Why do atheists view begging the question as a legitimate argument?
> everything has to be created!
> my god wasn't created because i've arbitrarily decided that the rules don't apply to him because he's my god!!!
Argument from a definition - "I define God as non-existent"
Why should anyone believe this exactly? Surely, you must have some knockdown arguments if everyone who disagrees is subhuman.
If you actually took the cause of the Big Bang seriously you would be balls deep in actual math and physics.
I didn’t see a hint of actual physics in your post to that end because you are an unserious, superstitious person.
I didn't see a hint of actual physics in your post either. If you want, we can go into multiverse theories and especially into the fact they require more faith than God for the most part, or into "eternal" universe theories and how they break the entropy principle.
But until then, meta-physical propositions will remain beyond (meta) physics.
Anon the cause of the Big Bang is a question explored by physics. You are not doing physics, you are doing pulled it out of your ass philosophy.
You are delusional to a comical degree, this is pathetic.
My post brings up more physics than you in both your objections put together. Do you actually have anything to say besides "leave the thinking to the authorities"?
I’m pointing at you claiming to rule out natural causes of the Big Bang and posit your own without actually doing the math and physics. If you sincerely believe what you’ve posted is anything close to actual physics you should close the tab.
Not that guy but…curious that you seem completely unable to refute the idea if it’s so Malformed. It seems like you’re just spluttering and red faced because you don’t know how.
>curious that you seem completely unable to refute the idea
What idea? He hasn’t proposed anything of substance.
The question is what caused the Big Bang, which is a physics question and he’s not using physics.
Which contingency argument? How does it show that God is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial?
Because that's what science says, retard. Things can't come into being unless it's a miracle
What does it mean for something to exist outside of time, space, and matter? Such a thing is utterly inconceivable.
Only God knows, since He was before there was time.
>before there was time
Negative infinity/eternity, yep.
It's not utterly inconceivable, we can conceive of an analogy. Imagine a character from your favorite work of fiction transcending the gulf between fiction and reality, and climbing up into the real world. Depending on what story that character is from, this world might be very similar to or very different from theirs. But regardless of how different, one significant guaranteed difference is that we are (or one of us in particular is) their creator. So "existing outside of time, space, and matter" is where we would end up if we could climb up out of our story.
Black science man won that exchange.
Christnaggers are just retarded.
God IS Time and Space and Matter.
Top man is trying to say God is awesome but is either doing poor job of that or is being taken out of context because I don’t know the source.
God is awesome and almighty, God can control everything. But in the thought about controlling everything there is darkness, such as cloning yourself and appearing a million places at once all doing different things. That sounds insane to me, no thanks. Just like getting into discussion over time, space and matter, you can, but it is best to stay within science since we are humans and can’t understand it. When talking about God though, you are better off just saying God controls all that. Then people understand.
Like they will be trying to control people with a mark on the forehead and on the right hand, and to worship his image.
The antichrist is an actor that is gay irl and has slavery on his right hand.
But God was also outside of time before he first spoke. So he is also outside.
>But God was also outside of time before he first spoke
I don't view God as a distinct entity from the Universe itself. From my point of view, the Universe and God are One and the Same. God is everything and everyone, both in part and the whole. Creation and the Creator are only considered as distinct subjects because it makes categorization easy for the human brain. God is, for me, both the clock and the clock maker.
Well christians doesn’t see it your way buddy! In a topic about Christianity with Neil you have to go to what the Bible says. Which is that the Creation isn’t the same as God.
>debating israelite nagger that Jesus is God
>Which is that the Creation isn’t the same as God
Which is why I stated in my initial post that Christnaggers are retarded.
You would worship yourself as God if you thought so, no wonder you think everyone else is a retard. You can’t even see past your ugly big nose.
>Everyone I disagree with is a kike
>God is awesome and almighty,
If he's so awesome, why isn't everyone white?
Is God my piss? Is he stored in the balls?
It is, of course, true that God is "nothing," which is just another way of saying everything. But Space-Time is not fundamental anyway; only consciousness is.
God is outside of space, time, and matter and you are subhuman if your brain comes to a different conclusion
Imagine believing there is just some arbitrary existence that was before the universe. No it was solely God before creation. And no human can truly comprehend it but it is the sole logical conclusion
KeK just because you are afraid that your imaginary friend isn't real doesn't make it logical. Every argument you make works just as validly for unicorns.
>I disagree Schwartzsciencemann
>Literally never travelled further than 10 miles from Koningsberg
Normalfags have no concept of the immaterial because they, in fact, have no souls. When an Atheist tells you he and his friends don't have souls, he's telling you the truth
Everyone has souls if they are human being; the meme that gingers have no souls is stupid too. Buddhists and other religions that believe in reincarnation are just spiritual copes for not wanting to be human anymore.
Souls don't exist outside time
So there's no soul of mine that will go to heaven or hell, right? and I can't meaningfully convert to any major religion. so I can stop worrying about all that bullshit in that case
In a way that normals will understand:
The one thing all science and philosophy runs in to is in it's very own basic supposition. The chain of cause and effect. To put another way, nothing in this world is imbued with it's own motion. It has to gain that motion from outside of itself at some point and spends it till it is gone. What it got it's motion from is similar. We trace this back and back and back and we reach ground zero. You eventually reach the instant before ideas like the 'big bang'. We can seemingly calculate within an instant after the big bang.. but no further. Which is a defeat of all modern thinking at it's very base. Where does 'motion' come from after this instant? The issue becomes we have everything that exists compacted in to an infinitely dense point that was uninterrupted for eternity. Why did it stay that way? What changed this if it was just.. that way?
Even someone like Carl Sagan would reply to such questions saying he doesn't want to talk about it. Big Bang not your thing? All thought runs in to the same issue. Track back the logical causes to their origin and all trace is lost. We can go no further.
