>>692399207 Prove he doesn't. Even if the bible's accounts of history and science were wrong, you still can't prove he doesn't at least exist. Also, what explains all of the nearly identical near death experiences?
>>692399539 >>692399594 If I said that the boogie monster exists, I'd have to prove it, since: 1) I'm trying to convince others that something is true 2) It's harder to believe that the boogie monster exists.
>>692399539 I can't "disprove" a god because there is no physical evidence the burden of proof is on you because you're making the claim. I agree with the we don't know about what happens after we die but isn't all beliefe in God in part to the culture we were brought up in and a ridiculous conclusion to afterlife
>>692399539 >>692399594 The person making a claim of something (ex: God) is the one that has to provide evidence. If I told you that Santa exists, is it me that has to provide the evidence he exists or is it up to someone to prove he doesn't? Exactly, the same applies to god.
>>692399594 >>692400476 >>692400724 Challenging God's Omniscience 1) There is factual knowledge and there is experiential knowledge 2) God does not exist in the material world C (conclusion) How can God know what it is like to be on acid if he cannot experience it since he is not of the material world C2) God cannot know everything, if he cannot experience everything.
Im sure youve heard of the tea cup theory or flying spaghetti monster. Everyone has.
But the point of these two theories is not only "you cant prove they arent.". Its the fact theyre silly as fuck, easy to refute by using your brain, and so is christianity and the idea of God. Its disguised as more plausible, and we were raised in it, but think.. Really think.. And youll see its nothing but silliness.
>>692399594 Real talk tho. You do understand that every single near death experience you've heard is identical because they're all from the western world. Also its a product of a literal plethora of chemicals your brain releases when youre going to die. 1000x stronger than LSD.
>>692401057 Im not saying that the big bang was 100% the beginning of the universe. The argument I presented is that if a person makes a claim, they have to present evidence that their claim is true, not anyone that is trying to disprove it. No one has any evidence god exists, therefore I dont believe it. If you have evidence, then show me the evidence.
>>692401057 There was no "before" the big bang because space and time are one in the same. The big bang created space, thus it also created time. No time = no before. The big bang cannot have a cause other than itself; see the theory that postulates that the universe is one in a series of universes that have repeatedly expanded and contracted, forming a universe after the beginning of the next expansion
There are many people who have passed away and been brought back and said they have seen God and Jesus and heaven and for those who say "well there is people who have died and been brought back and said there is nothing in the afterlife" they were not accepted into the after life or their brain may have still been functioning as it can even after the heart as stopped, also the odds of everything happening to cause the creation of life on earth and the creation of the universe are so unlikely it's more likely that there was an outside force responsible
>>692401705 We know that specific gods aren't real because we have historical evidence that supports their invention by humans. It logically makes more sense that people just made them up rather than the alternative, which we have no evidence to support.
>>692401205 Omniscience in the Abrahamic sense implies all knowledge without having had actual experience to gain said knowledge. I admit this is a great little postulate, but it wont work on Christians because of this copout.
>>692401630 What if there WAS a big bang in a different universe, trillions of years before our big bang? It seems completely possible. It's highly unlikely the big bang was the only big bang ever in the history of the multiverse.
>>692399207 Existence is proof. Everything is caused by something else, so there must have been something that caused the creation of the universe, or the first event ever. That would be a force beyond our understanding, or God.
Well, I think that is a misunderstanding of what omnipotence means. Omnipotence does not include creating logical absurdities. It is more or less the same as requesting an omnipotent being to create a single married man: it is intrinsically inconsistent.
On the other hand, supposing omnipotence does encompass the ability to create logical absurdities, then I could say "Yes, God can create such a rock", to what you may reply "Aha! Then He cannot move it". To that, I would respond "Yes, he can". You could say "But He cannot! That would be a logical absurdity!". But, then again, you requested a logical absurdity. If the human mind cannot understand it, that is another issue.
>>692402117 Multiversal theory is for the most part irrelevant. Time in a multiversal level and on a universal level are two different things. However, lets say that multiversal time is a thing. At some point, the first universe DID come into existance right? Apply the same logic: no before, so no creation. It simply always was.
>>692400476 The problem of evil doesn't work. First, man is given free will. He decides what he does, which si what determines if he will get into heaven. Second, evil does not exist as an entity. It's like saying "Why is there darkness if light exists?" It is simply the degree of absence of good, which is how closely something aligns itself with what God has said should be our choice.
>>692402425 In the abstract sense, anything you can imagine is real. But it's merely information in that case. I just willed into existence a woman with five breasts. She's real because I just described her.
>>692402524 sorry, I'm not trying to sound like one. Christians believe the concept of God transcends human experience. Take the "whence cometh evil" argument. Its easily refuted by people who say "well we don't know the true nature of god so that's that."
Again, I'm admitting your argument is great. Seriously. I'm not trying to be an asshole.
>>692402812 Every reaction has a catalyst. Being has a catalyst. Whatever caused existence to happen is omnipotent. >>692402908 What causes gravity and time to function? They must have appeared at some point, what caused them to appear?
