What I mean by God is the God of classical theism. I am NOT asking you what it would take for you to become a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew or a Gnostic. That is a seperate discussion. I am asking you what you would need to believe that :Our reality comes from an infinite, eternal source of pure being (actus purus), that created our 3D universe as an act of intellect and will.To me, the above statement makes logical sense. Out of nothing, nothing comes. Existence, being is eternal. The early universe did not generate its own existence nor does it come from an infinite chain of multiverses (that themselves couldn’t have made their own existence) God is pure awareness, our consciousness/soul is created by him. The hard problem of consciousness ceases to be a problem. The complexity of the universe and its laws makes sense. It doesn’t even mean you can’t believe in science. Believing in a creator God does not mean you have to believe evolution is false and the scientific method is wrong. It’s just that this question falls outside the domain of science. Science deals with explaining systems and cause and effect WITHIN the natural world, this is asking why there is an existence in the first place. If you want “lab tested proof” and certainty then you will come up lacking. Because that’s not the correct way to approach a question of this magnitude.
>>18518743Why cant you believe in your imaginary space daddy in your own corner? Why does it matter to you that others validate your rambling or not when it's so inconsequential?
>>18518743>Our reality comes from an infinite, eternal source of pure being (actus purus), that created our 3D universe as an act of intellect and will.Proof?>Out of nothing, nothing comes.>Existence, being is eternal.>why there is an existence in the first place.These are meaningless sentences.
>>18518779Well, since a 0 can’t become a 1. And there is a 1. It stands to reason there’s always been a 1. Like I said, if you’re talking about proof in this you need to get mathematical and metaphysical. You can’t run a lab experiment on this stuff.
>>18518797>Well, since a 0 can’t become a 1. And there is a 1. It stands to reason there’s always been a 1.What does this have to do with what I said? It's just more meaningless sentences.
>>18518743Great question. In my years of theist-atheist debates, I think I only got a straight answer once: a guy told me that he'd believe in God if Jesus appeared and started manipulating spacetime in front of him. Which doesn't mean a whole lot scientifically, but at least this guy had an idea of what he's looking for. I don't expect anyone in this thread to have any idea this specific.>>18518768The nature of the universe, its purpose and human role within that purpose are perhaps the most consequential topics we will ever come across.>>18518779>>Out of nothing, nothing comes.>These are meaningless sentences.Let's tackle them part by part then. Do you understand "out of nothing..."? Do you understand "nothing comes"?
If something can’t come from nothing, then how did God create the universe ex nihilo?
>>18518810>Do you understand "out of nothing..."? Do you understand "nothing comes"?I understand that they are meaningless phrases.
>>18518816You don't understand the meaning behind "nothing comes"? Interesting. Just out of curiosity, are the words "nothing" and "comes" also meaningless? I just wonder how much language you're willing to flat-out sacrifice in order to avoid a topic lol
>>18518813The idea is that God is self existent. It’s incomprehensible I know, and is often critiqued as dodging the question but in all honesty, the buck of causality must stop somewhere if logic is to be pursued. Stopping at pure act and pure being that itself was uncaused is the only answer that doesn’t end in infinite regress or eternalism (which opens up more questions and has lots of implicit assumptions)Since God is infinite being, he literally willed our universe into existence. However since God by his nature can’t change as he’s perfect and can’t be actualised any further, it is said God eternally willed as a single act, the creation of the material universe and the creatures in it. Why? Because God is infinite goodness, and the nature of goodness is to diffuse and share its own existence. God did not create the universe because he had to, nor did it add anything to his nature, he created it as a sheer act of generosity and gift flowing from his perfect nature.
>>18518822"Nothing" and "comes" can be used in meaningful sentences like "I saw nothing suspicious", but "out of nothing, nothing comes" is not a meaningful sentence. Does that clarify things?
>>18518837Yeah we know. It doesn’t make sense. It can’t be. That’s why it’s nonsensical and can’t be taken seriously as an explanation for the origin of existence. As in, there was once no existence, and now there is. There always was.
>>18518743You would have to literally be God and take away their free will to believe anything.
>>18518839I don't see what you're trying to say. If a sentence is meaningless, its negation is also meaningless.
>>18518810This is the thing with faith. The existence of God can be known by reason alone, but faith is required to approach him. Faith must be initiated by you. It must be a choice. It’s an act of the will, not an act of reason. Using your example. One atheist, open to the idea of Christ, who was just unsure, could after seeing that vision, instantly drop to his knees and become a life long Christian. Another atheist, their heart turned away from faith, could ask God to show himself, see a vision of Christ and think “fuck, i’ve really lost my marbles now”. The point is, you can’t force a man to believe. Faith is an act of behaviour. Not knowledge.
