Judging by the fact that astrophysicists who actually study this don’t come to these same conclusions I’m guessing the guy on LULZ naming himself “choice maker” is missing some facts and concepts.
It's real simple here anon. You don't a an bachelors degree in astrophysics and whatnot.
God is a philosophical absolute.
And that's not gonna change no matter how deep you bury your head in the sand.
>God is a philosophical absolute.
Yes and that is beyond human comprehension so much so that we can with 100% certainty say that that god isn't some bronze age israelite god with strict opinions about eating shrimp.
Anon I think you’ll find that atheists mean they don’t believe in some thinking and maybe feeling deity and aren’t writing off the very concept of some force or energy that got the universe started
I did not say "two thirds of academic philosophers are atheists, and that's not even counting agnostics, therefore you're wrong". Learn how fallacies work.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
So you're saying it was an irrelevant input?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
No, that is not what I am saying. What I'm saying that any idea that has significant support among philosophers, including both theism and atheism, isn't obvious garbage that can be easily dismissed. If you want to just have fun shitposting, that's fine, but if you want to make good arguments, you should read up on what people who do this for a living have said on the topic. Otherwise you'll completely miss a long string of objections and counter objections relevant to your argument.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>objections and counter objections relevant to your argument
Yeah, I'm waiting, but it's pointless when you already know there are no such things.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
That's the thing, I don't care about the game. Arguing with someone who lacks intellectual humility is pointless.
>God is a philosophical absolute.
A fact you can't demonstrate, because you don't understand the astrophysics necessary to do so. Instread you just dismiss the whole field as nonsense or something and accuse anyone who doesn't as blindly trusting experts, even though everything those experts say, right down to the math, is a matter of public record you can check yourself.
>Demonstrate a fact.
What next, you gonna ask me to demonstrate that nothing comes from nothing?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes? If your trying to make a case for God as an undeniable truth you have to actively demonstrate every alternate is wrong, or admit your argument only works with certain axiomatic assumptions.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Tell me which part of the factual premises here needs demonstrating? Cause I have already done the explaining on my part.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You have explained it to your ability maybe, but as many have pointed out, you don't seem to understand modern theory about space time.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You're not answering the question which you yourself brought to our attention.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well for one the op dismisses the possiblity of loops or regress, but this assumes time is both eternal and linear. In reality time as we experience it has only existed as long as the universe has, so causality as you think if it simply does not necessarily apply to anything outside the physical universe.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Facts are generally demonstrable yes
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Tell me which part of the factual premises here needs demonstrating? Cause I have already done the explaining on my part.
I need to know which facts I need to demonstrate.
You got me curious.
There is a god or gods but they are so outside of human reference that a religion that claims to give us the truth and still be comprehendible is lying. It is impossible for a human to grasp the truth about existence and anyone claiming otherwise is a charlatan.
I'm a Christian and I can come up with an argument against the infinite regress.
This is regarding intelligent design isn't it?
As in who design the designer?
This isn't really a good argument. It breaks down literally on the second line. You can't just discard the possibility of something from nothing because you dont have the necessary information on how universes come into existence.
then it should be easy to demonstrate, though I would point out that modern science, and presumably most atheists do not believe something from nothing anyways.
It kind of is though because we have only ever experienced the universe which is not nothing. If we are talking about some other medium or a thing which is not the universe then we don't have any information about such a thing and can't make any meaningful logical claims about it.
> He doesn't know what a virtual particle is
Of course it is. Did it ever occur to you that people 2000 years ago maybe didn't have all the answers and we gained more insights into how the world works since then?
And even if this principle would hold inside of our universe, what makes you so sure that the universe itself can't come from nothing?
>choice
What's the contrastive explanation of why Choice Maker choses one thing, instead of another?
I take a free choice to be, choosing, between two or more options
>set up a line of questions such as to ask about the fist point to something you've just stipulated as to have no first point, then act shocked when this doesn't make sense
bravo
I'm not interested in harassing atheists, I want to convert them. And I'm not interested in rubbing shoulders with "theists" either, I want to convert them too.
Cool, finally an empirical issue. You should run some surveys, looking into the efficacy of presuppositional apologetics.