>>692400217 The Burden of proof is not on the believer. The believer believes strictly out of faith. There is no burden of proof on either, but it is the one who does not believe that will adamantly try and "prove" nonexistence.
>>692402828 God is real in an informational sense, or we would not know about him at all. Because he is real in an informational sense, he is not nonexistent. Even if he is just an excuse and a motivation to not be a shitty asshole, even you couldn't argue he isn't real in some way.
>>692402910 >Who created space No one did. Space arose when time did. "space-time" and all
>Was it always this way Yes, there was no before
>something cant just come from nothing In a universe of causality, this is true. However, a box is not subject to the conditions inside of itself. If I fill a container with water, we have two sets of conditions: inner conditions of water and outer conditions of air. Matter exists differently within each set of conditions. The universe is the container, and we don't know the conditions outside of it, assuming multiverse theory.
>>692402828 >what is freedom? >What is liberty? >what is thought? These are things we tell ourselves are real, but in reality don't bear any physical existence. Talking out your ass about a woman with five breasts just makes you sound like a retarded nerd.
>>692403467 If we don't know the conditions outside of it, why do people assume that certain conditions are impossible? Anything that would have to power to shape the box would be unable to even be concieved of by the inside of the box, as it would not be bound by anything inside the box.
>>692403911 Exactly, which is why I am an agnostic, albeit one with tendencies towards atheism. Because, while we cannot know what is outside the universe intrinsically because we exist within it, it is highly, highly unlikely that a divine consciousness made itself manifest of its own accord. That is not to say that it is impossible though, because it isn't.
>>692403467 Here's where you're wrong. Matter undergoes the same physical laws in both water and air. One is just experiencing friction from water, and bouyant force in addition to every other force (like gravity). An object in water would react the same as an object in air with the same friction and bouyancy to a force. There are no different conditions in the physical world. Matter undergoes physical laws throughout the entire universe. Underwater isn't a different realm from air.
>>692404165 JesusChrist does exist, he did shut up all those Jews when they wanted to be all wise, they bow down to the romans not even Romans wanted JesusChrist dead, but because they were not wise enough they freed the thief instead of JesusChrist. shame shame on them.
>>692404368 Right. The example, of course, is simplified and biased. If we, say, entrap a black hole in a container, things become different. Of course this is pretty much impossible, but for the sake of argument matter would exist differently inside and outside the box.
>>692404165 >>692404129 Believing that God is any physical manifestation or even abstract manifestation of the human experience is fucking retarded. God is simply God. Whatever God is it exists as one thing, the creator of the Universe, Maybe it's an algorithm, maybe its a space energy, it doesn't matter because we will never know. To believe that God has anything to do with Mohamed or Jesus is absolute horse shit. If you choose to believe in religion it should be as a cultural and moral attainment. But to deny the existence of a creator of the Universe, whatever that creator maybe, is equally retarded. Something did create the universe, something did create the laws of nature and the lack thereof. That thing is "God". Point of all this, is you fuckers all overthink and let your emotions get the best of you.
>>692404940 Gotta remember bullshit christian sophistry.
>Laws of Old Testament meant to harden the hearts of the Jews >make them pure and ready them for the coming messiah >these laws weren't meant for everyone >Jehova wanted us to love each other all along
>>692404242 I just have a hard time understanding why some people think that because they cannot concieve of an omnipotent being, it must never have existed, when it would by definition be beyond human understanding.
>>692405417 It isn't hard to understand. In fact, its very easy to comprehend that the divine is inconceivable. What is difficult is the acceptance of one's existence when it is impossible to either prove or disprove one exists.
>>692399207 A cosmological argument takes some cosmic feature of the universe—such as the existence of contingent things or the fact of motion—that calls out for explanation, and argues that this feature is to be explained in terms of the activity of a first cause, which first cause is God. A typical cosmological argument faces four different problems. If these problems are solved, the argument is successful.
The first problem is that although some feature, such as the existence of contingent things, calls for explanation, it can be disputed whether an explanation exists. I shall call this the Glendower Problem in honor of this exchange from Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III.
The second issue that must be faced in defending a cosmological argument is the Regress Problem, the problem of how to deal with an infinite regress of causes or expalanations. Hume stated that if we had an infinite regress of explanations, E1 explained by E2, E3 by E4, and so on, then everything in the regress would be explained, even if there were no ultimate explanation positing some first cause.
The third difficulty is the Taxicab Problem, coming from Schopenhauer’s quip that in the cosmological argument, the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) is like a taxicab that, once used, is sent away. The difficulty here is to answer what happens when the explanatory principle that was used to solve the Glendower Problem gets applied to the first cause. A popular formulation is: “If God is the cause of the universe, what is the cause of God?” Typical solutions argue that the case of the first cause is different in some way that is not merely ad hoc from the cases to which the explanatory principle was applied.
