a real person — that is a historical fact. The existence of God is not a myth. God is a divine being who has created this universe.

You don't have any evidence for any of those statements. And the last two are completely wrong.

>>15631479
OP's framing is bad.
A better way of stating it would be that the universe did not occur because of the conscious actions of some being. Everything has unfolded because of the underlying fundamental physical laws that underly reality, many of which we don't understand right now.

In other words there may be a first cause per se, but it probably wasn't a God.

>NOOOOO THE UNIVERSE CAN'T EXIST "JUST BECAUSE" IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY A GOD WHO EXISTS "JUST BECAUSE"

>>15631493
He is correct. I don't know what this shit around us is all about, but that string of words is just an atheist meme, it doesn't actually make sense. Just think about it:
> the universe is a random meaningless accident.
What is an accident? I'm an ESL, but afaik an accident assumes unintended deviation from a planned course.
Before it there's nothing, how can you have random events in nothing?

>>15631533
>What is an accident? I'm an ESL, but afaik an accident assumes unintended deviation from a planned course.
True, but this is mainly a linguistic argument that's an issue with how OP worded things. OP is actually wording his argument similar to how Christian apologists strawman atheism by calling it a "random, meaningless accident".

In short, I don't see anything wrong with what OP said per se, but his poor wording does imply the opposite, like if he was to refer to the Universe as "all of Creation". Yes that assumes a creator in the wording, but that's not really an argument against what he said.

>Before it there's nothing, how can you have random events in nothing?
I can't speak for OP, but I don't think he ever mentioned there being nothing. Personally, I don't think there ever was nothing, but the Universe as we know it did not exist at one point in time.
For example: The Big Bang Theory is not an explosion of nothing, it's an explosion of a singularity. That singularity would be all the contents of the Universe today concentrated at a single point, which then expanded. Planets, stars, even atoms and light, cannot exist in their form today in a singularity, but the mass and energy still existed in the singularity.
It's like how you haven't always existed, but the matter that comprises you has existed a lot longer.

>>15631533
>the universe is a random meaningless accident

That's your projections and mental farts. What is the "meaning" of a hawk killing a mouse? There is no meaning, it's just feeding itself. At most the meaning is towards lower states of entropy. The universe doesn't care, it just is. No one knows where it came from and it doesnr seem to matter. Shoving some sky daddy into it is just pathetic.

File: 1651418026041.jpg (199 KB, 480x608)

199 KB JPG

>>15631468

>>15632909
Sophistry.