How many people does it convert, etc
Then compare it to other methods of conversion. Like sending missionaries to developing countries and telling the natives stories about how they'll be tortured forever if they don't convert.
Conversion comes from the Spirit of God. Persuasive arguments are often bad arguments, I'll be faithful and make good arguments instead, instead of trying to placate and appease rebel sinners.
Apologists are such morons. They learn all the rhetoric and logic but they are too dumb to actually apply it. They just memorize and regurgitate the same tiresome and bad arguments.
You won't respond to anyone that doesn't follow your retarded script tho.
See
Op image works on false assumptions. Its clear the OP doesn’t understand it
Well for one the op dismisses the possiblity of loops or regress, but this assumes time is both eternal and linear. In reality time as we experience it has only existed as long as the universe has, so causality as you think if it simply does not necessarily apply to anything outside the physical universe.
It kind of is though because we have only ever experienced the universe which is not nothing. If we are talking about some other medium or a thing which is not the universe then we don't have any information about such a thing and can't make any meaningful logical claims about it.
then it should be easy to demonstrate, though I would point out that modern science, and presumably most atheists do not believe something from nothing anyways.
>The former is immediately discarded as an impossibility
Don't even need to read further. Your argument introduces an unproven assumption by the third sentence.
In reality it's simple.
We have this law called Law of Cause and Effect.
Where does it come from?
We see that world around us is organized and everything seem to have a cause and have an effect of something.
Beceuse the world is organized by some principle and never deviates from it, we believe in this law.
But in reality - can something happen without a cause?
Of course, something may just be.
Right now before you eyes can materialize a tennis ball without any cause to it.
It just will appear in before your eyes.
Is it theoretically possible?
Yes, therefore a Law of Cause and effect is not absolute and there may be things that don't follow it.
It kind of is though because we have only ever experienced the universe which is not nothing. If we are talking about some other medium or a thing which is not the universe then we don't have any information about such a thing and can't make any meaningful logical claims about it.
The big bang theory, from when it was created by a Catholic priest till now, has never suggested that there was nothing. In fact it assumes the opposite, that there was always something.
Rather than just copying Aquinas, or trying to anyway, actual philosophy involves being able to accurately repeat the ideas you are criticizing.
When you say nothing in this context it is assumed we are talking about something other than universe or the absence of it. This kind of nothing or non-universe stuff may or may not exist and behave the way you would intuitively think.
>theists of any kind
not all theists have a creator god, largest example would be Jainists. >same Aristotelian arguement again
Well, you proven that we do not know what caused the universe.
How do you know this cause is one?
How do you know this cause is sentient?
How do you know if this cause is not caused by another cause?
How do you know if this cause is not among the infinite possibilities that gave cause to another universes?
How do you know if this cause didnt ceased to exist? How do you know if this was eternal? What if it was a one-time event?
Sounds like bunch of assumption, just like the rest of Platonic philosophy. Too good for its' time, too outdated for modernity. >something must have caused this
exactly, something.
>the former is immediately discarded as an impossibility
Lmao stopped reading there. Absolute midwit tier. Arguing about the existence of god is absolutely pointless though, waste of time. You either believe in the unknowable force or you don’t. What’s even more preposterous is believing that some unknowable force helps dictate morality and cares deeply about humanity.
>What’s even more preposterous is believing that some unknowable force helps dictate morality and cares deeply about humanity.
Why is it hard for you to understand that an almighty creator would care for its creation(s)?
You anthropomorphize and attribute your own moral bias to it. If you created something you would care for it therefor a theoretical god would because… “caring” is a human faculty.
Humans and nature in general are often elevated and more successful when they’re more in tune with the darker aspects of themselves. Aspects and values that Abrahamic morality would thoughtlessly deride. Once we see morality for the human interpretation it is the religion begins to unravel because at its center it’s concerned with divine moral truth that’s enforced in the after life. You as it stands are concerned with which benefits your survival/standing, and at some point that will come to an end. But nature is concerned with what is strong and its direction becomes clearer over the long term. So your suffering or the suffering of many may lead to net benefits over the long run for humanity. It certainly can serve to elevate us in the now. There’s no reason a theoretical omnipotent god would care more for humans on random planet in the cosmos than any other celestial body out there. But all these things are in the category of life, not the supernatural or divine.