The final difficulty for cosmological arguments is the Gap Problem. Granted, there is a first cause, but does anything of religious interest follow? There is a gap between the statements that there is a first cause and that there is a God.
>>692405017 Are you fucking autistic? Did you read your own comment? You were proving that God exist by using "near death" experiences only depicting God and Jesus which implies ChristianGod is OneTrueGod. You're fucking retarded
>>692405116 I actually think people are sorta of crazy I mean people hate on JesusChrist the laws he explained even at the moment of dying I mean why ? He wasn`t cursing people and it is an unjustifill murder, he even said humble words as he was murdered, people are just weird.
>>692405528 Of course its sarcasm. Here's the full-sentence version: The Levitical and Deuterocanonical Laws of Moses were instituted for the Jews only. God didn't give a shit about anyone else at this time. Only the Jews. Why? Because through the Jews would come Jesus, and the Jews need to be submissive cucks to accept a messiah...for some reason. God didn't *really* hate gays, he just told the Jews to kill them because it made them pure somehow. God really loves everyone and always has loved everyone.
>>692405885 Im Catholic im not sure about the other anon, so many near to death experiences God is Great and awesome, seem some stuff not probably your faggotry but pretty strong stuff im not a good person but anyway if you`re in trouble sickness, people hating on you, people trying to whack you, God is There.
>>692405931 No, actually there is a very good reason why Jesus was persecuted. Several reasons in fact. He was trying to usurp what was a long-established religion in Judah. This religion was tied to the socio-economic and political structure of the area, and people's lives and careers depended on it. Hell, a lot of the economy was based in selling of animals for sacrifices. Christ's words were a direct rejection of what would later become Rabbinic Judaism: strict adherence to the Mosaic Law down to the literal letters used to write it. This meant the destruction of the entire social, economic, and religious structure of Judah, something the Sanhedrin, the scribes, and the majority of Jews did not want.
Not to mention Christ's blasphemy in the eyes of his contemporary Jews. He literally did a great deal of things the Torah explicitly forbade, amidst a group of people who were literally so fearful of their God that they had procedures for washing their hands according to how the Torah said to do so. Religious orthodoxy was a deep part of Judah's culture during Jesus' time.
Heard on the Joe Rogan podcast with Russell Brand that David Lynch told him some friends of his overheard a 3 year old talking to a 6 month old telling him "Tell me again about heaven that I think I'm starting to forget"...
>>692406186 Good question. Why does God do half the shit he does? I don't know. This story is bullshit anyway. I'm just telling you what Christians think anon, I'm an agnostic. They pull doublethink shit like this all the time, ignoring basic bits of scripture to further their false narrative. It's what they do.
>>692406131 The statistical probability that we are not in a simulation is 1 chance out of several trillion. You have a better chance of winning the Powerball 500 weeks straight than living as an actual human at the transition to silicone based life forms.
>>692402893 I just explained it. Christians believe (I'm not a christian, I'm agnostic. I don't believe in any of the shit I'm going to say next) God is divine, and thus his omnipotence / omniscience / omnibenevolence cannot be comprehended by human kind, thus he is not limited to human paradoxes like this.
>>692405854 Futhermore, perhaps a necessary being is impossible. Abstracta like propositions and numbers, however, furnish a quick counterexample to this for many philosophers. However, one might argue further that there cannot be a causally efficacious necessary being, whereas the unproblematic abstracta like propositions and numbers are causally inefficacious. A radical response to this is to question the dogma that propositions and numbers are causally inefficacious. Why should they be? Plato’s Form of the Good looks much like one of the abstracta, but we see it in the middle dialogues as explanatorily efficacious, with the Republic analogizing its role to that of the sun in producing life. It might seem like a category mistake to talk of a proposition or a number as causing anything, but why should it be? Admittedly, propositions and numbers are often taken not to be spatio-temporal. But whence the notion that to be a cause one must be spatio-temporal? If we agree with Newton against Leibniz that action at a distance is at least a metaphysical possibility, although present physics may not support it as an actuality, the pressure to see spatiality or even spatio-temporal as such as essential to causality is apt to dissipate—the restriction requiring spatio-temporal relatedness between causal relata is just as unwarranted as the restriction requiring physical contact But even if abstracta like numbers and propositions are causally inefficacious, why should we think that there cannot be a non-abstract necessary being which is causally efficacious? One answer was already alluded to: some will insist that only spatio-temporal entities can be causally efficacious and it is implausible that a necessary being be spatio-temporal. But it was difficult to see why exactly spatio-temporality is required for causal connections. (See Moreland’s essay on the argument from consciousness.)
>>692406659 He did shut up the Jews you gotta admit that they even believe he was a magician, anyway the jews were cucked by Herodes but if you read about JesusChrist you will see it is a true path even if you don``t consider him God like he is you will see that he was right all the time. even if you`re an atheist and consider him a man.
>>692407409 Of course. Atheist's don't deny the sociological implications of Jesus' teachings. "love thy neighbor as thyself," is a great message (not sarcasm), and it's been espoused by religions and other systems of thought throughout the ages, some even predating Christ.
