>medieval: the motion of celestial objects is caused by god's mental activity
>newtonian: wait no actually its a force called gravity but god causes the force
>oh wait actually gravity is caused by matter warping spacetime oops
Lol theism.
>medieval: the motion of celestial objects is caused by god's mental activity
It doesn’t change anything, it just pushes the fundamental force further down the turtle stack. Science can’t explain the root of why things are.
Don't waste your time, OP's just an underage fedora spammer.
Theism can’t explain the root of why things are.
"God" is label not a model. "Gravity" is also a label, Newtonian gravity models some parts of the phenomena but not what it fundamentally is. It doesn't even predict the motion of the planets completely. Adding relativity predicts motion better but doesn't model what the phenomena is either, it just describes its effects in more detail.
So what?
I'll add to this. Theism can't explain anything.
Because a God can do everything. It will never tell you things are one way, instead of another way. Because God could do both ways, and do them for no reason external to himself.
Only by supposing a God, with a specific desire to cause the data we are trying to explain, can Theism explain stuff. The explanation being entirely ad hoc.
There's no conceivable explanation for some things. All the tools you assume as fundamental have clear limits. The totality of what's beyond logic is unknowable, unreachable by physical creatures and contains all potential. While attacking the word "God" because some retards annoyed you you're throwing out basics of logic with it and thus becoming a dogmatic zealot yourself.
>logic is based on god
uh, okay
It leads to some version of classical monotheism. Retards like you frame it in some different way where you can avoid saying the word "God" and think it's brilliant because you don't really think, you just work from conditioned associations.
What insane hollywood fantasy are you referencing? If you understood what I said then acting as if it's false means you're claiming logic will one day explain where the logic you're using to explain itself comes from. Logically and mathematically that's provably impossible. Biblically it's the idea of the complete system which ushers in the antichrist, complete accounting on all three planes, 6-6-6.
How does God explain it?
"God" is label not a model.
How does logic explain logic? How does Newton explain gravity? Your mind is mush and you don't understand anything, theology is not an exception.
>don't think just swallow the dumbest propaganda ever made
Reducing anything that challenges your preconceptions to nonsense doesn't help you or anyone. You're just a dishonest retard undermining your own ability to think and communicate.
What explain why there is a created universe, instead of no universe?
It's logically impossible to account for what accounts for logic so you can't account for a real causal beginning using any methods, because it's in the universe the method is a product of the thing you're trying to explain instead of the other way around. When something is fundamental it means we can only point at it and name it, we have no account for it.
God is the most basic fundamental, it emerges out of the most basic logic which you rely on in all other fields as if it's obvious in those cases. You only reject it when it doesn't suit your brainwashing.
>bla, bla, bla
Wrong.
God explains why there is a created universe.
What's the explanation? There's no reproducible logic. The monotheistic concept of God is a way to frame the idea of universal law and that the laws we have access to are derived from higher laws that are not accessible.
Why? What specifically are you referencing? That time I denied the existence of molecules in your fantasy?
Everything you say is based on conditioned associations instead of building on what I actually say. You don't grasp the concept of structured thought.
Can you tell me, what you think an explanation is in philosophy?
There are degrees. An explanation accounts for a thing. We can say God accounts for the universe but that statement doesn't describe or explain anything about God, how that happened or why.
Similarly gravity accounts for a ball falling but that statement doesn't model anything further. If we don't go further into it we're describing the event and labelling some apparent elements but not explaining anything beyond what's apparent. What I established so far are only the labels for the apparent elements like "God", not how they work or what they do beyond what's apparent. Trying to approach the will of God, to model the inner working of the phenomena to some degree is theology, like Job attempts in a flawed way and according to the Bible God approves of even with the flaws.
Because of our limits theology can't work like science. We can't know the mind of God or test hypothesis about God except in terms of effects on the world. Theology can still be reasonable.
It's reasonable to say God values life or that life is part of the will of God. It's not something we can prove but it's apparent that the source of everything produced a world where life emerges.
>It's reasonable to say God values life or that life is part of the will of God.
Why?
