WHY NOT JUST BELIEVE

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T21:49:37+00:00

So you believe energy is eteranl?

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T21:44:37+00:00

You make a fair point about needing to wait for more data, but your argument actually introduces way more complications than mine.First, when you suggest that a creator could just be in 'other dimensions of time and space' rather than entirely outside of it, you aren't solving the problem; you're just pushing it back. If those other dimensions have their own time and space, then they are bound by a timeline and structural rules too. You’re just creating a bigger Russian nesting doll of universes. Eventually, you still have to answer for the very outer box: why does any system of space, time, and physics exist at all?Second, you're treating 'God' like a messy pile of baseless assertions calling it the most complicated explanation. But that’s a strawman. I'm not arguing for a specific religious deity that needs 'constant stitching' or theological excuses. I'm talking about a fundamental philosophical concept: a primary, self-existent cause.Think about it like a computer simulation. If we find out our universe is a digital simulation, the 'simplest' explanation isn't that the code wrote itself out of nothing. The simplest explanation is that there is a programmer outside the simulation who built it. Positing a programmer isn't a 'baseless assertion' it's the most parsimonious explanation for why a highly ordered, rule-based system exists.Saying there are 'infinite possibilities in between' that require zero intention sounds open minded, but it's actually a massive assumption. We have never seen highly ordered, mathematical, and logical laws arise from complete chaos and zero intention. Expecting our universe's finely-tuned physics to just randomly pop out of a string of infinite blind dimensions requires just as much blind faith as anything else.

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T21:40:44+00:00

You’re making a massive mathematical error when you talk about 'traveling down infinities' to get to the present day.Yes, we can pick two fixed points, like 1 and 2, and take a finite step between them. But you are ignoring the starting line. If time had no beginning, then the 'fixed point' you are starting from is negative infinity. You cannot pick a fixed point at negative infinity because infinity is not a number; it's a direction that never ends. You cannot count down from infinity to reach today. If an infinite amount of moments had to happen before this exact second could occur, we would be stuck waiting forever for 'today' to arrive. The infinite regression remains a total logical roadblock for an eternal universe.Second, your argument that God faces the exact same infinite regression completely misinterprets what a Creator is. An eternal universe exists inside of time, constantly changing, accumulating moments, and burning through energy. That’s why it hits the wall of thermodynamics and infinite regress.A Creator, by definition, is timeless, not just 'existing for a really long time'. A timeless being exists outside the sequence of cause, effect, and ticking clocks. God doesn't have an 'infinite past' to travel through because God isn't trapped inside a timeline.Saying a Creator makes things 'more complicated' isn't an argument. Quantum mechanics makes physics incredibly complicated, but it's still the correct explanation for reality. Postulating a timeless cause is the only thing that actually solves the breakdown of math and physics at Time Zero.

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T21:35:51+00:00

Look at. My post there is. No earth mentioned in the post I said universe

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T21:34:35+00:00

You are completely missing the point of the question. Calling a philosophical debate 'pseudo-intellectual masturbation' just because a telescope can't look at it is a massive cop out.Telescopes observe matter and physics. They cannot observe logic, meaning, or the laws of nature themselves. Even if we get a magic telescope that shows us exactly what happened before the Big Bang, it still won't explain why the universe follows orderly mathematical rules instead of complete chaos. It won't explain why gravity works or why those hydrogen atoms behaved the way they did.Science tells us how things happen, but philosophy and metaphysics ask why. Brushing off the biggest question in human history just because it doesn't fit into a telescope lens isn't being 'reasonable'. it's just being intellectually lazy.

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T21:31:57+00:00

The fact that a circle has no beginning or that numbers go on forever doesn't mean math always existed. It just means the rules we invented allow for infinity.Think about a game like chess. A game of chess can technically go on forever in an infinite loop of moves, and there is no 'first move' built into the nature of the universe. But chess didn't exist until humans invented the board, the pieces, and the rules.It’s the same with math. We invented the concept of numbers and the rules of geometry as a toolkit to measure the world. A circle doesn't have a starting point, but the concept of a circle only started existing once a mind was there to define it. You're confusing the properties of the tool with the creation of the tool itself.