Either god created and turned away forever or god just observes as we evolve into greater beings. But again, both of those things are anthropomorphizing.
>Define whatever caused the universe to be created as God
Even if you do that it’s pretty worthless, just because something created the universe doesn’t mean that it demands worship or that one follow a codified list of rules.
Why?
Hard problem of consciousness, no need for other forms of mental gymnastics
> eternal universe discarded just because
> eternal God accepted he is hecking magical
Choice Maker and his 50IQ arguments, everyone!
Judging by the fact that astrophysicists who actually study this don’t come to these same conclusions I’m guessing the guy on LULZ naming himself “choice maker” is missing some facts and concepts.
Yes anon I trust astrophysicists over a guy on LULZ who does not even have a bachelors in physics if he has a bachelors at all.
It's real simple here anon. You don't a an bachelors degree in astrophysics and whatnot.
God is a philosophical absolute.
And that's not gonna change no matter how deep you bury your head in the sand.
>God is a philosophical absolute.
Yes and that is beyond human comprehension so much so that we can with 100% certainty say that that god isn't some bronze age israelite god with strict opinions about eating shrimp.
Anon I think you’ll find that atheists mean they don’t believe in some thinking and maybe feeling deity and aren’t writing off the very concept of some force or energy that got the universe started
Then again, two thirds of academic philosophers are atheists, and that's not even counting agnostics.
Bandwagon fallacy?
I did not say "two thirds of academic philosophers are atheists, and that's not even counting agnostics, therefore you're wrong". Learn how fallacies work.
So you're saying it was an irrelevant input?
No, that is not what I am saying. What I'm saying that any idea that has significant support among philosophers, including both theism and atheism, isn't obvious garbage that can be easily dismissed. If you want to just have fun shitposting, that's fine, but if you want to make good arguments, you should read up on what people who do this for a living have said on the topic. Otherwise you'll completely miss a long string of objections and counter objections relevant to your argument.
>objections and counter objections relevant to your argument
Yeah, I'm waiting, but it's pointless when you already know there are no such things.
That's the thing, I don't care about the game. Arguing with someone who lacks intellectual humility is pointless.
>God is a philosophical absolute.
A fact you can't demonstrate, because you don't understand the astrophysics necessary to do so. Instread you just dismiss the whole field as nonsense or something and accuse anyone who doesn't as blindly trusting experts, even though everything those experts say, right down to the math, is a matter of public record you can check yourself.
>Demonstrate a fact.
What next, you gonna ask me to demonstrate that nothing comes from nothing?
Yes? If your trying to make a case for God as an undeniable truth you have to actively demonstrate every alternate is wrong, or admit your argument only works with certain axiomatic assumptions.
Tell me which part of the factual premises here needs demonstrating? Cause I have already done the explaining on my part.
You have explained it to your ability maybe, but as many have pointed out, you don't seem to understand modern theory about space time.
You're not answering the question which you yourself brought to our attention.
Well for one the op dismisses the possiblity of loops or regress, but this assumes time is both eternal and linear. In reality time as we experience it has only existed as long as the universe has, so causality as you think if it simply does not necessarily apply to anything outside the physical universe.
Facts are generally demonstrable yes
I need to know which facts I need to demonstrate.
You got me curious.
the absolute state of christcucks.
There is a god or gods but they are so outside of human reference that a religion that claims to give us the truth and still be comprehendible is lying. It is impossible for a human to grasp the truth about existence and anyone claiming otherwise is a charlatan.
Christians still can't come up with argument against infinite regress.
I'm a Christian and I can come up with an argument against the infinite regress.
This is regarding intelligent design isn't it?
As in who design the designer?
>gets btfod in every thread
Why continue?
>gets btfod
Where?
As a thieist I find the OPs moronic argument embaressing. It's a shame that we're plagued by such morons filling our ranks.
>I'm not an atheist but
This isn't really a good argument. It breaks down literally on the second line. You can't just discard the possibility of something from nothing because you dont have the necessary information on how universes come into existence.
That's not even a point worth wrangling about.
then it should be easy to demonstrate, though I would point out that modern science, and presumably most atheists do not believe something from nothing anyways.
It kind of is though because we have only ever experienced the universe which is not nothing. If we are talking about some other medium or a thing which is not the universe then we don't have any information about such a thing and can't make any meaningful logical claims about it.
