I thought your god was keeping you safe

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We had a high "turnover" rate as it was. (The job required us to do stupid things for good reasons.) This chaplain was just fucking arrogant insofar as I could tell. Nobody lives forever.

[Nihilist Virus]

#1 - The fact that the entire time-space universe came into existence a finite time ago.  (Related to the Cosmological argument)

Without space and time there is no causality so the origin of space-time is absolutely acausal, that is, without a cause.

Or can you describe causality without space and time?

Sure, give God unlimited power.  Let's give him the power of creatio ex nihilo. Now say he creates a tricycle. Whatever he's doing, it does not and cannot involve causality. There is no material cause. There is nothing that he acted on to bring about the tricycle. This is not how causality works. To act on nothing is to do nothing. And don't forget the fact that you need space and time to already exist in order for causality to function or even be defined.

If space, time, matter and energy were created out of nothing, then the one thing we can say with absolute certainty is that causality was not involved. If God appeared before me right now and showed me the process by which he creates a universe I would still reject the Kalam Cosmological Argument because it is wrong in every possible way.

#2 - The fine-tuning of the constants and quantities of the space-time universe that make intelligent life even possible in this universe.  (Fine-Tuning argument)

The fine tuning is done by us.  We don't know all the physical rules of the universe, so if we run a simulation we have to fugde the variables to ensure the simulated universe matches our observations.

We're already well aware that relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics. We know the Big Bang involved all matter and energy in the universe (making relativity play a role) and occurred on the smallest of scales (making quantum mechanics play a role).  So we already know that we lack the mathematical language to describe it. So we have to fix that ad hoc in our simulations of the Big Bang.

For example, suppose we lacked Kepler's formula for explaining eccentricity of celestial orbits and we only know how to model an orbit which is a perfect circle.  We would have to fudge our simulations and fine tune them to make eccentric orbits work. That wouldn't prove that planetary motion is finely tuned.  It would only prove that we finely tuned it in our simulations.

#3 - The complex information contained within DNA. (Intelligent Design and/or Teleological argument)

Puzzles are designed to be complex but generally speaking things which are designed are as simple as possible. We don't needlessly complicate motor engines, do we?  Isn't it best to have as few working parts as possible?

Imagine a dozen marbles, six red and six blue.  Suppose I intelligently arrange them so I have a 2x6 grid with the left side being blue and the right side red.  You would say that's intelligently designed. You'd also say it's simple.  But suppose instead I mixed them up randomly.  Not a grid, not a circle, just a blob. No ordering to the colors.  That's not designed. And it's more complex. That arrangement requires more information to describe.

In short, complexity is associated with disorder and simplicity is associated with order.  Life is complex because it is disordered, not because it is ordered.

So complexity of DNA is at best irrelevant to your case, and at worst works against your case.

#4 - The applicability of mathematics to the physical world - the mathematical structure upon which the universe seems to be based.  (Argument from applicability of Mathematics)

The point being what?  If I pretend I'm a theist, no useful inferences can come from this.

First, we have Gödel's incompleteness theorem.  There are propositions which are undecidable.  For example, does there exist X such that |N| < |X| < |R|? We don't know, and we can't know.  God could perhaps consider all subsets of R but he is still unable to prove or disprove the statement.

Second, math is nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow. We made our assumptions best fit the world we see. It's that simple. No God required.

#5 - The reality objective moral laws & duties.  (The Moral argument)

Such as?

#6 - The historical reality and authenticity of the existence, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.  (Argument from the historicity of the salient details of the life, death, and post-death appearances of Jesus of Nazareth).

Go ahead and assume the Bible is true. You can have Christian tradition. You can even have all of the "fake" gospels and epistles that did not make it into canon.

Now, can you show me one person who witnessed the resurrection, was captured, was given the chance to recant and go free, but refused and was tortured and executed?  Polycarp was given the chance to recant and go free, but he was not a witness of the resurrection. Peter was executed but we don't know what was said.  How do you know it wasn't along the lines of, "We know you were preaching the gospel so you're going to die today, but if you admit it we won't torture you first"?  That wouldn't fit your "Why die for a lie?" argument no matter how much you try to fudge it.

So just please let me know if there is one person who fits this, and please provide your source.