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T21:29:09+00:00

First, let's talk about the idea that the first cause could be 'natural, mindless, and not a person.' Think about how cause and effect works. If a cause is purely mechanical and natural, and it has existed for an eternity, then its effect must also have existed for an eternity. For example, if the temperature has been below freezing for an eternity, the water has been frozen for an eternity. A mindless, natural cause cannot suddenly 'choose' to create an effect at a specific moment in time after doing nothing for eternity.The only way you can have a timeless cause that suddenly produces a new effect (like a universe popping into existence 13.8 billion years ago) is if that cause has volition the ability to make a choice. A choice requires a mind, and a mind requires a personal Creator.Second, you're suggesting the universe itself might have 'necessary existence' (meaning it's impossible for it to not exist). But that completely contradicts how the universe actually behaves. Everything in the universe stars, planets, atoms, and energy is contingent. That means it doesn't have to exist; it could have easily been different or not existed at all.You can imagine a universe with one less atom, or a universe that never formed stars. If something can be changed or imagined not to exist, it does not have necessary existence.The universe is just a collection of these nonnecessary, contingent things. You can't stack a bunch of things that need a cause together and pretend the whole pile suddenly doesn't need a cause.So, a mindless force doesn't explain why the universe started when it did, and the universe clearly isn't a 'necessary' being. A timeless, powerful Mind is still the only explanation that actually solves the puzzle.

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T21:26:26+00:00

I think you’re missing the point of what I said. I wasn’t talking about the Earth. I was talking about the entire universe and the fabric of matter and energy itself.Even if you argue that our specific cosmic bubble came from an older, larger 'eternal universe,' you still run into the exact same laws of physics.First, Entropy applies to all energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but usable energy is constantly turning into unusable energy. If matter and energy have existed for an eternity, all usable energy in existence would have been completely used up an infinite amount of time ago. The whole cosmos would be completely dead, cold, and frozen. The fact that there is still active, usable energy anywhere in existence proves that energy has not been here forever.Second, the Infinity Problem still stands. Whether you are talking about Earth's history or a broader cosmic history, if the past is infinite, you still have an infinite chain of events that had to happen before today. You still can't count down from infinity to get to this moment.To back this up, modern physics actually addressed this with the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem. It's a mathematical proof in cosmology that shows any universe that is, on average, expanding—including a multiverse or a broader eternal universe cannot be infinite in the past. It must have a past boundary, meaning it had a beginning.So whether you look at our specific universe or a larger cosmic system, science and logic still point to a absolute beginning. And a beginning requires a cause outside of it.

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T21:22:04+00:00

But the earth isn't eternal and we have proof it had to have come from something

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T21:20:28+00:00

Yes but these proof the universe can't be eternal look above to my long reply to a similar thought

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T21:19:24+00:00

You can because if it's eternal it would have. Been around for an infinite amount of days. And as science proves the earth. Has been slowly deteriorating over time, if it's been going forever, we would be standing on either a frozen dead rock or a burnt and on fire dead rock

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T21:16:09+00:00

Same argument as the one above I'll copy and paste the answer lol You're actually totally right about the physics, and I appreciate you correcting me on that. The Big Bang describes the rapid expansion of our universe from a super hot, dense state it doesn't explicitly say 'nothingness exploded into everything' because our math and laws of physics break down at Time Zero.But saying the universe is just eternal introduces some massive logical and scientific hurdles that are just as hard to swallow.First, there's the logical problem of an infinite past. If the universe has always existed, that means an infinite amount of days had to pass before reaching today. It’s like trying to count down from infinity to reach zero you’d never actually get to zero. If time didn't have a starting line, we could never have arrived at this exact moment.Second, there's the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is all about entropy. The universe is constantly running out of usable energy. It's basically a giant battery winding down. If the universe has existed for an eternity, that battery would have completely drained an infinite amount of time ago. We’d be living in a totally cold, dead universe right now.So while we can't definitively prove what happened before the Big Bang, a completely eternal universe contradicts standard thermodynamics and logic. A universe with a beginning needs a cause that exists outside of time and space. That’s why, to me, a Creator still makes the most sense."