> He doesn't know what a virtual particle is
Of course it is. Did it ever occur to you that people 2000 years ago maybe didn't have all the answers and we gained more insights into how the world works since then?
And even if this principle would hold inside of our universe, what makes you so sure that the universe itself can't come from nothing?
You illiterate nigga?
>Vacuum fluctuations, anything non-being.
>Is still something which falls under either random chance or function.
>choice
What's the contrastive explanation of why Choice Maker choses one thing, instead of another?
I take a free choice to be, choosing, between two or more options
>the universe can't magically pop out of nothing
>but god can magically pop out of nothing
Not an argument.
Op image works on false assumptions. Its clear the OP doesn’t understand it
>set up a line of questions such as to ask about the fist point to something you've just stipulated as to have no first point, then act shocked when this doesn't make sense
bravo
wtf, bro
Don't expose us like that
This is a lot of words to say: "God has special causal powers"
I'm not interested in harassing atheists, I want to convert them. And I'm not interested in rubbing shoulders with "theists" either, I want to convert them too.
Cool, finally an empirical issue. You should run some surveys, looking into the efficacy of presuppositional apologetics.
How many people does it convert, etc
Then compare it to other methods of conversion. Like sending missionaries to developing countries and telling the natives stories about how they'll be tortured forever if they don't convert.
Conversion comes from the Spirit of God. Persuasive arguments are often bad arguments, I'll be faithful and make good arguments instead, instead of trying to placate and appease rebel sinners.
You are being irrational. This conflicts with your previously stated goal.
>You are being irrational.
By what standard?
It's just to say you are acting in a way that does not achieve your goals, the definition of irrationality
That is not the definition of rationality. You are being irrational.
Apologists are such morons. They learn all the rhetoric and logic but they are too dumb to actually apply it. They just memorize and regurgitate the same tiresome and bad arguments.
Still not seeing an actual response.
You won't respond to anyone that doesn't follow your retarded script tho.
See
>You don't respond to irrelevant opinions.
FTFY.
There is no logical way to justify belief in God.
Cope.
The non-existence of God is an impossibility, yes.
You can't say that in earnest.
Define God
seriously, I'm asking in earnest
We can not give abstract definition to every term that we're using anon.
I already defined it though, an eternal being who created the universe.
Why does the supposed creation event have to be a being?
Back you go:
Doesn't explain why it has to be a being
Uh, I explicitly explained why it can't be a non-being, the impossibility of the contrary.
You are assuming that the event is bounded by time.
What now?
Please tell me the contradiction entailed in the universe being caused by 'a thing' with the relevant causal powers
What's his name?
>being
Do you need a mind, in order to be a being?
Science simplified: shut up and believe it because the experts said so, goyim
Do you understand the difference between science and science?
>The former is immediately discarded as an impossibility
Don't even need to read further. Your argument introduces an unproven assumption by the third sentence.
>prime mover
>therefore bearded israeli skydaddy
Christoids strike again
>the universe can't be eternal
>but god can
This post looks like it's written by a kid.
In reality it's simple.
We have this law called Law of Cause and Effect.
Where does it come from?
We see that world around us is organized and everything seem to have a cause and have an effect of something.
Beceuse the world is organized by some principle and never deviates from it, we believe in this law.
But in reality - can something happen without a cause?
Of course, something may just be.
Right now before you eyes can materialize a tennis ball without any cause to it.
It just will appear in before your eyes.
Is it theoretically possible?
Yes, therefore a Law of Cause and effect is not absolute and there may be things that don't follow it.
You illiterate too? See this
Even an uncaused event still falls under either random chance or function. That it still happened by either random chance or function.
I'm only going to get illiterate responses, aren't I?
This is what atheists not having an actual response looks like.
Are you saying that something happening by chance counts as being caused?
Illiterate retard.
No you're illiterate.
I'm saying that something may happen without cause and effect.
Something may just appear into existence.
>Something from nothing.
See
I'm not here to argue basic philosophical facts.
>basic philosophical facts.
Trust the """philosophy""" """experts"""
>Basic
>experts
Why do you still try? It's desperately ugly at this point.
