If God is real, then we would expect to observe natural orderIf God is not real, then we would not expect to observe natural orderWe observe natural orderTherefore, observing natural order increases the probability that God exists.
"God" is a quitter. He got bored and just let it run
>>538245865So what does that have to do with a savior of men's souls?
>>538245865
>>538246210there is no soulthat's just your brain having internal pareidolia
>>538245944Nope, its just a script and it has to play out to the end for him to know who is a faggot and who isn'tBetter luck next time
>>538245865>I deny natural orderColor me surprised. Atheists can't reason.
>>538246442Why would an assumed omnsiscient omnipotent "being" give two shits about an limited being like an individual human? Do you care if an ant nibbled on deer cum instead of honey and judge it based on how it got its nutritions
>>538245865Hopefully AI will find God
>"god" doesn't care about any of creationbut also>"god" care about your every single action and if it's a sin according to rules that haven't been updated for 2000 yearsChristcucks just can't operate without insane doublethink
>>538245865>Circular argumentGo back to your philosophy classes
>>538246877That argument isn't circular.
>>538246998>I observe X in real life>I'll define God as something which would produce X>I observe X in real life>God existsThat type of argument hasn't been taken seriously for the past 400 years.OP brought a twist though: he added "maybe" "perhaps", etc. Because he's too much of a bitch to assert his opinion.
>>538246821You strawmanned premise one. Christians do not claim that God does not care about Creation, in fact, we claim the exact opposite: that God is *deeply interested* in His Creation, and particularly in us, His greatest creation, made in the Imago Dei, the Image of God Himself. To quote St. Athanasius: "God became Man, so that Man may become God". He made us, His children, to Know Him more deeply, and to one day become a part of Him as gods in our own right, to learn not just to be living souls, but life-giving spirits, as He is.As His children, His students, His servants, it is of the UTMOST importance that He take a very personal hand in our development. Bastards are not chastised; only sons are chastised. We are chastised. Ergo, we are sons, rebellious and foolish though we may be.
>>538247249He didn't define God. The definition of God has always been "the first cause". Arguments from pure reason that prove God's existence on the basis of pure reason have never been refuted.Also, philosophy hasn't been serious for the past 400 years. Real philosophy is always rationalistic as it was in the days of Plato and Aristotle, and rationalism is always theistic. Modern sophists deciding that they don't want to follow logic anymore is not an evolution of philosophy, it's the complete and utter destruction of it.
>>538247419Well stated, Anon. It really is surprising the number of atheists who think they can just deny logic/reason when it leads inevitably to conclusions they don't like.
>>538247536Listen, if I start supporting your delusions about this I may as well accept that you are a women as well. Where does it stop?
>>538245865What about gods plural?
>>538245865What do you mean by God?What do you mean by natural order?Why should we expect to observe natural order if God existed?Why should we not expect to observe natural order if God did not exist?Answer these questions, and we can evaluate your argument.
>>538245865HOURLY REMINDER: there is no god, jesus never existed and when you die it will be nothingness for eternity!
>>538246821to test us
>>538248007
>>538248007it's funny how atheists deny Jesus but don't deny any other ancient historical figures. The first history of Cleopatra came from Plutarch and was written more than one hundred years after her death. There is more written about Jesus in the one hundred years after his death than there is written about Julius Ceasar. Why don't atheists deny Cleopatra or Julius Ceasar existed?
>>538247419>The definition of God has always been "the first cause">AlwaysAnother fallacy.It was first introduced by medieval theologians re-using Aristotle argument and giving it a Christian flavor.They did so to elaborate an argument such as OP.
>>538247536A lot of them seem to think that empiricism is synonymous with rationalism somehow, even though the two have always been diametrically opposed. Atheists end up with these warped world views where they insist that they're being rational while also insisting that matter is the only thing that exists, ignoring the fact that they're claiming to be using something while also claiming that that thing doesn't exist and can't be used to determine truths.
>>538248084>There is more written about Jesus in the one hundred years after his death than there is written about Julius Ceasar.I have no reason to curse Jesus. if he was a jew, he hated other jews. That's cool. But if you are a slav, why are you a lying faggot? People lay flowers at Caesar's grave. You squeal like a piglet if anyone questions the authenticity of the shroud of Turin.
Is there a single christcuck argument that doesn't boil down to>we don't know everything therefor my wizard (and not the others 3000 wizards) did it
>>538246442gawd doesn't seem very smart
>>538247536I studied medieval theologians and philosophers at an academic level. I also have multiple logic classes under my belt which I all graduated with straight As.So, when I see fallacies which have been proven as such long ago, I can't help but react this way.That said, I'm not even an atheist: I just think that argument is dumb.
>>538248099There are Egyptian engravings dated over 4,000 years old that describe an ineffable first cause. Ontology has been around for longer than we have written records of. You need to study history some more, and also learn what the word fallacy means. A fallacy is not "anything i disagree with". It's something that only occurs when stated premises don't support the conclusion that they claim to support. It has to do with the relationship between premises and conclusions, not with factual accuracy.
>>538245865>If God is real, then my mother is a woman.>If God is not real, then my mother is not a woman.>We observe that my mother is a woman.>This observation increases the chances of God existing.For Heaven's sake define your terms and prove why one thing depends on the other. If God is real, then you're insulting God with your level of logic and reason.
>>538248321Oh, my apologies, Mr. Logician. Did you have a refutation the Cosmological Argument you'd like to share with the class? You'd be the first in hundreds of years to refute it, I'd be VERY interested to hear it.
>>538248341>God is Y because he has been defined as such for 4000 yearsSure, I didn't know about Egyptians. However it is still a fallacy as the premise does not support the conclusion.
>>538248168Materialists love using non-material concepts like logic without ever giving a justification for it through their own worldview. Their worldview CAN'T account for the existence of logic, they just assume it as a given, again, with no justification. "L-logic j-just is, ok?" No, not ok. I wish that more religious debaters started pressing them on that.
>>538248523God doesn't have to be that first cause.Again, the premise does not support the conclusion.
>>538248539The premise does in fact support the conclusion. In order for a first cause to not exist, we would have to exist in a world that does not contain cause and effect. We do live in a world that contains cause and effect, therefore there must be a first cause. You cannot separate cause and effect from a first cause, so your only option is to reject cause and effect as a whole if you want to reject the first cause. But if you do that, then your entire arguments falls to pieces because you've just rejected logic, which itself is the foundation for argumentation.
>>538246330you're homochiralLMAO
>>538248760Read >>538248665
>>538248665Do you concede that there must be a First Cause? Because there must be, logically speaking. What this First Cause's traits or attributes are is a theological question and has been debated for thousands of years, but THAT there is a First Cause is necessary for our reality to be coherent at all. Call it God, call it the Universal Mind, call it the All, call it whatever you want, but you MUST concede that its existence is a logical requirement, or there's no use talking to you at all because you clearly have no grasp on reality at all.
This >>538245944 so much lolFuckin' pussy.
>>538245865who taught you the definition of what god is?the jewish TV did. they can also tell you that up is down. if you cant find it yourself, then its not there. i suggest you dont even search for "god", because you must be open for anything. an ufo is not neccessarily aliens.
>>538248871No, you don't need a wizard to be the reason things exist. That's just what YOU want it to be.
>>538245865I don’t expect nor observe shit, motherfucker.
>>538248871Sure, the universe is causal. It doesn't prove the existence of God though.
>>538248665God absolutely does have to be the first cause. Anything that's not first in the order of ontology is both inferior and submissive to what came before it. An effect cannot be greater than or hold power over its cause. Anything that is not first cannot be a true creator, it can't be perfect because it doesn't possess what birthed it, and it can't be independent because its existence depends on each prior cause. I really don't think you have any experience with logic under your belt, but if you want to educate yourself you should read Plotinus.