>>692406479 I had a near death experience. I drowned. Passing out from no O2 felt the same as other times I passed out... Then nothing... Than awake, and coughing up water. People who imagine they see a light or whatever are just programmed to experience that. Anyway, that is no type of evidence for a magical SkyGuy.
>>692407398 Why should abstract beings alone be allowed as necessary? Why should its necessarily being true that $x(x is a deity) be more absurd than its necessarily being true that $x(x is a number)? Perhaps the answer is that we can prove the existence of a number. In fact, mathematicians prove the existence of numbers all the time. Already in ancient times, it was shown that there exist infinitely many primes.
However, these proofs presuppose axioms. The proof that there are infinitely many primes presupposes a number system, say with the Peano axioms or set theory. But a statement of the Peano axioms will state that there is a number labeled “0” and there is a successor function s such that for any number n, sn is also a number. Likewise, an axiomatization of set theory will include an axiom stating the existence of some set, e.g., the empty set. If our mathematical conclusions are existential, at least one of the axioms will be so as well. The mathematical theory ~$x(x=x) is perfectly consistent as a mathematical theory if we do not have an existential axiom. Thus, if we are realists about numbers, we are admitting something which exists necessarily and that does not do so simply in virtue of a proof from non-existential axioms.
Of course one might not be a realist about abstracta. One might think that we do not need to believe that there necessarily exist propositions, properties or numbers to be able to talk about necessarily true propositions or necessarily true relations between numbers or properties.
>>692407278 >tweaked just so perfectly for life... Wut? The only place we know for sure there is 'life' is on this very thin crust of a very small planet drifting in an unimaginably vast universe. All life as we know it would die if exposed to any other place we know of besides this thin crust. You call that 'tweaked for life'?
>>692399594 DMT It's a psychoactive substance that rises in concentration in your body in near-death experiences. Also it's found in the ayahuasca plant. Many american (north and south for USfags) tribes use it for "spiritual ilumination". Do some research on it, it's quite interesting. It may not disprove god but it explains near death experiences.
>>692408804 DMT users only experience what they expect to experience, supporting the notion that gods are imagined to begin with. Also, what is your definition of 'spiritual'? Not made with matter/energy, or detectable in our universe? Or do you just use the term as a feel-good word?
>>692409947 >users only experience what they expect to experience
You cant assert that without evidence. Besides, i highly doubt "what they expect" to be the sole determining factor of the experience of DMT, although id be willing to be believe that it is a significant influence.
>>692399207 basically strict religious people and true atheists are fucking idiots. It is highly unlikely a God exists that is all knowing and all powerful and it is also highly unlikely there is nothing beyond human intelligence.
>>692408379 >Constants of Nature The fine-tuning of the universe is seen most clearly in the values of the constants of nature. There are many such constants, the best known of which specify the strength of the four forces of nature: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. If these forces took on even slightly different strengths, the consequences for life would be devastating.4 Two of these in particular, the strong and electromagnetic forces, are responsible for the unusually efficient production of carbon, the element upon which all known life is based. The forces cooperate in such a way as to create a coincidental match up of energy levels, which enables the production of carbon from the fusing of three helium atoms. For three helium atoms to collide and create carbon is very unlikely, however, because under normal circumstances, the energies would not match up perfectly, and the three helium atoms would come apart before they had time to fuse into carbon. It takes a little extra time to deal with the energy mismatch. But, if there is a statistically unusual match of the energies, then the process is much faster. The slightest change to either the strong or electromagnetic forces would alter the energy levels, resulting in greatly reduced production of carbon and an ultimately uninhabitable universe.
>>692411949 All that means is that the universe is fine tuned so live can exist in 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% of the universe. On this small crust we live on now. If the universe were tuned differently, some other kind of life could exist on some other tiny percentage of the universe. >Checkm8
For some of us the actual realization that there is really no "God", and that it is truly a delusion is a very depressing and disturbing thought. Some of were born with the deck stacked against us. Major childhood abuse, bad parents, mental illness, etc. When there was literally nothing left in the well to survive, we "turned" to this "God". All of our lives. Not yet educating oneself, we believed in this "higher power", and found mental peace, even temporarily. Once one figures out that the pill they have been swallowing is a sugar pill. A placebo. Reality hits you. Was it just this delusional thinking that got me through all the hell? The struggle through school, the family misery, the want to blow my brains out, oh, and others as well. For the first time in my life I am thinking about this. Yeah, have done a "fair share" of reading on it all as well. Have my morals been "linked" to something more than humanity? A higher power? For me, kind of. As a "victim of circumstance" I unfortunately have an anger and venom. I do not "hate" people, but I don't respect them. I am "concerned" that I will act on my own wishes, needs, and desires, with zero regard for people. heh...If reading this you may be thinking, "here's another edgelord fuck." Nah. It's all real. /b/ has been entertaining, and mentally stimulating for me. Thanks for that. Why all this? Just venting I suppose. If I am experiencing Nihilism. For myself, this is not a good thing. I don't know what will happen.