>nothing can't come from nothing... because it just can't ok?
Look, you don't like the concept of necessity and contingency?
Take it up with the philosophers!
*Yawn*
Infinite regress. Either existence implies contingency and God isn't necessary or the universe is the most necessary thing.
>This is what atheists not having an actual response looks like.
You got plenty of responses, you just ignore them
They don't count
>They don't count
Yeah because you can't argue against them
I can't argue against a clown making balloon animals either
Atop replying to this autist. He makes 20 threads a day. Hes the ai generated ricky gervaris pedo
Still fun to argue though
Ricky Gervais is pedo?
The big bang theory, from when it was created by a Catholic priest till now, has never suggested that there was nothing. In fact it assumes the opposite, that there was always something.
Rather than just copying Aquinas, or trying to anyway, actual philosophy involves being able to accurately repeat the ideas you are criticizing.
Why do you believe that we live on a cartoon ball and apes can shapeshift?
Theism is this but you add a god magically popping into existence out of nothing before the universe.
>Nothing boom.png
>atheism.jpg
"Nothing" does not exist and can not be studied because you can only measure "something". We have no idea what properties "nothing" even has.
>nothing
>properties
lmao retard.
He's right tho. If it had properties how would we know.
If it had properties, then it wouldn't be nothing now would it? Oxymoron.
You don't know that.
retard
When you say nothing in this context it is assumed we are talking about something other than universe or the absence of it. This kind of nothing or non-universe stuff may or may not exist and behave the way you would intuitively think.
OP here. I'm exhausted of all this retardation. I'm going home.
Come up with a better argument next time.
No youre not
No youre not
>theists of any kind
not all theists have a creator god, largest example would be Jainists.
>same Aristotelian arguement again
Well, you proven that we do not know what caused the universe.
How do you know this cause is one?
How do you know this cause is sentient?
How do you know if this cause is not caused by another cause?
How do you know if this cause is not among the infinite possibilities that gave cause to another universes?
How do you know if this cause didnt ceased to exist? How do you know if this was eternal? What if it was a one-time event?
Sounds like bunch of assumption, just like the rest of Platonic philosophy. Too good for its' time, too outdated for modernity.
>something must have caused this
exactly, something.
>How do you know something unnecessary isn't the case?
Do monotheists know that the universe is made actively by at least 3 conflicting forces that actively oppose each other?
>the former is immediately discarded as an impossibility
Lmao stopped reading there. Absolute midwit tier. Arguing about the existence of god is absolutely pointless though, waste of time. You either believe in the unknowable force or you don’t. What’s even more preposterous is believing that some unknowable force helps dictate morality and cares deeply about humanity.
>What’s even more preposterous is believing that some unknowable force helps dictate morality and cares deeply about humanity.
Why is it hard for you to understand that an almighty creator would care for its creation(s)?
lol
I just created dinner, do you think I care for it's wellbeing?
You anthropomorphize and attribute your own moral bias to it. If you created something you would care for it therefor a theoretical god would because… “caring” is a human faculty.
Humans and nature in general are often elevated and more successful when they’re more in tune with the darker aspects of themselves. Aspects and values that Abrahamic morality would thoughtlessly deride. Once we see morality for the human interpretation it is the religion begins to unravel because at its center it’s concerned with divine moral truth that’s enforced in the after life. You as it stands are concerned with which benefits your survival/standing, and at some point that will come to an end. But nature is concerned with what is strong and its direction becomes clearer over the long term. So your suffering or the suffering of many may lead to net benefits over the long run for humanity. It certainly can serve to elevate us in the now. There’s no reason a theoretical omnipotent god would care more for humans on random planet in the cosmos than any other celestial body out there. But all these things are in the category of life, not the supernatural or divine.
Either god created and turned away forever or god just observes as we evolve into greater beings. But again, both of those things are anthropomorphizing.
God exists and its Zeus as the greeks claimed.
>Define whatever caused the universe to be created as God
Even if you do that it’s pretty worthless, just because something created the universe doesn’t mean that it demands worship or that one follow a codified list of rules.
Maybe God is just like us, expect bigger and stronger... and gonna hurt the people I disagree with
btw, I'll get really pissed if you call him sky-daddy, God is pure Esse, potency. What grounds the trancedentals.