>>538248943I have never once claimed that the Universal Mind, what men call God, is a "wizard", now you're just grasping at straws man. I am simply pointing out that, if you accept the existence of logic, you accept the existence of cause and effect, and if you accept cause and effect, you must accept a First Cause, an Uncaused Cause, because that is a logical entailment of the entire structure. It's foundational. Again, what this "God" is like is a question for theologians; logicians however cannot deny that it, whatever it is, exists, and must exist, cannot NOT exist. You claimed to be a logician: were you lying?
>>538249101What caused god?
>>538248084>There is more written about Jesus in the one hundred years after his death than there is written about Julius Ceasar.There's probably more written about Harry Potter than there is about Caesar. Fiction doesn't become real after a certain volume.>it's funny how atheists deny Jesus but don't deny any other ancient historical figures. also wrong. there's scant evidence for Pythagoras. He was as real as Jesus was.
>>538249121There is no first cause. Thing have always been and always will be. First cause is a cope to manifest the concept of the wizard.
>>538249101>Circular argument
>>538249237Thank you for admitting that you've just been talking out your ass this whole time. You could have just said that from the beginning and saved us both a lot of time.
>>538249010You're concerned with the name rather than the substance of what that name is pointing to. A first cause is by necessity perfect, because it pre-possesses all things sequent to it. A first cause is by necessity in possession of intellect and mind, because intellect and mind exist from it. A first cause is also by necessity the sole creative force, because everything sequent to it merely passes on what was given to it by the first cause. A first cause is by necessity perfectly impartial, which is what it means to be perfectly just, perfectly compassionate and perfectly wise. People did not come up with the idea of God and then decide to hitch it to the first cause. People saw what the first cause was and realized that such a thing must be of principal importance and profound perfection.
>>538249305How does it prove the existence of God?
>>538249148Nothing, God is uncaused. The creative force that made time would have to exist prior to time. Meaning that there was never a point within time at which it did not exist. If you think that the first cause exists within time, then you should reconsider what it means for something to be ontologically first.>>538249271That isn't a circular argument. You have absolutely never in your life taken even a beginner's course in logic. Why did you lie earlier?
>>538246330
>>538249328It proves the existence of a perfectly wise and loving supreme mind that is responsible for creation and exhorts its creations towards wisdom and virtue at all times. You don't have to call that thing God if you simply hate the word "God" for some inane and prejudiced reason. You can call it One. You can call it The Monad. You can call it The Good. You can call it Truth. You can call it Love. It really does not matter what you call it, but it does exist and it has given you a teleological purpose that you're morally obligated to fulfill.
>>538249228>he was as real as Jesus wasAre you saying Pythagoras wasn't real, or that Jesus was real? You're mixing up metaphors here I think.>fiction doesn't become real after a certain volumeThis contains an implicit admission that volume of historical documents, no matter how much or how little, has no bearing on the truth of a matter, but the likelihood increases with evidence, and like it or not, even anecdotal evidence IS evidence, even if it's a weaker argument than others. There has been no evidence of the existence of Harry Potter prior to J.K. Rowling's first book, but there has been thousands of years of anecdotal evidence for the existence of Christ, across many cultures and nations. To claim that Christ didn't exist is just asinine; no serious historian or scholar denies His existence, they merely deny claims of His divinity.
>>538249465>God is the first cause, that's it>"Okay, there's a first cause.">Alright, so it's wise, loving, etc.Moat and bailey.
>>538245865You can reason out that there is a prime mover that set in motion an orderly system but you can not reason that said mover is0: THE unmoved itself1: Conscious at all2: Forever more vast than what it has caused3: Conscious of what it has caused to any degree4: In control of what it has caused to any degree5: Gives a fuck about anything on earth6: Wasted its time speaking to middle eastern foreskin cutter cults
>>538247419Who made god though ?>God has always existedMaybe the universe always existed without godBy introducing god you just move the "but where did it come from" a little bit further.
>>538249375Time depends on the observers of the observer. If nothing caused anything then nothing is here. Mass of universe equals zero. We are not here. There is no god. There is no anything. Mystery solved.
>>538249563I already explained to you that a first cause must possess whatever it grants to its effects. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Something cannot come from nothing. If it exists, it came from the first cause. Intellect and mind exist, therefore they came from the first cause. Therefore, the first cause has intellect and mind.Also, consider what it means for a person to be wise, just and loving. It means that person is objective, impartial and obeys truth. What's more objective, impartial and agreeable to truth than the grounds of reality itself? Reality is the perfection of objectivity, thus it's the perfection of wisdom, which in turn in the perfection of compassion and the perfection of justice.Hopefully these explanations do somebody here some good, because at this point it's painfully obvious that you're only capable of lying and dissenting in bad faith.
>>538249375I'd stop wasting your time. That dude clearly has no idea what the hell he's talking about, he's just raging against the idea of a moral authority above himself, like all atheists do without even realizing it. Every single atheist has decided that they are the ultimate arbiters of Truth and morality, even when they claim the opposite."The fool hath said in his heart: there is no God."
>>538249465The prime mover is a non-conscious temporally recursive, self generating construct that mindlessly produces orderly systems. It is also itself moved. By a future being in this universe, who builds it and sets it in motion with the technology to traverse causality. What now? Who do you serve?Yes, i did make that upBut so did moses when he stole the story of atra hasis and decided to modify it to encourage jewish reproduction
>>538245865But if God doesn't have a father, then He's a bastard
>>538249728If the universe always existed then the universe is God, because that would make the universe the sole creator. All you've done is taken the label "God" and replaced it with the label "universe". No matter how you slice it, the first cause must exist and the first cause must be the sole creator. If God existed sequent to the universe, then God would not be the universe's creator, and thus would not be God. The conception of a first cause absolutely resolves any questions of "where did it come from", because a first cause is also the cause of time. Meaning there would never be a point within time at which the first cause did not exist, since its existence is wholly prior to time.
>>538249801A first cause does not need intellect and mind. It just needs to generate an orderly system. That’s it. It also does not need to be uncaused, only placed in time before its cause.
>>538249829You're right, but I don't consider it a waste of time. It was pretty blatant early on that he wasn't capable of being sincere, but if anyone at all benefits from what I've written here then it was something I'd gladly take the time to write out again.
>>538249801I would argue that "just" does not require impartiality, but then again, justice is an extremely difficult concept to define, so it's forgiveable to include that as part of its definition.You're clearly overqualified to be talking to the ingrates that populate this board. I know Christ came to those who were sick, but Aristotle also said that "some men simply can't be educated". I suspect Aristotle had the right of it here.
>>538249939A first cause absolutely must be in possession of everything that it creates before it creates it. If it were not, then that would violate logic on a fundamental level.
>>538245865Why would we expect natural order from a being that isn't natural?
>>538249925>If the universe always existed then the universe is GodWell that's some new definition of god, "the thing that exist the longest".God is supposed to have an agency, if I find a rock that has always existed but has no agency or ability to fulfill my prayers then it's not a god but according to you it is and you'd worship it to no outcome.
>>538245865HOURLY REMINDER: there is no god, jesus never existed and when you die it will be nothingness for eternity!!
>>538249939If intellect and mind exist, then the first cause must necessarily have both. You still have no idea what you're talking about. If the first cause did not have intellect and mind, then intellect and mind could not exist.