>>18518743>What I mean by God is the God of classical theismWho's that?What does he look like?What are his tastes and inclinations?What does he need from me?
>>18518847The colour 7 is GermanThis sentence is meaningless. As we know, 7 is not a colour and neither colours nor numbers can possess nationalities. Is this negation meaningless?
>>18518853Infinite, eternal, singular, creator and source of reality, with a mind and will. Creator of the universe and human consciousness.
>>18518857If you want to say that sentence is false, then it has to be meaningful. If I interpret that sentence as the conjunction "isColor(7) AND isGerman(7)", then the sentence is false and its negation "isn'tColor(7) OR isn'tGerman(7)" is true.
>>18518837No, because the goalpost you set is that "nothing comes" is meaningless.>"Nothing" and "comes" can be used in meaningful sentencesAwesome! So how about "Nothing comes."?>>18518849Agreed. But if a person is putting themselves into the position of evidence evaluator, they should have some idea what criteria they will be using. If none come to mind, the role is misattributed.
>>18518865Then why to you, is the sentence that nothing cannot generate something. Or that, there was never a state of non existence, meaningless?
>>18518874>So how about "Nothing comes."?It's not a meaningful sentence.
>>18518882I think I have a good enough idea of what the problem here is now, thanks for answering my questions and good luck.
>>18518877When I want to judge the truth value of something like isColor(7), I can do that by the reasoning that 7 is a number and so it isn't a color. Nothing similar can be done for the sentence "there was never a state of non existence"
>>18518810>muh purposeOP stated a situation in which it really doesnt matter if there's a creator or not, or a role for humans within what seems to just be a sandbox experiment. That's why it's inconsequential and no deeper than brainstorming a fictional story.
>>18518898OP proposed the God of classical theism. That's not a deistic observer, that's an idea that comes with purpose and a plan for humanity.
>>18518743They would have to experience something that cannot be explained by a materialist understanding of the universe, such as a vision of the future or a ghost sighting. I know because that's what it took for me. And if you get talking to most normalfags, that's often the reason they aren't atheists. Only a retard would believe something without evidence.
>>18518938I’m OP. Perhaps I should have said deism. I just sort of meant the idea that a mind, existent forever and the source of all existence, exists and created our universe and humanity. Whether you believe God in this definition has a “plan” for us or whether you can enter into relationship with him is a further matter. My main goal wasn’t to prove Christianity. It was to discuss that physicalist, materialist explanations for the origin of existence are a dead end.Once you grant the existence of God/The Absolute/The One/The Ultimate, the question of religion actually makes sense. How does he relate to us, has he communicated with us. Atheism to Christ is a big jump. Atheism, to panpsychism, to deism, to theism, to Christ is a sequence.
>>18518956In that case deism really does seem more appropriate. Classical theism generally means more than there being a divine mind on the ontological level 1 as far as I've seen. Having said that, I would urge you to reconsider how big the leaps are to deism and to theism. Slapping a divine mind on the bottom of an existing naturalist worldview seems like a small change, but arriving to it is a hell of a challenge, and as far as I understand deism, a borderline impossibility. Theism is much messier but it at least offers ways to find out there is a God.
>>18518963I suppose the line lies in believing whether God is an impersonal principle or force or whether he is a mind. To me, the theistic/mind view would be that God, being the root of all further causality, and possessing in himself, full infinite perfect act/being, could not give to his creation something he did not have. God could not have given man an intellect and a will unless he possess these things. If he doesn’t, then he either held back the full actualisation of his own nature, which for God wouldn’t make him God, or he somehow made a creation that possess something he doesn’t. If we take intellect and will as perfections of being, in that it is better to have them then not have them, then it should stand that an infinite being with no defect nor lack has infinite intellect.
>>18518743All it would take would be for God to come down and say "Hello, I'm God. Watch this miracle." Then he instantly heals all the patients in the children's hospital. Then returns to the heavens in a column of fire. Then I'd believe in God.Now, considering God is omnipotent and omnipresent, this doesn't seem like a big ask. If I were omnipotent, I would certainly do this if it meant a bunch of little beings that I created with eyes and ears didn't have to spend an eternity burning in hell because they couldn't detect me in any way, shape or form.
>>18518743Ask my friend Bertrand.
>>18518976>God could not have given man an intellect and a will unless he possess these things.Does that mean god has a penis? And also a vagina? At the same time?