Alright, I'll play along, just in case there are any real thinkers out there...
Something is eternal. By definition, something cannot come into existence without some sort of outside influence. Therefore, either our universe is eternal, or something outside our universe is eternal, or both. Eternal is another way of saying, “infinite in time.” Is there a way to determine whether the infinite existence is the universe or outside?
Regarding the eternal: In this finite universe, no matter can be created or destroyed. Also with energy. Therefore, if matter is infinite in principle, within the confines of finite space, is it truly infinite?
1) If the universe deteriorated over time, that would prove that it is not eternal. 2) If the universe built up over time, that would be good evidence that it is not eternal.
Our universe does not seem to exhibit signs of either, though it does change shape over time. The actual energy and matter, the important aspects, do not seem to change over time.
NOTE: There has never been a time where the universe is any less than it is right now, within the confines of the universe. If there was ever a point when there was “more” or “less” of the universe, the difference would be caused by something outside the universe.
Something cannot come from nothing, therefore:
Realization #1 SOMETHING HAS ALWAYS EXISTED. INFINITY EXISTS. The universe is infinite in nature, and has existed infinitely in the past (up to the point where it began), and is infinite into the future (up to the point where it is not). Within the realm of our natural world, time goes back eternally to the point where it began.
>>692412740 Yeah anon i was raped and molested during childhood, and i never really had any parents, and mentally im a mixed bag of holy shit what the fuck edgelord who faps to gore, but i just want to point out that god and benevolent god arent the same thing, even though people mix it up a lot. The idea of a god is perfectly reasonable. The idea of a god that loves and protects everyone after all the shit that goes on in the world is a silly.
>>692412903 >By definition, something cannot come into existence without some sort of outside influence. There is no evidence for this assumption. In fact, if virtual particles did not spontaneously pop in and out of existence for no particular reason we can detect, your cell phone wouldn't work. >since your argument is built on a false premise, your argument fails.
>>692399207 if the number 666 exists, there certainly must be a sense to it, dont want to be a moralfag here, but the most common response here is that some kind of entity being able to act on the base of quantum uncertinty is trying to help or at least influence us in certain manner (lately there was a thread inherating some masturbating women in a church) OP posted with 666 later in the thread, the number appeared again....)
>>692400366 Fucking words. That's been disproven since the 50s. It's as stupid as sayin >can God be a married bachelor? Checkm8 faggots xD It's not an argument because English words can contradict themselves. Being this stupid is unfathomable.
>>692413043 If life is not rare, than why can we still see stars at night? >See Dyson Dilemma, and Fermi Paradox You based your argument on 'scientific consensus' which is a logical fallacy (appeal to authority) Scientific consensus had the Sun orbiting the Earth til 300 years ago. Scientific consensus was against Plate Tectonics, till it wasn't.
>>692413701 Thanks mate for responding. It's great to have someone trying for real arguments.
"Virtual particles" are better described as "field disturbances" and they are not the true creation or destruction of something within existence.
There is change. Ergo, there has always been change. Change has always existed. There can never be a point where there was not change to… something. Even an “instability” is a change of a kind, simply undefined. Why? Because an object at rest remains at rest without an outside influence. Therefore, if everything was perfectly at rest, no change would ever take place.
Therefore, going back, there can never be a point where everything was perfectly at rest.
Development cannot happen without prior movement / change, therefore:
Realization #2 THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A CAUSE. CHANGE IS INFINITE. Change has always existed. Within the realm of our natural world, change goes back eternally to the point where it began.
Eternal means it doesn't have an end but also means it didn't had a begining, so if our souls are ethernal how come noone remember life BEFORE life? that's because we are not eternal, once we die our conscience disappears forever just as it didn't exist before we were born.
>>692414585 >"Virtual particles" are better described as "field disturbances" Hawking would disagree with you. See Hawking Radiation. >THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A CAUSE. CHANGE IS INFINITE 'Always been', and infinite imply infinity. In an infinite universe, all possibilities happen an infinite amount of times. In other words, if gods are possible, there would be both infinite gods and no gods in an infinite universe.
>>692411382 >true atheists oh boy, let's start talking about fucking definitions. that sounds like fun.
Most atheists don't believe in a god, but don't negate the possibility of anything that is logically consistent. The Christian god is logically inconsistent, so we can say that one definitely doesn't exist as it is described, and all other man-made gods are logically inconsistent or unknowable. That's what the vast majority of atheists believe. If you want to call that agnosticism then fucking go right ahead. It's the biggest waste of time to argue the definition.
>>692415593 You're right. "Always been" does imply infinity, and you've got the point exactly. Our universe is, by its very nature, infinite.
We, being limited, cannot trace back infinite changes through infinite time.
Because change has always existed, we cannot conclusively know what existed before a “recent” change (and I use the term “recent” loosely – anything that can be measured finitely is “recent”). We cannot trace back every infinite change. Ergo, there is always something before what we know.