>>538245865Why are they called Seraphim? Because they burn (saraph) the writing tables of Satan : Every day Satan is sitting, together with SAMMAEL, the Prince of Rome (Christianity), and with DUBBIEL, the Prince of Persia (Islam), and they write the sins of Israel on writing tables which they hand over to the Seraphim, in order that they may present them before the Holy One, blessed be He, so that He may destroy Israel from the world. But the Seraphim know from the secrets of the Holy One, blessed be He, that he desires not, that this people Israel should perish. What do the Seraphim? Every day do they receive (accept) them from the hand of Satan and burn them in the burning fire over against the high and exalted Throne in order that they may not come before the Holy One, blessed be He, at the time when he is sitting upon the Throne of Judgement, judging the whole world in truth.
>>538249801>All the characteristics of this world must be present in God in their most perfect formWhy?>Because then they couldn't be cast into this worldWhy?Now you're shitting garbage that sounds true to you because it has been repeated ad nauseam for the past 2500 years.You make so many claim and you have nothing to support them.
>>538246343demonstrably false, read more
>>538250131You could not find a rock that has always existed, because no rock has always existed. If it did, it would not be a rock, it would be God. You're mistaking the creation for the Creator.
>>538250068>assuming intellect was madeIntellect was not crafted. It is an inevitable property of this specific permutation of reality. Sufficiently complex systems once set in motion can eventually gain properties their creators never had. There is in fact mountains of evidence not one thing you see today was crafted. Who is to say god is not a small thing watching it go, amazed at the scale of his experiment, powerless to stop it? Who is to say god knows anything and was not created and placed before the creation of this reality? These questions and their answers are beyond you. Ergo they are pointless. Live the life you have. Don’t waste it harming yourself and others to appease something you only think exists and only assume cares and has any power to exert that care.
>>538250131That's not a new definition. That's the only definition that has ever existed. "Deus" means highest, in reference to the highest point in ontology. Anything that's not first can't be the creator by definition, it can only be the created.>God is supposed to have an agency, if I find a rock that has always existed but has no agency or ability to fulfill my prayers then it's not a god but according to you it is and you'd worship it to no outcome.How can the first cause lack agency if it's responsible for creating agency? The notion of a first cause is pregnant of many attributes, because being first in the order of creation implies priority in terms of potency and possession. If there was a rock older than your 'god', then it's necessarily implied that that rock played a part in creating your 'god', making your 'god' nothing more than a creature who grants requests. We already have creatures that grant requests in this world, and they aren't gods.
>>538250141Once more, this assumes the thing knew and made intellect. It could just be a machine enacting equations, random permutations that may or may not produce stable realities conducive to life. As we know it, and as we don’t. It is only the first mover for what you know. Not what you don’t.
>>538249939>>538250168Can you create a bow without a bowstring?On that matter, can you create anything at all without the conception? For what could be created if not with the elements required for the object to exist? On another note, could you put a physical object inside of a computer environment? No, of course not. But if we created sentient beings inside of a computer environment, from their perspective, what they could interact with would be conceptually identical to our conception of physicality. So would we have made a physical object inside of a computer program? Could we have constructed this same conception of physicality if we did not ourselves have that element?
>>538250168>Why?I told you why. At least twice. Ex nihilo nihil fit is one of the foundational logical axioms. Something cannot come from nothing, an effect cannot be without its cause. If you throw a ball, the energy that propelled that ball had to come from your arm. The energy of the ball cannot exceed the energy that your arm is in possession of. Something does not come from nothing.
>>538250422There's no such thing as "random" anywhere in existence. Everything is cause and effect. It's quite literally not even possible for a random number generator to truly be random, because "existence" and "order" are synonyms.
>>538245865A creator need not be a god or the God.
>>538250422Then we simply ask: what created the machine?Simulation Theory doesn't remove the necessity of a first cause, it merely pushes it back a single step. We aren't talking about God as "a machine that created this reality", we're talking about "the Creator of that machine". You haven't answered the question of "why" at all by positing an unthinking machine or rock.
>>538250438>>538250454You use real life examples to explain ideal concepts.You jump between two orders of things.>False analogy
>>538250438Can you create an equation that does not contain a shape but eventually produces it?Yes. You FALSELY assume:The first mover for what you know is uncreatedIt is consciousIt created intellect itself, rather than intellect arising automatically (all evidence says this is true)Who is to say a conscious god did not come back to check on his universe generator and looked for us? Could he say he made us, and be telling the truth despite having no comprehension of how we were actually made? Yes. Again this is all pointlessYou can only say something caused somethingYou have no data about anything before or outside realityOr that it ever talked to middle eastern dick cutters
>>538250597For your own sake, you should stop trying to use terminology that you don't understand. It's genuinely extremely embarrassing for you.
>>538250542Semantic bullshit>>538250584Who cares? What if we did? Do they know what the machine did? Do they interact with what it generated? Do we actually know for sure that time is linear? Does reality actually exist?Who cares?Are you really going to live your life hurting yourself and others, chopping off foreskins because a schizophrenic semite thought he talked to a plant?
>>538245865Yeah as long as you’re not talking about the jewish abrahamic god I am on boardBut if you’re a noahs ark retard you have no hope
>>538250579Not a merely created creator, no. But we aren't talking about created creators, we're talking about the Uncreated Creator. Try to keep up, please.
>>538250614I did not make an assumption, I asked only questions about minds and their relation to created objects.
>>538250700You're just upset because I'm calling out your fallacies.I must admit though, they have been perfected for 2000 years, so they're hard to highlight, but you are nothing but a sophist.
>>538250753Do you know for sure that linear causality is inviolable?No you do notYou know that you do not know how to violate itYet
>>538245865We're in a simulation/reincarnation cycle. Jews are trapped in here until the simulation ends, at which point their soul/ai/whatever is deleted from existence on the higher plane.
>>538245865>We observe natural orderdefine natural order
>>538250734That has nothing to do with semantics. You should look into how random number generators actually work. They're always seeded with something that is not random, because random is the same thing as chaos, and chaos is the same thing as non-existence. Existence is order, which is why the reality we inhabit is based entirely on cause and effect.
>>538250799You don't even know what a fallacy is, let alone how to correctly identify one.
>>538250753I'm responding to OP. You can observe what you like in creation, but a creator does not necessarily have to be divine - merely advanced. Therefore, OP's point is moot.>keep upGet fucked, you vainglorious retard
>>538250768Whatever resulted in your mind need not resemble it in any way. It need not have a self. It need not say I, God. It need not give a shit about you. It only needs to define physics, and direct energy in a contained, orderly system by those physics. It could be a higher order animal and existence could be a cosmic turd. It could just be some faggot dicking around at CERN accidentally creating reality without anyone knowing.
>>538245865>If God is real, then we would expect to observe natural order>If God is not real, then we would not expect to observe natural orderWhy would you expect either thing? Have you been in a universe that doesn't have a natural order to compare it to this one?
>>538250734>who cares?What a convincing argument: "who knows how reality came to be? Who cares how it came to be?"Why one cares is completely fucking irrelevant. It's not even an argument, it's just sophistry.And no, I don't chop off foreskins, nor do I condone that. Circumcision was in force for a very specific time for a very specific reason, a reason which was rendered without effect with the forced conversion of Canaanites into the Faith of the Law and the Prophets under John Hyrcanus and King Herod.We're not even talking about Christianity in this thread, dumbass. We're talking about the necessary existence of A god, any god, as a first cause for the existence of this reality. Theology is not what we're discussing.
>>538250936>merely advancedThen it cannot be the First Cause, because it was created instead of Uncreated. You really aren't tall enough for this ride, man.
>>538250887If it caused existence it existed without existence. It could be a machine, a being, an emergent property, a reaction some dickhead started by poking at the fabric of the universe and accidentally violating linear time.You have no data about what is outside and before reality. You can only spitball. It is literally beyond you. Humble yourself.