>>18519028God has the idea of those things in his head. Of the concept of male and female. Things exist in the infinite intellect of God and are made into reality by his will. God is immaterial. He has no parts, as if he had parts, he would be dependent upon those parts and thus would not be God. Intellect and will are immaterial faculties, God possess them infinitely. In his intellect, God holds the idea of what a penis or vagina is, and wills it into reality. Think of it like this, an architect has the intellectual capacity to envision and build a house. He uses his intellect and will to make that immaterial vision into a material reality. If he did not “have” the idea of a house, he could not give the house being. This is how God creates.
>>18518743"Admit god" - what does that mean? Let's start with a cease fire. Let's start with god freaks no longer believing that they have the right to kill anyone who doesn't agree with them.
>>18518743I would need to have sex, so basically it'll never happen.
And still..No objective real proof, just cheap philosophic word salad.Youre dumass.
>>18519081What is proof to you. A lab experiment. A scientific study. As I explained, these things cannot answer this question. Certain things fall outside the domain of the scientific method and must be inquired philosophically. The cause of existence itself is in this category. Even a miracle, which many posit as the proof they would need, can be handwaved away as a hallucination by a hardened skeptic.I should add that your belief that philosophy is meaningless “word salad” and that only empirically tested evidence is worthy, is itself a philosophy.
>>18518743I think the god of classical theism is contradictory and impossible, so you'd have to make some argument that three sided triangles exist or something of that nature that convinces me. For example, none of the stuff you said in the OP are convincing, because I don't agree with most of the premises that you're saying.
>>18518952There is the option to believe in some version lf ghosts or precognition without believing in classical theism. I lean that way myself, having had a few strange experiences while still thinking reality is too much of a mess to have something especially intelligent and purposeful at the bottom of it. Technically I imagine a person could continue to doubt that there's an OmniGod no matter what miracle they observed, because most any miracle could just as well be explained by a powerful but not quite all powerful god/alien/spirit. Even if the god had the power to mind control you into believing with full certainty that it was the one true OmniGod, that's still something a less-than-OmniGod could conceivably manage.
>>18519088Why do you believe it is impossible, and why do you disagree with most of the premises?
>>18519094For example, there can not be a mind with telos prior to the existence of space and time which serves as necessary preconditions for the existence of any possible mind. So the idea that a mind is prior to matter or time and then created matter and time is impossible, as matter and time are necessary preconditions before any minds can exist.
>>18519053>idea of those things in his headShe has a head but no penis vagina?
>>18518835There is nothing wrong with eternalism or infinite regress
>>18518743Your argument is essentially Aquinas's Third Way plus the principle of sufficient reason. It's sound. But you're asking what would convince an atheist, and the answer is: nothing would, on purely rational grounds, because the resistance is not intellectual.Classical theism gets you to an unmoved mover, a necessary being, pure act. It does not get you to the Trinity or the Incarnation. Those require revelation. And revelation cannot be proven -- only attested.This is why Pascal argued that God gives enough evidence to convince those who are open, but not so much as to compel those who are closed. The evidence is sufficient but not coercive. Divine hiddenness preserves human freedom. If God's existence were as obvious as the sun, belief would not be a free response -- it would be a forced conclusion.The atheist who says "show me proof" usually means "show me proof that leaves me no choice but to submit." That is not how God operates. He wants love, not surrender to evidence. You can't love someone you've been logically compelled to acknowledge.Your argument is correct. The barrier is not rational.
>>18519786>It's soundNo, it's not. The rest of your post is cope and also shows you lack a theory of mind.
>>18519786>You can't love someone you've been logically compelled to acknowledgeTypically realizing someone definitely exists and isn't a figment of your imagination is an important prerequisite for having an authentic relationship with them. There's no obvious reason why God would be an exception to this rule.
>>18519786The entire post was disproved in >>18519098It is not sound and you don't understand basic logic.
>>18519808You literally can only love someone you've been logically compelled to know exists.Theists are simply very unintelligent people who don't understand basic words. It is very clear at this point.
>>18518743Convincing evidence would be enough, but there's none that theists have. It's all vibes and personal experiences.>nothing cannot create the universe1. Something cannot come from something.2. There is something.C. There was never nothing.The universe and all the matter in it, has always existed in some form or another. Not necessarily in the form that we have now, but not a multiverse.There's no need for a god. It's just an outdated concept that cults won't let go of.