Essentially we need a source for events, motion itself, that itself has no source. An unmoved mover. A causeless cause. An alpha, but something being the alpha necessitates it also being the omega. The thing that will remain when all else is spent.
Dig deep. Keep digging. Strike the firmament itself with your shovel and dig under that. You will only find God waiting there.
>Essentially we need a [cause] for events
>Which is why there must be an uncaused event!
He is not an event.
Okay then I define the universe as not an event, game set match.
And if purely semantic arguments are fine with you then you win. For me and most people, however, it's not enough to define ourselves as correct.
What exactly do you think it was you were doing here? A semantic argument
>He is not an event.
Everything needs a cause, except God who doesn't count because semantics.
>all that text of dunning-kruger ramble
>only to say 'israeli desert demon from the bronze age talks to me in my head'
>nothing in this world is imbued with it's own motion. It has to gain that motion from outside of itself at some point and spends it till it is gone. What it got it's motion from is similar.
nagger, I present to you... a magnet
how do they work?
Magnetism and gravity are not good examples and fails to address the anon’s argument. They are just nuclear forces from the interaction of fundamental particles, which are further reducible into even more fundamental particles as have been the trend in physics for the past millennia. So you run into an infinite regress. More importantly, these nuclear forces don’t exist don’t exist by themselves and are emergent properties from those particles.
Not him but they get these emergent properties because of the miracle of God.
God gave it to man in Genesis 1:29 when He said the tree fruit for meat, and again with the eating of purified meats from animals, which the DemDumbs want to deceive and take away.
No NECA Buzz Lightyear action figures yet.
>They are just nuclear forces from the interaction of fundamental particles
Amazing, I give you the two fundamental interactions out of 4 that are NOT nuclear forces and you call them nuclear forces. The rest of the post seems to discuss the nuclear forces.
I'll just note though:
>are emergent properties from those particles.
Yeah? Think about what that means for 5 seconds in regards to "an object has to gain motion from outside of itself at some point and spends it till it is gone."
I'd say, the world seems to be the complete opposite of what you imagine. Every time something appears to be moving from some cause, it turns out that cause was ultimately that some objects were just existing, just chilling basically. You dig deeper, and find some sort of movement again, and yet again you realize that movement has no singular impetus, no prime mover sending the ball rolling, it's just the habitual state of the matter, and it's caused by matter just being. It's infinite regress but not in a way that brings you to a proactive creator entity.
Sure terminology is not correct, but you run into the same problem in the sense that gravity emerges from masses. Also your idea of change makes very little sense. The objects interact with one another to bring about the change. Also for objects to come in and out of existence are also changes that don’t simply occur because they were just “chilling”.
>t. has never studied physics past 1800
I want you to explain right now, right here, in front of everyone, what "sets in motion" an electron emitted through spontaneous emission.
Old israeli man in the sky
Christians don't believe God is outside of time, space and matter. They believe he incarnates if he feels like it.
So singularities don’t exist?
Haven't that blaxk pseudointellectual also argued for that "everything is a computer simulator" "theory"? That shoild discualify anyone from arguing against god
It's a strawman either way and should not be taken seriously. He's more of an entertainer than a scientist.
He's not even wrong though, something that is outside of time and space literally doesn't exist. But just because something does not physically exist doesn't mean it's not real, for example, words don't physically exist either but you would obviously be hard-pressed to get a scientist to say that words are therefore not real.
>words don't physically exist either
Words absolutely physically exist. They are combinations of sound waves that trigger an electro-chemical response in the brain of a human being. They also physically exist in the sense that they are an abstract way of expressing information and thus can be stored in a physical media such as a stone tablet, in ink, or on a computer hard drive as ones and zeroes. It's true that humans give words deeper meaning via the physical processes of their own brain, but words do physically exist in the sense that they are a physical phenomena in the universe (sound waves) or as information (in written form). In fact an argument could be made that all human communication, whether speech or artistic or otherwise, is just using physical phenomena to create patters that have agreed upon associations between individuals. Words are merely a way of expressing or recording the physical phenomena of existence.
>They are combinations of sound waves that trigger an electro-chemical response in the brain of a human being
So when I step on leaves and hear them crunch, that's a word? Bro you're literally illiterate, don't speak to me.
>being purposefully obtuse
Can't cure stupid
didnt the universe started with energy and particles? they need no time space and matter
>only time space and matter exist
>i know because i stood outside time space and matter, and didnt see anyone else
Also arent abstract concepts like math, outside of time, space and matter?!?!?!?!
How could you do math with no space, time or matter?
I imagine he would say that mathematical objects don't exist.
What turns an atheist against God? Is it hatred?
what turns a christian against Amaterasu? or Zoroaster. Its the same thing. Religion is a fairy tale to us. Its simply irrational to believe. Just as you believe its irrational to believe in other gods. Though maybe id give religion a look if you all figured out which one was supposed to be correct.
It is because they are jealous of power and think the world revolves around them, when in truth you must live for God, and thus the world
>now let me tell you about dark matter which is unobservable and has no interactions with real matter and our entire model of the universe would collapse without
>now let me tell you about dark matter which is unobservable and has no interactions with real matter
It does though? Otherwise it would not do anything
> Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force. This means it does not absorb, reflect or emit light, making it extremely hard to spot. In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.
So as I understand it whether or not interacts with matter still isn’t known, but it’s presumed to exist based on unexplained gravitational effects in space. Supposedly it makes up a quarter of the universe but we haven’t devised a way to prove its existence or even observe it.
Either that or all our models are wrong
Kent Hovind is based and he was unjustly imprisoned because taxation is theft.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save name for the next time I post.