>>538251026Which part of "I'm responding to OP" don't you understand, dickhead?
>>538250926>nuh-huhYes-huh.We have devolved into your most primal argument:>It's true because I say soI win, pseud.
>>538245865what the fuck is natural about him creating niggers and jews you retard?
>>538250946Because we know and can observe that the natural trend of energy in this reality is toward entropy, i.e. chaos, disorder. We have order, therefore, some Force acted or is acting against the natural trend toward entropy.
>>538250972Return to >>538249708Beyond it causing reality you have no data about the outside of realityNadaYou’ve decided that something beyond existence caused existence. Great. By definition you can’t even ask a valid question about it. It operates on unknown rules. So you call it magically infinite and go home to ascribe your opinions to its will.
>>538250542>because "existence" and "order" are synonymsthey definitely are not.
>>538251051It can't cause existence without having existence, otherwise nothing could exist, since non-existence can't produce existence. It can't be a machine because machines are created, it can't be an emergent property because there's nothing for it to have emerged from since it's the first cause, and it can't be a reaction because there's nothing for it to have reacted to or reacted with. Whatever is ontologically first is "One", it can't be a participant in anything other than itself because nothing other than itself exists.>Humble yourself.Please take your own advice.
>>538250945>It doesn't need to be resembled in your mind at all, but it does need to fit these very specific criteria that their mind has no concept forHuhDo you go outside and think that every building that exists was teleported into existence? Or were they built by accident?
>>538251192They absolutely are. Everything in this world is the product of cause and effect. Nothing exists without a cause, thus nothing exists randomly.
>>538251051>it existed without existingLogically impossible. It must necessarily be non-cogent, i.e., if it exists, it MUST exist. Look up the Cosmological Argument and try your best to understand it.>some dickhead who poked a hole in realityThen who created the dickhead? Again, you're hiding behind simulation theory as if that answers the actual question at hand. It does not.>You have no data about what is outside and before realityWe have reason and logic. No, that's not empirical data. As it turns out, despite atheist protestations to the contrary, logic and reason are ABSOLUTELY evidence. Lacking empirical data is not an impediment.
>>538251160There isn’t anything fighting thermodynamics. The entire system is trending towards death. The universe has a shelf life. You don’t know what happened before it, only that something did, and you don’t know if it had to be in the oldest past or could happen today or in the future. Or if it has any idea of these things and didn’t just produce a ruleset that coincidentally resulted in them. Genuinely. Stop caring. Care about the universe you live in before you ask questions outside of time and space.
>>538250056
>>538251311>who created the dickheadHimself. By accident. Without knowing. He caused everything. What a mistake. This is as valid as any watchmaker god and you can’t stand it. The idea mocks your hubris. You can’t disprove it because you don’t actually know what existence is or if something can be outside of it or not, or how such things are.
>>538251345Questions outside of time and space give insight into questions in this universe. You're the worst kind of goldfish - not a care in the world for anything outside of the current fifteen-second window of present time. You're not even a human being - curiosity is a natural part of the essence of being human, and you have none. You're no better than a nigger - "fuck all dis cosmic talk shit, fuck bitches make money nigga".Cretin.
>>538251431No, that's not valid at all. Something can't create itself, orderly creation doesn't happen by accident, and knowledge doesn't come from ignorance. You're trying to invert reality and logic with implications that something can come from nothing, that potency can come from impotence, and that order can come from chaos. It doesn't work that way, because nothing works that way. That's like saying you're going to create heat from cold or light from darkness. Privations don't create and can't be causes.
>>538251431>dickhead created himselfThen he still can't be the first cause, as the first cause must necessarily be uncreated.
>>538251386>the moon is a light
>>538245865define natural order
>>538251506You should actually know how reality works before you assume how it was created. You’ve already said intellect was created and so god has to have something we’d recognize as intellect. This is nonsense that is more disproven than not. Intellect is likely emergent. No intent behind it can be proven. However, a fellow but vaster intellect could be motivated to lie and claim to have made it if it thought you were dumb enough to fall for it.
>>538251525chaos is not nothing it is potentiality
>>538251525You literally don’t know if something can’t create itself. >>538251560It doesn’t. That’s an assumption. You do NOT know if linear time is ultimate or not. You can not prove either yourself, yet. Sorry.
>>538251593Look up the works of Miles Mathis. Every atom is a tiny generator that speeds up or slows down photons of light. Even you. You emit light, it's just a tiny, tiny amount of photons that our eyes are not able to perceive conscioisly.The moon emits its own light. This is not even a shocking revelation except to physics luddites. Even if it didn't, do you think God incapable of producing sufficient light Himself to make the plants grow, or creating plants that did not need sunlight?Think, man, think! You don't even know what you don't know.
>>538250348>That's not a new definition.It is. God is a supreme being that has power over universe. An eternal rock with no agency or ability to answer prayers is not a god.>How can the first cause lack agency if it's responsible for creating agency? Who says it created agency ? You are jumping to conclusions>The notion of a first cause is pregnant of many attributes, because being first in the order of creation implies priority in terms of potency and possession. >The notion of a first cause >The notion>The notion impliesSo more conjectures. I'm simply stating that the universe always existed without agency , it just is. You can't prove it wrong or right no more than you can prove the idea of a creator wrong or right.>If there was a rock older than your 'god', then it's necessarily implied that that rock played a part in creating your 'god', making your 'god' nothing more than a creature who grants requests. What if there's no god and matter just exists. You can't refute it. You can claim it's illogical but "a creator that contains every aspect of its creation before he creates it" is infinitely more complex so what caused it to exist ?>Well it was always thereIt's bonkers.
>>538251740>That's an assumptionNo. It is a logical necessity, not an assumption. Unless you want to claim that logic itself is an assumption, in which case there is absolutely no reason to listen to a single word you say.
>>538251655No, chaos is explicitly not potentiality, otherwise things would be constantly popping into existence from nothing. Existence follows cause and effect, nothing comes into existence without a cause. Meaning existence follows on order, and chaos is then by definition the lack of existence, the lack of potency and the lack of potentiality. Chaos is nothing more than the privation of order, which means it's the absence of reality, not a fundamental part of reality. If randomness actually existed we wouldn't have to look far for it, but in reality we can't find randomness anywhere in the universe. It simply doesn't exist, to the point where we aren't even capable of producing random numbers and will never be capable of producing random numbers.
>>538251743Oh come on that's some spicy pilpul.
>>538251740>You literally don’t know if something can’t create itself.Something cannot create itself because creation only occurs as a matter of cause and effect. If creation could happen without cause and effect, then things would be popping into existence randomly all the time for no reason. That doesn't happen, which means creations cannot create themselves.
>>538251809You’re just calling it a logical necessity. I’m calling it a limitation of your understanding. There is precedent for counterintuitive, illogical effects in physics already. You do not know. That’s it.
>>538251870You do not know if linear time is ultimate, the one and only time. You don’t know if it isn’t. You just chose the assumption you want. Like that intellect created intellect bullshit you backed down from ASAP.
>>538251748>You are jumping to conclusionsAre you pretending to be absolutely clueless, or is this a serious question? If something is the first cause, that makes it responsible for creating everything that is sequent to it. Agency exists sequent to it, therefore it created agency.
>>538251817>we can't find randomness anywhere in the universeWe can. In radioactive decay, we can set our most accurate timepieces by the number of atoms that will decay over a set period of time, but which particular atoms will decay is entirely random.
>>538251932You also don’t know if agency exists.