>>18518994>>18518956 (OP)The demand that God appear and heal a children's hospital to prove his existence misunderstands what's being asked. You're asking for evidence that would compel belief, and God apparently doesn't want compelled belief. He wants something else.Pascal put it this way: God gives enough evidence to convince those who are open, but not so much as to overwhelm those who are closed. If God's existence were as obvious as the sun, belief would be forced, not free. And you cannot love what you've been logically compelled to acknowledge. You can only love what you've freely chosen.This is not a dodge. It's the structure of any real relationship. If I demanded that my wife prove she loves me by attaching herself to a polygraph machine every morning, the demand itself would be the proof that I don't understand what love is. The kind of certainty you're asking for eliminates the possibility of the thing you're ostensibly seeking.Now, on the "nothing comes from nothing" objection raised earlier: this is a metaphysical principle, not a physical one. It doesn't mean "within the universe, things need causes." It means "being itself cannot come from non-being." If at any point there was absolutely nothing -- no matter, no energy, no laws, no space, no time, no God -- there would still be nothing. Nothing has no causal power. Nothing cannot produce something. The existence of anything at all therefore requires something that exists necessarily, not contingently. That's what classical theism means by God.You can disagree with the argument. But it's not meaningless. It's been the central question of metaphysics since Parmenides.
>>18519832>>What evidence would convince you?>Convincing evidenceThe scientific prodigies on this board never cease to amaze me.
>>18518743>Out of nothing, nothing comes.>except my god because he's a super speshul exception and he'll torture you forever if you disagree
>Atheists, what would it take for you to admit God?Like everything else: evidence. Can't provide any after 2000 years of your best theologians honing their arguments? Your problem.
>>18521428>If I demanded that my wife prove she loves me by attaching herself to a polygraph machine every morning, the demand itself would be the proof that I don't understand what love is.Requiring that your wife provide you with ongoing proof that she loves you isn't the appropriate comparison to God. The appropriate comparison is your wife providing you with ongoing proof that she at the very least exists, say by coming home to see you or by calling you on the phone once in a while.
>>18521507You're in luck! I will provide you a photo of God if you tell me how you're gonna recognize him.
>>18521511Not even ongoing proof on the individual level. As far as I know God has never provided proof that he exists to me at any point in time, though he may have allegedly provided some good evidence to some people at some point.
>>18518743Honestly, show himself in front of me and the whole world. Come down from the Heavens, so that it can be irrefutably captured on camera, so that every single person conscious or unconscious can see the him, and that he will make a miracle that will irrefutably show people that something will in fact happen, so nobody can even deny his existence afterwards.
>>18518994You WOULD believe if you started with the question of where did everything come from. If you started with child-like awe and wonder of asking where things came from. Like OP said the question of this magnitude is not scientific. You obviously can't tempt God who has infinite holiness, wisdom & knowledge. You can't play mind games with God.
>>18521524How would you disprove that it was an alien using advanced technology? To a naturalist, this is more likely than the experience being of God.
>>18521525>You WOULD believe if you started with the question of where did everything come fromWhen I do that I conclude that nature has always existed and always will, it is uncreated and eternal.
>>18518743I think Gnosis is the only way they can
>>18521526I have no knowledge of such advanced technology, and thus my explanations would fail.
>>18521679Then you're not starting with that question to begin with. If everything has always existed then there's no need to investigate the question of where did everything come from.
>>18518994This .
>>18521428>You're asking for evidence that would compel belief, and God apparently doesn't want compelled belief.What a grand and intoxicating coping mechanism.
I'd need God to address me personally and answer my questions.
>>18521970Read the bible
>>18521974What version?
>>18521970>bibleI don't believe god inspired/wrote such a poorly written book.
>>18518743I found GodOn the corner of First and AmistadWhere the westWas all but wonAll aloneSmoking his last cigaretteI said, "Where you been?"He said, "Ask anything"Where were youWhen everything was falling apart?All my daysWere spent by a telephoneThat never rangAnd all I needed was a callThat never cameTo the corner of First and AmistadLost and insecureYou found me, you found meLying on the floorSurrounded, surroundedWhy'd you have to wait?Where were you, where were you?Just a little lateYou found me, you found meIn the endEveryone ends up aloneLosing herThe only one who's ever knownWho I amWho I'm not and who I wanna beNo way to knowHow long she will be next to meLost and insecureYou found me, you found meLying on the floorSurrounded, surroundedWhy'd you have to wait?Where were you, where were you?Just a little lateYou found me, you found meEarly morningThe city breaksBut I've been callingFor years and years and years and yearsAnd you never left me no messagesYou never sent me no lettersYou got some kind of nerveTaking all I wantLost and insecureYou found me, you found meLying on the floorWhere were you, where were you?Lost and insecureYou found me, you found meLying on the floorSurrounded, surroundedWhy'd you have to wait?Where were you, where were you?Just a little lateYou found me, you found meWhy'd you have to waitTo find me, to find me?