Even if we traced back to the “beginning of time,” what started “time”?
No matter how far back we trace change, even to the point of a Big Bang, even to the previous Big Bang, or whatever came before it, we cannot definitively know the first finite point, as there never was a “stationary” moment. Therefore:
Realization #3 WE CANNOT KNOW THE FIRST INSTANCE, THE POINT BEFORE CHANGE. If you keep following change back, you are never any closer to the point before change than you were when you started.
>>692415515 Where exactly is 'Heaven'? The authors of most religious writings understood it to be somewhere between 1,500 feet above ground level, and the 'firmament' where the little ceiling lights were held up in the night sky.
>>692416024 >original point of the universal constants that make life possible "here". But since this little sliver of space is the only place we know has life for sure, the anthropic principle is a satisfactory solution.
>>692399539 Actually it probably wouldn't be very difficult to show that the likelyhood of a particular god existing was basically zero. All you would have to do is show inconsistencies and obvious falsehoods in the depiction of that god.
>>692417140 Not a hippy. I am a working engineer who happened to experience a near death experience and saw what exists beyond this illusion. Your life exists only in your imagination. You are the universe experiencing itself, that's all I'm saying. Nothing that Neil de'Grasse Tyson wouldn't say.
>>692417441 The fact remains, you moronic twat waffle... you cannot prove OR disprove the existence of God. One way or the other you can debate it until the end of time. Atheist faggots and believers will always argue about this. The only way to know for sure is to die.. only then will ANYONE truly know one way or the other, but by then it's too late. So who fucking cares?
>>692417861 >your life exists only in your imagination >you are the universe >leaving out context of that quote >we are humans made of ATOMS of the universe >we are humans >in reality near death experiences are bullshit you didn't die. if you did, your brain would've stopped functioning and turned to a vegetable due to lack of oxygen. you didn't die
I can perform Meth voice and not be methed back unwillingly. Nobody can hurt me while I am awake. People deny real events to me. I can do gods love to women to make them orgasm and turn red, at will, with varying intensity depending on who I think is worthy.
I carry symbols associated with god as man, in jewlery and in body modification (my tongue is split).
>>692410326 >>692415515 I saw heaven also saw hell im not gonna lie more than 10 times to death experiences from been shot to diseases, or about attemps of on my life. Im not trying to convert you but heaven and hell does exist also this dark place that is scary. if you don`t believe me that is your own opinion.
>>692416656 In my thirties... Old enough to know that this isn't really the best place for a serious meeting of the minds but young enough to think that it might actually be possible.
>>692417677 Based on what we can possibly know, there is nothing but the "natural", within natural boundaries... whatever those boundaries might be (in space and time), whether finite or, strangely, infinite.
The natural world must have been instigated (created) by something supranatural. (Don’t confuse this with “supernatural” – the word “supranatural” means something completely outside and beyond our natural world.)
The start of this world came from something that is: 1) Eternal, by our definition 2) Unchanging, by our definition 3) Supranatural
Realization #4 THIS UNIVERSE WAS STARTED BY SOMETHING OUTSIDE ITS NATURAL BOUNDARIES.
>>692418322 of course I didn't die. I just saw the last thing you see before you die. Which is all there is. After you die there is nothing... just like before you were born (or became conscious). What you realize is that this is the best thing ever, it is something, Which is so much more interesting than nothing. The choice is yours at that time. Feel free to choose nothing, but I choose to be here. Now.
Motion. Yeah, motion through space, but that’s not all. I mean pretty much all sorts of change. See, shit can’t be in motion unless it can potentially be in the state it’s headed toward. You can’t be moving towards the kitchen unless you can get in the fucking kitchen; you can’t burn a log unless that log can potentially be burned. When I say ‘potential’ I just mean that it could be, but it isn’t actually. If your hot coffee is on the edge of your desk, it’s potentially in your lap scalding you, and you’re potentially screaming in agony, even though you’re actually working. Then when you knock it down because you have trucks for hands, it’s not potentially in your lap, it’s actually in your lap. That shit is happening and this is not a drill. And it’s not potentially hot; it’s actually hot, which is why it burns so fucking much. It’s potentially cold, which is why you’re running for ice to put on yourself.