>>538251878There's no such thing as illogic in physics. You're assuming that because something defied our expectations of what it would do that it defied logic, but that's as impossible as saying that it defied reality. If it did something, then that something is part of reality and affirms reality, it cannot stand in defiance of it.>>538251916I know that logic leads to truth, and that logic and truth are both ultimate. I don't have to assume anything, and I didn't "choose" these conclusions. They follow naturally from reason and lead necessarily to truth.
>>538252035Then you've conceded the argument, since you've just given up your own agency to argue. If you continue to argue, you're asserting that you do have such agency.
>>538251932>If something is the first causeBro you're unironically obtuseI claimed that the universe without agency just always existed.Nothing caused it, matter was just always there
>>538251817>chaos is explicitly not potentiality>by definition the lack of existenceFalse. At some point a God came from nothing. If it wasn't a God, then it could not exist. But since it came from nothing, then it must be divinely capable of defying mundane human laws of logic.>If randomness actually existedProve that it doesn't. By all observable metrics background radiation from the sun is random. You rely too much on the world you specifically can percieve to tell you how things are or aren't. An epistomological fallacy in its own right. It's not like you can know the truth of God, so how can you possibly claim to know the nature of entropy?
>>538251989Us not knowing something before it happens does not make that thing random. It still follows cause and effect, it just follows a train of it that we can't predict. In order for something to truly be random it would have to be entirely outside the chain of cause and effect, which is obviously impossible because cause and effect is the definition of reality. Anything outside of reality doesn't exist.
Why do rational arguments for God make atheists so angry to the point that they are willing to discard logic itself in order to "refute" the argument?
>>538252137That makes the universe the first cause. Which begs the question that I originally asked, how did a cause that doesn't possess agency create agency? How can something come from nothing?
>>538252167The radioactive decay of individual atoms has no cause or precursor. It has a probability.
>>538252145But how can something come from nothingWhy wouldn't the universe just spontaneously form from nothing thenWhat caused god to come from nothing
>>538252145No, theology is built on the idea that there was never a point at which God came from nothing. An uncaused cause was never "made" and never "came into existence". It exists prior to time, thus there was never a point within time at which it did not already exist.
>>538252239It does have a cause, otherwise it would not take place. Calling it a probability doesn't take away from that, and our own inability to determine things accurately doesn't imply that there isn't a cause.
>>538252261>But how can something come from nothing>I claimed that the universe without agency just always existed.Do you not see the irony in you asking this question after what you just said?
>>538252048>i assume that my mind is perfect and what i understand to be logical can define realityThen you are yourself GodSo much for your curiosity. You know everything already, so much that what you can’t comprehend can’t be, because if logic worked for you so far your divine inputs result in divine outputs. Brilliant. Jk. Retarded. >>538252082Actually i’ve won it by calling you a deterministic golem doomed to have ego issues. Now go live in and understand reality before trying to suck the dick of what’s beyond it (probably some dickhead at cern causing an explosion outside of time)Btw i worked at cern and was terminated without explanationAnd my pants just fell downDivine provenance? Perhaps
>>538252327Go away for five minutes and then tell me what causes one atom in an isotope to decay when another does not and you might have a point. I'll wait.
>>538252229>That makes the universe the first cause. But it doesn't mean it has the agency or that it's a supreme being or that it has power over itself.>Which begs the question that I originally asked, how did a cause that doesn't possess agency create agency? Agency might be emergent. How did a cause that doesn't have technology create technology ? You're just notions and conjectures.>How can something come from nothing?Indeed, how can the most complex thing in the universe (god) come from nothing ? Who made god ?
>>538252261Maybe God or our universe came from a higher dimension. So in that sense it didn't come from nothing but just something so incomprehensible that all we can do is speculate. I'm not a religious cultoid btw the existance of a God that would leave us in this mess is inhuman>>538252283Theology is limited to human understanding which is itself highly limited. To take it as truth is just willful ignorance of the one truth you should know, which is that you know nothing
>>538252354WooshI was being ironicStill, can you answer it ?
>>538252439You lost the argument fully, which is why you're resorting to the idea that knowledge in and of itself is inherently impossible. You've gone full nihilist, because you couldn't refute anything stated using reason.
>>538252466Maybe the universe was conscious for a period, asked how since it was the universe, figured he made himself, had a chat with various other intelligences within itself, told them he had to have made everything, and then, died, when the universe got so big its crucial plasma synapses were severed.
>>538245865>natural order
>>538245944Do you think God would just shepherd us like a bunch of sheep children and make it so easy for us?If I was in the position of God, I would want to construct the sitution such that beings would become close to Me, by the very situation I would have placed them in, to be stronger, and better, than they were before. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_NAoNd4YyY
>>538252450It does mean that it has agency, because if agency exists anywhere then it must also be present within the first cause. Otherwise, you're asserting that something came from nothing, which is an impossibility. You can only get out of this by asserting that agency doesn't exist, but if you do that then you've automatically lost on the grounds that you just refuted your own ability to argue.>Agency might be emergent.No. Nothing that exists is emergent. Everything that exists comes from a cause, because to do otherwise would be something coming from nothing. Which again, violates logic itself on a fundamental level.>>538252526>Still, can you answer it ?I already did. The creator of time exists outside of and prior to time, meaning there was never a point within time at which the creator did not exist. Which is to say, the first cause is eternal. It never did not exist, thus it never came from nothing.
>>538252536You literally assume linear cause and effect is the only cause and effect and reject anything you can’t comprehend. You have no curiosity re: how things work, how things come to be. You assume intelligence was crafted by intelligence. You’re quite stupid. But you also aren’t creating any universes like the god you want to believe in now are you? Ha. Stop reasoning based on your limited monkey inputs and go learn, faggot. Monkey inputs into monkey logic equals monkey outputs, not god. Just big imaginary monkey.
>>538245865If God is real, how do you explain niggers?
>>538252536>heh, if you can't disprove my solipsism that means that everything you said is an assumption>no, i don't apply this to any other philosophical arguments, only this one that i dont like and if you point that out its fallacy!!!Atheist are literally fucking retarded. They need to be put into labor camps.
>>538252677Your argument is that knowledge isn't possible. Which refutes your own argument, because your argument is a claim that you know something. You lost, absolutely and completely.
>>538252659An equation can result in a square without having the shape of a square. The shape of the square does not exist until the equation is ran. All that exists is information that will eventually result in four connected lines of equal length. You assume squares were made by something that already knew about squares then? I guess I did it when I was at CERN. Existence is my fault. Woops.
>>538245865>natural orderDefine this term please or gtfo
>>538252466>Maybe God or our universe came from a higher dimension.But what caused that higher dimension and why did god appear in that imensionMy point is that all that philosophy just moves the same question a bit further, like>Universe spontaneously formed from nothing>Well that's impossible, it has to have a cause and the cause is god>But what caused god>Higher dimension>But what caused the higher dimensionAnd so on until somebody just says "well it was always there" which is a non explanation.The most standard model is that god is the cause and he just exists. Somehow the complexity of the universe requires a cause but the most complex thing in it doesn't, it's bonkers.It's an unanswerable question.
>>538252698Finally the actual refutation arrives
>>538252735Knowledge is possible. You just don’t have much of it. Mr god is smart because i am smart. An idiot god shitting out random universes each reaching a scale beyond its own comprehension is a logical possibility.
>>538252807You already claimed that it isn't possible. If humans "can't understand reality", then you have no place arguing about reality. You're propping yourself up on the idea that logic doesn't lead to sensible conclusions and cannot be trusted to determine truth. Which is a self defeating argument, making you the grossest of hypocrites.