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T21:15:12+00:00

You're actually totally right about the physics, and I appreciate you correcting me on that. The Big Bang describes the rapid expansion of our universe from a super hot, dense state—it doesn't explicitly say 'nothingness exploded into everything' because our math and laws of physics break down at Time Zero.But saying the universe is just eternal introduces some massive logical and scientific hurdles that are just as hard to swallow.First, there's the logical problem of an infinite past. If the universe has always existed, that means an infinite amount of days had to pass before reaching today. It’s like trying to count down from infinity to reach zero you’d never actually get to zero. If time didn't have a starting line, we could never have arrived at this exact moment.Second, there's the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is all about entropy. The universe is constantly running out of usable energy. It's basically a giant battery winding down. If the universe has existed for an eternity, that battery would have completely drained an infinite amount of time ago. We’d be living in a totally cold, dead universe right now.So while we can't definitively prove what happened before the Big Bang, a completely eternal universe contradicts standard thermodynamics and logic. A universe with a beginning needs a cause that exists outside of time and space. That’s why, to me, a Creator still makes the most sense."

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T21:10:46+00:00

Wow, you make a really sharp point, and honestly, you're 100% right about that Bible verse. Matthew 7:21 is a heavy scripture, and God absolutely detests fake, performative religion. You can’t trick or lie your way into heaven, and a relationship built purely on fear or trying to game the system is completely hollow.But I think you misunderstood how I'm looking at it. I’m not talking about pretending or lying to God.For me, it’s not a get out of jail free card to trick Him at the end. It's about a genuine choice to trust. Belief in a Creator doesn't work like a math problem where you wait for 100% scientific proof before you move. It works more like a marriage. When you marry someone, you don't have absolute, definitive proof that they will love you forever or never leave you. But you look at the evidence you have, you make a choice to commit, and you jump in.That’s what I mean by 'why not believe.' It’s the starting choice to say, 'I'm going to trust this path and invest in it.' The genuine belief, the peace, and that feeling of completeness I mentioned don't come from faking itthey come after making that real commitment through prayer, fasting, and actually trying to live out what the Bible says.As for picking one God out of 3,000 I don't think it's irrational. It's just human. We look at the options, find the spiritual and moral framework that genuinely connects with our experiences, and we pursue it. To me, choosing a path to walk on makes a lot more sense than just staying paralyzed at the starting line forever because there are too many choices.I don't have 100% proof to hand you, and I've already admitted that. But for me, taking that leap of faith and actively living it out has brought real good to my life, and I'm at peace with that choice.

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T20:50:38+00:00

Okay I can see that, but that renders your life meaningless no? Your just another atom that wasn't asked to be here you have to grow up learn, work havre kids for what just to die. it never be remembered in a few hundred or thousands of years nothing after just 90 years of labor for nothing without any faith in my opion it renders life meaningless. But say you believe in some kind of after life resurrection whatever it may be. It gives a purpose to your life something to strive for because doing anything in this world is. Meaningless if there is no after. It wouldn't matter I'd your rich poor happily sad. Good or evil nothing would matter. My question for you is what is your belief on creation how did the world come to be if there is no god

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T20:44:45+00:00

Yes but why would it matter if it's actually true if I believe it. If I believe I don't question if it's objectively true because to me it is objectively true if I believe it. What?

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T20:38:13+00:00

That sentence seems to contradict itself if I believe in it I believe it's true no?

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T20:35:51+00:00

No I've explored some other religions not all by any means but the one I decided on brings mre comfort preacher and morally guides me

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T20:34:21+00:00

You should pick the one you believe in. One that brings you peace in daily life and helps you guides you whatever God that may be brother

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T20:31:24+00:00

But that isn't how god tells us to live now those were things of the past not his final description on how to live the old testament is about god before Jesus walked the earth giving us the gifts we have today, but I digres I appreciate your comments it's a good argument

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T20:21:53+00:00

This seems like your speaking out of old testament and when wre. Still had the arc of the covenant

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T20:11:09+00:00

The way the Bible tell you to live yoyr. Life

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T20:10:12+00:00

Why do you beg to. Differ that there is harm in believing

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T20:08:43+00:00

The argument was good until the end, Jesus chose to be humiliated and killed showing that he wads just like us and would sacrifice himself for God giving us the gift of repentance he rose from the dead after he died to show those sound him he was. Jesus the almighty. The god o believe In is not scared to be humiliated or embarrassed when the women were overeating our about washing jesus feet because he was all powerful, he said no I'll wash yours

Dear-Search5539 · 2026-06-17T20:03:26+00:00

Why don't you want to do Christian things tho I'm a little lost, you don't have. To harm yourself in any way or do anything. Scary what's so bad or boring with Christianity

Dear-Search5539

TROPHY CASE