>>692419419 Got it? Good. But look, shit doesn’t move itself into change; your coffee didn’t just jump onto your lap, no matter what you tell your roommate so he doesn’t think you’re a fucking idiot. Something had to move it, something other than itself. And something had to move that thing, too. And so on back; except we can’t have an infinite number of movements backwards; something had to start the chain. And that first mover, that thing that is itself unmoved, and not potentially anything? Yeah. That’s God.Cause. Shit can’t cause itself to come into being, because then it would have existed to cause itself to become before it actually was. If that sentence confused you, good, because it does not make sense for something to exist before it starts existing. So if something gets caused, something else had to cause it. You can’t have a causeless effect, that’s just silly. And whatever caused that effect is itself an effect of some other cause and this happens for every chain of events. But that chain has to start somewhere, because we can’t go infinitely backwards with these either, now, can we? So there has to be a first cause, something that wasn’t caused by anything else, that isn’t an effect, something that’s just always been. Oh wait, who do we know that has always existed and came before everything else? Yeah that’s right GOD. BOOM.Possibility and necessity. Look. For a lot of things, it’s possible for them to exist, and possible for them not to exist. Take you, for example. your mother brought you into this world, so it’s possible that you exist, but she can sure as fuck take you out, so it’s also possible for you not to exist
>>692419524 Now, if something possibly doesn’t exist, at some point or another it has to not exist. You can’t say, “I guess it could stop existing, it just, you know never has and never will.” What? Fuck no. But if all things could, at some point or another, not exist, then at some point, maybe fucking nothing at all existed, and that’s fucking ridiculous. If once there was nothing, there would always be nothing. Shit doesn’t just magically come into being out of nothingness. And since shit exists now, we have to assume some shit has always existed. But we can’t go back for infinity with shit just accidentally existing; no one is that fucking lucky. So there has to be something that doesn’t just possibly exist, it exists necessarily. It has to exist. It exists, and there is no other way it could have been. It can’t not exist. And we can’t have an infinite chain of those, either; something has to exist, and it has to exist for no other reason than fucking BECAUSE. It is its own necessity, that’s all it needs, and everything else that must be, is because of this thing. This thing we all call God.Gradation. Comparison
>>692419128 okay now you're talking sensibly but you didn't experience the afterlife or a "void" because your brain wasn't in a state to remember such things anyway. just like you don't remember what your body is doing when you black out
>>692418442 I don't think I am missing the point. I am agnostic to both the Simulation Hypothisys, and all the different solutions to the Fermi Paradox. We simply need more info in my opinion. On the other hand, I accept the god notion just as much as I accept the possibility of Santa and the possibility of a tea pot floating around Saturn. Not impossible, but such little evidence it hardly seams worth contemplating.
>>692419604 You know how some things are better than other things? Some people are just straight up better people than others. And how can we say that? How can we know who is more good or less good? How can we know what is more or less of anything? By just comparing it to a maximum. And whatever that maximum is causes all the other things in that category. that’s why fire, the hottest fucking thing we’ve got, makes everything else hot. And what’s the greatest good, the good from which everything else comes? Oh, man. Totally God. Okay. Let’s calm down. NO, JUST KIDDING.For some reason, shit seems to run pretty smoothly, even though not everything in nature has a brain. I mean, really smoothly. How does shit always seem to work out so great? The sun comes up every single day, crops get sun, sometimes it rains, people get fed, life goes on. It’s convenient. maybe too convenient. So convenient, in fact, there’s no fucking way it’s all accidental. If you want to make watches, you probably shouldn’t just put all the parts in a bag and shake 'em up, hoping they’ll happen to make a watch. “Oh, man, what a lucky accident that these tiny parts all just happened to fall in the right configuration, completely at random, to make a timepiece in this bag! What’re the odds?!” Fucking no, those are the you put that watch together carefully and precisely, and someone put the universe in the same way, this universe that gets shit done. Designer of the Universe, you say? HEY THAT MUST BE GOD.
>>692419667 Now, your silly objections. Here’s the thing with evil: God is so fucking powerful he doesn’t even need to wipe out evil. He doesn’t just get rid of that shit. he actively turns it into good. That’s like if god had an infinite army, rather than just wiping out the opposing forces, god fucking converts them to His side. Badass. As for that simplicity bullshit, it would be great if you really could reduce everything to nature or human action, but, I mean, how many fucking times do I have to tell you we can’t go infinitely backwards? No matter how much we learn about how nature happens or humans act, there must be a start. So, yeah, don’t tell me shit’s too simple for God. Without him, you’ve got nothing.
>>692418539 To make a solid point that both sides will argue to the end of time over this topic is finishing the topic it's self. There is nothing else to discuss. End of the day, believers believe and atheists don't believe. Simple as that. You always have one faggot or the other trying to say exists, the other faggot trying to say he doesn't. One way or the other, it doesn't solve a fucking thing. As for me? I am not an atheist but I am not really a full on believer either. I will say I WANT to believe, but I have A LOT of doubts. I try to believe. I even pray, but I feel like God doesn't listen (inb4... HES NOT REAL!!!), I do know God doesn't answer all prayers. Point is... this entire topic is stupid. It's like trying to debate faggots... some say they're mental illness, others say their born that way. That is another topic that will never have a "winning" side.
>>692418857 Logic says it, not me. Basically... when you die.... you will then know the truth. One way or the other. If there is no God? You'll be fucking dead and that's that. There will just be NOTHING when you die. If there IS a God?? Well then... you'll either be going to Heaven or Hell... EITHER WAY?? You will know when you die. That's just logic.