>>538252550Maybe this is all just a dream of a God and when it wakes up everything we think we know will vanish in an instant>>538252768Who's to say that the higher dimension hasn't always existed? There's no reason to believe that the concept of time isn't potentially unique to our dimension. Philosophy here shouldn't be trying to give you the answers because nobody has them and anybody saying otherwise is a pretender. It's to open your mind to the idea that we really don't know everything, we won't know everything in our lifetime and that all we really have is fun little speculative exercises like this to keep us busy
>>538252698How does one define Good, without Bad?Those that intentionally try and elevate Bad over Good defines what is also Bad and in vice versa defines what is Good.
>>538252860Humans can understand reality. Eventually. You in particular don’t understand much of it. Your logic is garbage in, garbage out. Monkey in, monkey out. God to you can only be monkey because your input is monkey (you).
>>538252930If my logic had any flaws you would have been able to point them out. Instead, you did the equivalent of flipping the table by insisting that knowledge is impossible. You threw a temper tantrum and lost, and now you're resorting to personal attacks because you've been caught in your own hypocrisy.
>>538252659>because if agency exists anywhere then it must also be present within the first cause.No it doesn't. The universe was without agency for most of its existence, so according to you maxx agency -> no agency for 14B years -> weak animal agency -> stronger but not divine human agencyNot to mention that you're just pulling it out of your ass, "it must have had agency" but you can't prove it.The earth and universe were lifeless for billions of years and then life happened but the life as we know it wasn't present in the first stages so your logic is just out of the ass.>No. Nothing that exists is emergent. >Everything that exists comes from a cause, because to do otherwise would be something coming from nothing. Which again, violates logic itself on a fundamental level.Ok then, what caused god ? It can't come from nothing because it's illogical on the fundamental level.>I already did. The creator of time exists outside of and prior to time, meaning there was never a point within time at which the creator did not exist. Bullshit, time itself might not exist. You're rambling at this point.
>>538252930Epistomology says we can't know everything due to the infinite regress problem. But we may hopefully understand enough
Creationists be like:>circular argumentlmao
>>538252900>Who's to say that the higher dimension hasn't always existed?Fine but who's to say that this lower dimension and matter didn't always exist ? Inb4 big bangIt might be that it was just a fluctuation in the matter, so called Big Crunch and it will happen again one day, a few cycles of this eternal universe, no god no higher dimensions.Who's to say it isn't so ?Also they might be just completely wrong about BB
>>538253150>Ok then, what caused god ?Nothing. The first cause is by definition uncaused. It was never "made" because it always "was". Something being outside of time is the same as saying that it's eternal and infinite. Which the first cause must be, in order to be first. If it was temporal and finite, it couldn't be first since its limits would predate it.
>>538253491You:>Something can't come from nothing, it violates logic on the most fundamental levelMe:>Ok what does god come from thenYou:>God comes from nothingLmao you are just cranking out mindfarts at this pointDoes that mean that god is nothing ?>The first cause is by definition uncaused.That definition in your own words violates fundamental logic so it's a retarded definition.
You're inside layers of spinning gears along a path of fate, otherwise the universe couldn't exist.
>>538253741God didn't come from nothing. Did you read my post at all? "Nothing" doesn't exist, because by definition nothing is non-existence. There has never been "nothing" and there will never be "nothing". Everything that exists came from an eternal something, and the first cause is that something.
>>538253890>god didn't come from nothingspecial pleading. if god doesn't require a creator then the universe doesn't require a creator.
>>538252999I pointed out everything you assume. You assume, you do not know, therefore your logic is faulty. Knowledge is possible. Notice the frequent use of the word yet. Notice I tell you to humble YOUrself. But can you know what is outside of the universe? What caused it before it? First you must know what it actually is and how it actually works. And you don’t so you infer nonexistent characteristics of a fantastical god and capitalize random shit like The Faith Of The Jewish Law.
>>538253944Special pleading is what you're doing. If the universe is the first cause and is uncaused then the universe is the creator. You're saying that the universe has a special property wherein it can be ontologically first and yet not a creator. That makes no sense. That's special pleading.
>>538254018No, you didn't. You asserted a bunch of vague impossibilities and when I proved to you using unassailable logic that those impossibilities violated logic, you asserted that no one knows anything and that logic can't be trusted. You lost.
>>538254019You don’t even know if outside of the universe, or at its level, whatever that is, things must be caused. You don’t even try to find out. You don’t even know what the fuck gravity is. Did god make gravity? Did god know about gravity before gravity? Did god eventually generate the conditions for gravity to exist? Does god actually have to exist? Does it have to be a being, a force, a system of parts? You can plug what you believe into logic but you will get what you believe out. You have to know to get truth out.
>>538254019>You're saying that the universe has a special property wherein it can be ontologically first and yet not a creator. That makes no sense. That's special pleading.I'm saying that *in response* to your special pleading to prove a point. I don't know what created the universe and I don't claim to know.You're saying God has a special property wherein it can be ontologically first yet not require a creator.In order for something to exist, it must have a creator, therefor god must have a creator. You are claiming god doesn't. That's the special pleading.
>>538254196Whatever's ontologically first by definition does not have a creator. That's what makes it ontologically first.>In order for something to exist, it must have a creatorNo, in order for something to come into existence it must have a creator. But the first cause never came into existence, otherwise it would not be the first. The first cause is eternally uncaused, uncreated and unmade. It always existed. This is the only rational and coherent view, it's "settled science" as far as ontology is concerned. There has never been a deviation from it and there never will be, because it's all absolutely logically necessary.
>>538253890But what caused the first cause.If the first thing doesn't require a cause then nothing requires a cause inherently.
>>538254075How do you KNOW that linear cause and effect is the only possibility?That it is inviolable?How? How do you know? When did you find outHave you heard of atemporal correlations yet?Do you know enough to refute the idea?You already backed off on god being intelligentHow can you know god is greater than the universe when it is not logically necessary? How can you know god has power over the universe when a small thing can in fact cause a larger and greater thing beyond its control?How do you know what you or anyone can measure right now is ALL of the universe?
>>538254192"Universe" just means reality. Nothing outside of reality exists, by definition. You are sincerely one of the dumbest people to have ever posted on this board, and I hope you've just been baiting this entire time.
>>538254296>The first cause is eternally uncaused, uncreated and unmade. It always existed.and you're calling that unknown variable "god"?
>>538254378You DO NOT KNOW if nothing exists outside of reality. The universe is defined by human measurement. How do you know it is all that is? The definition of outside of reality is NO ONE KNOWS YET. You dont even try to find outPlease remember reasoning is only as good as the knowledge underlying itA monkey using logic to find god can only find another monkeyThis is the monkey in, monkey out principle
>>538254339The first thing doesn't require a cause because it never came into existence. It's the only thing that never came into existence, because it's the only thing that always existed. That's why it's first. Everything that isn't first must have come into existence, meaning they require causes. This seriously isn't hard to grasp, so at this point I can only assume you're pretending to not understand simply because you don't like where the logic leads.
>>538254412I don't need to call it anything, because names aren't important. What is important is that that unknown variable has known traits. A first cause must be synonymous with Truth itself. It must be the cause of everything sequent to it in the order of creation. It must be in pre-possession of everything that exists, because a cause cannot impart what it doesn't possess. It must be outside of time and thus eternal, it must be outside of space and thus infinite, and it must be the "something" by which we recognize all privations. Those qualities make it significant, and make it worth participating in. The way we participate in it is through obeying reason in order to approach Truth, which is another way of saying "cultivate virtue". Honesty, integrity, justice, compassion, and so on are all matters of participation in Truth. Anyone who would disagree with this and in these terms doesn't have a problem with religion, rather they have a problem with truth, rationality and morality. They don't want to be subservient to anything, not even principles.