>>18519000I understand that he lost his tea pot?
>>18518743What would it take for you to admit fae, trolls or Yokai?
>>18518743God shows himself to me and begins performing miracles, or things that defy the laws of physics. I also should have a few witnesses with me so we can confirm that we all saw the same thing and this wasn't a delusion by me. Lastly the miracles performed should leave a physically impossible object that could then be studied and shown as proof for God's existence. Bonus points if we film the whole ordeal as an extra layer of proof.
>>18518743>Our reality comes from an infinite, eternal source of pure beingReality is an infinite eternal source of pure being, though, why would it need to come from something else and how can that something possibly be real if you are saying it is outside of reality?>Out of nothing, nothing comes.Doesn't jive with the math, though. 0!=1, 0^0=1. 0 = 1-1, there are numerous ways to equate other things out of nothing.
>>18521683You know technology exists that is difficult to explain. You don't know the supernatural exists at all. Both explanations will fail, but the former is naturalist, so it will be automatically preferred.
Can your God create us a world that doesn't resemble his/her/its horrid chaotic world then?I'm tired of being held hostage by the whims of the wealthy billionaire class and the lowly plebeian wants.
>>18518743Whole world given clear and instinctive knowledge of this, at the very least. It mustn't be to hard to just make the fact an undeniable physical sensation different from intuitions that could confound it.Regardless, I don't quite see why it has to be a willful and directed act, all it tells us is that there was something before the universe which gave rise to it. P.S: It's somewhat farsical to use thomist terminology in a supposedly non-sectarian appeal. No, I don't care how much the term is univerally applicable.
>>18522370Romans 1:20For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
>>18522383>book says soAstonishing argument, my dear old chap.
>>18522383Ok, I don't care, I want to talk about classical theism and not about Paul's memoranda.I don't care that you think I'm going to burn btw. You ar emore fucked than I am.
>>18522383>Romans 1:20The bible is such a badly written book.John 1:10:"He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him."1 Corinthians 1:21:"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know him
>>18522383What I find so interesting about Romans 1:20 is that it is literally a direct contradiction right there in the sentence.Something that is invisible (not visible) is by definition not seen. This is literally saying "Gods' not visible qualities are visible" which is a direct contradiction, but Christians can't reason and they read this line and actually think it's meaningful.It really just shows that christianity is a false religion and a cult, because cults can get people to repeat contradictory and illogical things as facts as a form of brainwashing.
>>18522524>If I just pretend words only have one meaning, I can find contradictionsCan you not see how you're being disingenuous? (Concepts like disingenuousness cannot be seen)
>>18522597>If I just pretend words only have one meaningThat isn't what is happening here. "invisible" means "not visible". It is not similar to a word like "disingenuous". The line is a direct contradiction. It literally says "God's not visible properties are visible".
>>18522601The operating word you were pretending only had one meaning was "see"
>>18522606The word "to see", whether it be used literally (as in visible light and seeing with the eyes) or metaphorically (as in having intuitions or to experience something) both are in contradiction with the word "invisible".
>>18522613>both are in contradiction with the word "invisible".Wrong. Nothing contradictory with the metaphorical interpretation of the word.
>>18522383>>18522520There's an interesting theory that the angry sermon in Romans 1:18-32 was originally a piece of intra-Christian slander to which Paul wrote Romans as a response, not something Paul himself wrote, but our version of the text has been edited to obscure that. If Marcion's understanding of Paul were correct, something like that would have to be the case, because this is such an unambiguously pro-demiurge passage. And, as pointed out, it seems to disagree with Paul's theology elsewhere concerning whether God can be known from the visible world.Some of the details immediately surrounding the passage in favor of the theory are that, before it, in Romans 1:16, Paul says he is "not ashamed of the gospel." Why would he need to be ashamed of it if someone were not trying to shame him? Then, immediately after it, in Romans 2:1 and 2:3, he refers to a judgmental "whoever you are." That's a strange way of referring to the reader, but it could be a normal way to refer to, say, the author of a slanderous anonymous letter which he had just quoted. And in Romans 3:8, Paul refers directly to having been slandered by some group,>And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”?The line in Romans 1:23, "and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles." might seem to clearly have pagans as its target, but it could also have a Gnostic Christians in mind who attributed to the creation of the world and/or the giving of the Jewish law to lower angels/archons rather than humans (angels like cherubim definitely had animal features, and later gnostic texts like the apocryphon of John depict the demiurge and all the archons as having animal features), and Paul's letters do have considerable evidence of the latter view, that the law was given by angels or archons rather than by God directly.