>>692418833 were you shot in the head and survived? because you sound retarded
>not trying to convert you >heaven and hell exist for sure guise >opinion >if you don't believe me that's your opinion no, it's not an opinion that i don't believe you, it's a reality. i don't fucking believe your retarded ass
>>692419763 It actually does solve something if an outside viewer stumbles upon the conversation and they have an ounce of critical thinking skills to determine who is most likely correct. It's the fucking reason why atheism is on the rise. All of the information is out there on the internet and people talk about it, other people listen carefully.
>If there is no God? You'll be fucking dead and that's that. There will just be NOTHING when you die. If there IS a God?? Well then... based on your Pascal's Wager argument here, you haven't done much reading on atheist arguments. That explains why you're such a dumbass on the god topic in general.
>>692418845 >The natural world must have been instigated (created) by something supranatural Obviously that begs the question 'What created the creator?' It is a logical fallacy full stop. The "Oh! But the creator always was (but nothing else can)' argument only makes sense to those who already believe.
>>692419509 That wasn`t dante stuff anon wanted really to kill people hitman stuff anyway this is real stuff I swear it saw some type of caveman ripping each other appart with sorta machetes with hatred was like a lucid dream then I jumped on a stone screamed Jehova im gonna change give me another chance then all this people iv`e never seen in my life bowded down on their knees and started saying JEHOVA but in their hundreds then I woke up in a grasp of air.
>>692419616 Yes, this is right. Nobody can remember what happens when they black out. Your life is eternal in the sense that it exists from when you 'are' until when you 'are not'. As opposed to most animals you can decide if this will be a positive or negative experience. Your choices are determined by the laws of physics, but interpretation is your choice. This is the distinction between heaven and hell that I refer to.
>>692420199 I was waiting for this question. There are two theories. God always existed - full stop, what the priests will tell you. Or... what i believe in. a greater being than god created god, and an even greater being than the greater being who made god, made god and etc... it goes on forever. It should give you comfort that our god most likely contemplates his origins aswell as us lowly beings
-Christians are christians because they were born in a christian family. -Muslims are muslims because they were born in a muslim family. >Your faith is nothing but what mommy and poppy brainwashed you as a kid.
>>692420676 If you saw that all of those other people bowing to you were not, in fact, manifestations of yourself then you are deceived. Please recognize that you must have pity on those people. They are yourself in another life, destroying them is only damaging yourself.
>>692420057 >>692420110 No im not trying to convert you seen heaven probably 3 times I regret still the time I could have been there it was how can I explain it was like a temple could see a castle people never met in my life, asked if I was dead a women told me yes I was I could see two earths below me I started to cry, said God`s holy name I regret it still for not staying there there was a castle and there was green pasture should had stayed there and not cried when I woke up felt this catching of breath that place was awesome. I know you guys probably will think this guy is damaged but no it is not a lie I also belive in quantom physics.
>>692421443 it was a really horrible experience it was like a cave it is pretty extrange I don`t think anyone should believe me, but I think it would be a sin if I don`t share it even if it is in this thread.
>>692422542 I respect you enough to tell you honestly that I think your belief in god is irrational and unnecessary. I do not respect beliefs that are demonstrably false. Such thoughts actively slow the progress of mankind.
>>692422844 you probably want to believe because you are scared you're going to hell why be scared of something you have no reason to think exists? if you can't logically believe in something, why would god punish you for it? don't worry.
>>692422009 Did you know the Gospel of Mark originally ended with 16:8? >"[The women] went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." So what kind of authority is a book that gets stuff wrong?
>>692420631 Bang on, mate! That is the exact question, and a very good one. Do not leave out that there are two aspects to that "creation": (1) existence, including matter and energy; and (2) change.
[By both your questioning and mine, there is no place within this existence for an ultimate "beginning", no "created god".]
And that is why this world (universe, existence, et al) was created by something outside of this universe, outside of existence, outside of change. That is, this existence, by definition, was created by something "supranatural".
>>692423093 >playing sims >sims freak out >i want to tell you there's a bathroom right there to pee in, but you're too freaking out about the fire to listen to me. >fucking noob sim, do you're fucking job
>>692422844 You can just pray if you don`t have a bible you can google a psalm, or if you can do this ask God that you want to know the name of your guardian angel then open a bible the name that pops up it is his name. You will probably dream him do a prayer Try to sleep with your arms and feet crossed. after the prayer
>>692423388 it's not a fruitless argument because we can uncover the logical fallacies within the claims. it's pretty much why atheism is on the rise -- people are getting better at showing how stupid religious claims are
>>692423509 well just please notice how it doesn't answer the question. at all. there has never been any mechanism described which shows how god could come into existence with no prior cause. he always was? no explanation for that has ever been given either. just assertions from the deluded
>>692423517 You still don't get to assert the universe was even created. Holy shit, how many times must I say this. Stop assuming the universe was created. You're skipping some proof for your claim. You also have no justification for believing anything exists outside of existence, not to mention how it is logically impossible. You have a lot of work to do.
If you need a post removed click on it's [Report] button and follow the instruction.
If you like this website please support us by donating with Bitcoins at 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that RandomArchive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.