>>538253890If we accept the atheist's argument of in the infinite void of nothingness, creation is possible. It would be infinitely possible for a God, or Gods to be created. Therefore, rendering atheism wrong, yet again.
>>538245865Everything is god. There is only one being in existence
>>538254480I agree with you on the surface, but you're making claims from an anthropocentric point of view about a reality that has no obligation to be intuitive or logical. >Honesty, integrity, justice, compassion, and so on are all matters of participation in TruthAgain, agree with you at face value and I value those traits, but they aren't inherent to the universe. Humans practice them and give them names."Truth" in relation to the studying universe is not a settled matter and is always changing according to new data.
>>538254480Are you sure you know what existence is?Can you define what an atom is? Can you tell us what gravity is and how it works? Do you know what time is, besides how you perceive it? Is it real? Are you sure time flows in one direction, or could it be fundamentally symmetrical and inevitable, such that there is no actual cause, just everything at once? Isn’t your idea of cause and effect just a habit of a mind that perceives the world a certain way? If everything exists at once nothing was ever actually caused. So nothing was ever needed to cause it. This is logically possible. But neither of us know if it’s true.
>>538254714>If we accept the atheist's argument of in the infinite void of nothingnessthat's not the atheist's argument, that's the theist's strawman
>>538254926What is the atheist's argument? Or, is more confused agnosticism?
>>538254480>1. The definition of god is a supreme being with power over universe.A rock that exists for the longest time but has no power over itself let alone universe is not god>2. If one thing can exist uncaused then 2 things can exist uncaused and if that then many things can exist simultaneously uncausedThe matter in the universe might have always existed without the power to imagine itself in a new state and achieve that state or even with the power to imagine but without the power to execute, therefore it's not godGod has a very precise definition and your "definitions" are made up copes.
>>538254820>you're making claims from an anthropocentric point of view about a reality that has no obligation to be intuitive or logical.It's absolutely logically necessary, because something cannot come from nothing. If order, mind, rationality, compassion and wisdom exist at all within reality they must also exist within the first cause responsible for reality. To say otherwise is to say that something came from nothing, which is a violation of basic logic.>I value those traits, but they aren't inherent to the universe. Humans practice them and give them names.They have to be inherent to the universe, otherwise they wouldn't be objective. And if they aren't objective they're subjective, meaning they don't exist as anything other than an imaginary figment, meaning it would be impossible to put them above the self if they exist of the self. The fact that we can use reason and logic to approach them as principles mean that they exist objectively outside of us and above us. If they existed from us and within us, it would be impossible to treat of them rationally, since they would be irrational by nature.
>>538245865LAST REMINDER: there is no god, jesus never existed and when you die it will be nothingness for eternity!
>>538254978depends on the atheistagnostic atheism seems like the most logical"I don't know, therefor I don't believe"
>>538245944>"God" is a quitter. He got bored and just let it runthe Biblical God created a universe of laws that are discoverable. a universe that God only sometimes directly interacts with for specific reasons. the Islamic view is that Allah controls everything at all times, including me typing this. which is why muslims believe that Allah can't become a human ever lest the whole universe fall apart.which makes more sense, assuming a deity created this reality?hands off, or constant control?
>>538255088change your adult diaper
>>538255125Atheism is merely an expression of an opinion then. But, as usual you cannot even define atheism's position on the matter. Because it does not have one. And, this is.meant to be a somewhat logical argument to you? To anyone?
>>538255072>something can not come from nothingYou literally do not know that. You just keep saying it. Have you heard of a virtual particle?In our universe, the simplest possible thing comes from “nothing”. The definition of nothing is NO ONE FUCKING KNOWS YET MAN DO SOME RESEARCH OR SHUT UPYou CAN NOT defeat the monkey in monkey out principleYour logic IS limited by your knowledge
>>538255329If something came from nothing, then that "nothing" was not a "nothing", it was a "potentiality", which is a "something". Ex nihilo nihil fit is considered a logical axiom because to violate it would also violate the law of non-contradiction which states that a true statement cannot contradict itself. Again, you're not arguing against me. You're arguing against logic itself. Which means you lose, objectively and forever.
>>538255072>The fact that we can use reason and logic to approach them as principles mean that they exist objectively outside of us and above us.that doesn't follow. we observe them relative to ourselves and human culture, it's an anthropocentric value, not a universal constant.things like electromagnetism and gravity are constant, as far as we've observed.>And if they aren't objective they're subjective, meaning they don't exist as anything other than an imaginary figment, meaning it would be impossible to put them above the self if they exist of the self.not necessarily "imaginary figment" but rather a relative social construct that benefits humanity, and it's not impossible to put them above the self if they exist "of the self" (constructed by humanity). They are things that humans value because of the limited way that we interact with and observe reality, but they aren't observed anywhere outside of us. Asteroids and black holes don't know "justice" or "honesty" (as far as I know, I haven't spoken to any)
>>538255329>>something can not come from nothingAtheist's have faith that it can.
>>538246636>Do you care if an ant nibbled on deer cum instead of honey and judge it based on how it got its nutritionsWELL I CLEARLY DO NOW NIGGER
>>538255278>Atheism is merely an expression of an opinion thenYup, similar to theism.>But, as usual you cannot even define atheism's position on the matter. Because it does not have one. And, this is meant to be a somewhat logical argument to you? To anyone?Atheism doesn't have a 'doctrine' if that's what you mean because it's not a religion. The position is most likely a humble "I don't know", which is far more logical than making up an answer, writing a book, and claiming it's the ultimate truth.>>538255427again, not true. you seem eager to push a strawman. what's your belief about the universe?
>>538255600>you seem eager to push a strawmanYou sound like a faggot
>>538255423It does follow. Justice is a matter of impartiality, and impartiality is a matter of obeying reason. It's no different from mathematics in that sense. Math is objective, and we know it because reason leads to the same results every time. The same is true of justice and every other virtue.The crux of this disagreement is going to be that you think truth is subjective and that reason can't reliably lead us towards it and I assert that it must be objective and that logic can reliably lead us towards it. Your argument will necessarily collapse in on itself, because if logic can't lead us toward truths then your own belief asserts that your position is not true and was not arrived through the certainty of reason. It has to be this way, because it's all or nothing. If truth is objective then so is reason and so is every conclusion that reason leads to, such as conclusions made about justice, math, geometry and so on. If justice is subjective, that could only be so because reason is subjective, which in turn would mean that you believe truth itself is subjective as well as everything we know to be true such as math. It should be pretty clear why that view can't hold itself up, although more and more people these days seem to want to assert that math is subjective and man-made.
>>538255654Truth is subjective there's no universal laws of the universe
>>538255738Anyone who claims to hold that view necessarily contradicts himself, since "truth is subjective" is an objective claim about truth.
>something exists>THAT MEANS WE SHOULD WORSHIP JEWS GUYSlol christkikes
>>538255400No. Not a potential. A potential is stored, a potential can be. It is not something that might be. It was a probability. A maybe something but maybe nothing. Neither something nor nothing are. They just might be. Each. Everything has maybe been forever. You exist inside of this. You are a part of it.You have insufficient data to define what is outside of it. You do however know, that you can experience a universe where something comes from nothing when the probability of nothing is zero and the probability of something is one. Anything that could define this system is unknowable and breaks the logic of things within it given what they know. In other words, it’s pointless to ask. You do not have the ability to answer correctly. It likely isn’t an individual will that resembles anything you’d recognize as one. We can guess that much.
>>538255787Well the laws of the universe are based on location. Just because an apple falls on earth doesn't mean it does 100000 light years away
>>538255654Math is or is not. Justice is: If we assume X is Y then Z. But we keep assuming X is Y and Z doesn’t happen without us making it, and we don’t always, so we made it up. The only certain higher order law is that if humans assume X is Y then Z, they have to make Z happen to validate their assumption that X is Y.
>>538255849Nothing exists outside of existence, by definition. You're pretending that there's some mystical veil we can never peer behind, but that's just an invention on your part. Which is far more presumptuous than anything any religious person has ever come up with. Which also contradicts your own position that we can't know these things, since you seem to be claiming that you know a whole lot in your misguided and irrational post.
>>538255904It's against the law to float in the air on earth but it isn't above the earth for example but it's more serious the further you get away from here and more physics and chemistry breaks down
>>538255849You can't even prove nothing to be a possible state.
>>538255278>>538255600>silencethat's what I thought.>>538255646keep seething, sophist.
>>538255904"Laws are based on location" would be a universal law, which you just claimed doesn't exist.
>>538256011We're great apes we don't know anything really. People can't even agree on what the bible says
>>538255966Wrong again. Nothing you know of exists outside of existence. You do not know if there is nothing beyond existence or not. Did a system where nothing or something might be forever and time does not actually exist just… be? For this existence to be caused there must be something beyond it, or it maybe caused itself forever or did not cause itself forever, maybe.
>>538256044So now you're claiming that knowledge in and of itself is inherently impossible and that truth is utterly inaccessible. Which means you've just rejected your own beliefs as well as any future beliefs you may hold. You just waived your right to ever believe in anything again, henceforth.
>>538255998Nothing is unknowable. You can’t know what nothing is. A thing is known. Nothing is no-thing. You have no information. If you knew what nothing was, it would be thing.
>>538255998and you can't prove anything because you have nothing to say. at least >>538255654 has real philosophical quandaries that are interesting to respond to.
>>538256082How do you know you are even alive or if you are you can die?
>>538256062Something that's outside of existence doesn't exist, by definition. I hope you're pretending to be a moron right now, I honestly do.
>>538256112>Nothing is unknowableHow can you know that?
>>538256120He doesn’t. He has what he already believes fed through logic so he can feel more confident in it. He doesn’t know much. We are all limited by the monkey in monkey out principle. The most you can know right now is what you know right now.
>>538256181"Knowledge isn't possible, no one's allowed to know anything because I say so" seems to be the last refuge of atheists who can't accept basic logic.
>>538256170If you knew what nothing was, it would be thing. This isn’t hard stuff. >>538256129Something that’s outside of existence is nothing, but it is probable that it could be something and you just don’t know yet. If there is a concurrent universe does it not exist because you can not know what is outside of this one? Only if you never even try to find out. You can ONLY know what you already know. Everything you think you know is just what you already knew. And you don’t know much. Logic can not unveil truth. It can only confirm that what you think you know makes sense to you and everything else possessing the same form of logic.
>>538256240Knowing was the sin that caused the fall of man
>>538256301>If you knew what nothing was, it would be thing.This is a contradiction in terms. Claim to know nothing, thus rendering it a thing. Therefore, no longer nothing.
>>538245865You're a moron.
>>538256240Knowledge is possible but you lack it and refuse to gain it because feeding what you’re comfortable with through logical confirmation is so much easier. You can only know what you know. You can not know more than you know. It illogical. To know god exists and logically prove it you must have knowledge sufficient to be god yourself. You must know significantly more than humanity’s brightest physicists and have experimental evidence backing you. >>538256458It’s not. It’s just collapsing probability. Once you know thing, as far as you’re concerned, nothing ever was. If you knew what nothing was, you would be near godhood.
>>538245865God is real and He loves youI can't tell you how much He has saved my sorry arse
>>538256570>Claims x is completely unknowable.>Claims to know one thing about x.
>>538256570>To know god exists and logically prove it you must have knowledge sufficient to be god yourselfThat doesn't follow in any way whatsoever, and is a baseless assumption on your part. One which violates your own rules, because according to you you would also have to have the knowledge of God in order to know that God can't be proven logically. You're getting nowhere fast by constantly questioning logic and knowledge themselves.
>>538256730Christianity claims God is incomprehensible but claims to know a lot about the being
>>538245865Go debate Jay Dyer. It would be funny
>>538256673For we made him in our image was esoteric and introspective, not literal messaging. You know that you don’t know, and that if you knew, you would. This is a fact. Something comes from nothing when nothing is knowable. And it happens all the time. >>538256730It makes sense if you think about it. You’re actually just a really shitty god. Everything that exists you define by knowing. You can not know something might exist if you don’t know about it, at least indirectly. It is simply not possible. Since you now know something is an alternate state of nothing, and something and nothing might have always existed, maybe a creator is not needed, only one big thing that was always there as long as everything might has been. No watchmaker god. No big man working on causality. Just everything that might have always existed.
>>538256824The word "comprehend" means "fully understand". When you comprehend something, you've circumscribed it, or drawn a circle around it. You don't have to comprehend God in order to know that God exists, or have knowledge of a handful of God's qualities. God is not comprehensible, but God is conceivable and must be conceived by any rational mind, otherwise that mind is not rational.
>>538256940>incomprehensibleExplain how you know anything about God.
>>538256991"Incomprehensible is an adjective describing something that is impossible or extremely difficult to understand. It refers to concepts, writing, or behaviors that cannot be grasped by the mind or logical reasoning"
>>538256991Except something is nothing (something is the known form of nothing and both always existed, time is fake). You do not need a something to create something. Something already existed. It was just known. A singular, intelligent god did not create the universe and does not know all that is in it and control all that is in it. Something that knew more than us preceded us. That something may be greater than us but it did not create anything. It just found out about it. However, something and nothing always were before the first mind learned about the first thing. Whatever finds the something state of nothing does the same thing as god. The universe is eternal probability and is only something if it is known. Nothing exists outside of it. Once known it will exist inside of it.
>>538257094English isn't your first language, is it? Comprehensive means "fully encapsulated". For example, you cannot comprehend the universe because you cannot fully encapsulate the universe, since its existence reaches far outside of your purview. But you can know parts of the universe. You can know what's right in front of you. Not being able to comprehend the universe does not mean that you can't access truths about the universe.
Only if the heavens above could be measuredand the foundations of the earth below searched outwould I reject all of Israel’s descendantsbecause of all they have donedeclares the LORD
>>538256940>Claims x is completely unknowable.>Claims to know one thing about x.You aren't addressing this issue. If I claim I don't know x, that is all I claim. I do not proceed to make any further claims about x.
>>538257224It doesn't mean that. We also don't have access to truths about the universe only a insignificant bubble
>>538245865I want you all to understand yourselves better. You think of yourself as you, right? 1 human. Yet, you are actually billions to trillions of single cell organisms. You are a world of life existing in a world of life, likely in a universe of life. Fractal. We are made in his image, many make 1. You aren't just a person. You are the hopes of and direct result of the hard work of billions who believe in you, just as we are the product of 1 God who feels the same. Fractal.
>>538257316Yes, nothing is unknowable. You know and I know this one thing about nothing. Knowing what nothing is automatically makes it something. The nothing state becomes highly improbable. To us, impossible. Something=nothing.This is the fundamental rule of existence.
>>538257325That is literally what the word means. When somebody says "I've written a comprehensive guide to such and such", they're saying it's a guide that covers the subject in its entirety. You would know that if English was your first language.
>>538257445It means nothing essential is left out not that it's 100% of the topic in all cases.
You may fire of the jews and Israel when ready Iran and U.S. Military.
>>538246636you are him you stupid faggot, it's self discovery.