Because it explains the data we observe? (God can explain any data, because he can do anything)
sounds ad hoc
Don't you think there's a problem that God would explain both a world with life in it, and a world without life in it
If there is life, this can be explained by a God with a desire to cause a world with life in it
If there isn't life, this can be explained by a God with a desire to cause a world without life in it
It doesn't explain anything, it just labels the things happening. Because the phenomena by definition is beyond logic the only thing we know with relative certainty about God is that we can't know anything about God with any real certainty, thus faith.
You wake up with no memory in a line of people hauling buckets to put out a fire. Do you stop the line because you don't know what to do? It's reasonable to continue despite not having any knowledge about what's happening.
>since I don't know technically I could benefit from the fire burning the town
It's unreasonable for an organism to work from that assumption.
>You wake up with no memory in a line of people hauling buckets to put out a fire. Do you stop the line because you don't know what to do?
No, of course not. That's why we're not going to suddenly drop everything and start consulting the Talmud for how old the Earth is or what's below a quark. We're just going to continue what we've been doing.
What we used to do until recently to get things done is what Newton did. That includes being reasonably critical but also respectful of ancient ideas like the classical monotheistic premise of universal law. It's the fundamental premise behind his law of gravity and science in general, based on ancient ideas, even astrology contributed.
What you do here is reject structured thought and any concept of a structured history. You don't understand how anything connects to anything, there's no mind there, just the dumbest propaganda memes in history. Every single time anything about the subject is said to you you just automatically start repeating cute lines you heard from reddit comedians.
>You don't understand how anything connects to anything
What makes you so sure Newton understood the God-stuff?
The idea with the line is the line of life. Is the work good and in alignment with the entirety? Is life good? Should we be doing all this waterbearing? Why? Basically you eventually have to appeal to faith in the source, whatever placed you in the line carrying buckets.
He wrote more about theology more than any subject. The historical elements that aligned in the Royal College include lots of wild stuff like masons, astrology, alchemy, magical treasure hunting and demonology. If you figure out how these balls roll down a plank you can map that information to the motion of the planets, that it occurs to him shows he fully embraces the idea of universal law in a way most others don't.
wow, he sounds really smart
Did this Newton guy recommend any particular brand of Theism?
Or do I just go with the non-descript 'Theism' - universe had a cause with a mind, we can know this
That wouldn't really change much in my daily life.
I just worry, that this is setting me up for a bunch of false beliefs.
He was a Christian. I would suggest starting by not undermining your own understanding of history by mindlessly swallowing propaganda memes. From a secular perspective the Bible is still very relevant to how many of the western ideas you take for granted formed. That means your mind is at least partly "Christian".
It would be dependent meaning, like live to do x, life is good for x. But then why is x good? Dependencies are a limitation of causal processes so you have to go outside logical causality to find non-dependent meaning.
Newton, therfor desert demon - Got it
You're doing the brainwashed retard thing again. Just consider the history of ideas instead of undermining your own understanding of things you've decided to politically align against.
Christianity just really sounds like what I would expect people to make up
You're just a brainwashed retard that can't think. Stop being cancer and start thinking. It's that simple.
Your example is a red herring. Science deals with natural and more proximate causes, it does not deal with the ultimate cause. Most western atheists tend to assume materialism is true, which lays at the basis of most of their argumentation. Is the world necessary? Why do things change? Does a necessary being exist? Why does anything exist at all? This is what we want to know. Theology seeks to answer these questions by both faith and reason. For example there seems to exist a sense of moral agency between people. Now you can explain the emergence of morality in the natural world through something like natural selection and evolution under a given model, as the anon you are arguing with said. But that doesn't give us much insight into what is truly right and truly wrong, or what is objectively moral and what is not. Now you have to make an argument for nihilism. After all, if there is no objective morality then there is no real objective worth in a person. We should be able to kill anyone and not have to answer before actual justice. Why even temporal justice? If I have no moral agency, if morality was just naturally selected for because it helped the survival of our species, if everything I do is determined by physical interactions in my brain or by random information, then what accountability do we have? Should we no longer even send people to prison or give other forms of punishment?
>Now you have to make an argument for nihilism. After all, if there is no objective morality then there is no real objective worth in a person
Do you seriously think nihilism follows from atheism? This is so childish
At least look up what people that disagree with you would have to say to this. Then you wouldn't say stupid stuff.
>actual
>real
>really
>truly
Which is to say that it doesn't count without a God, right?
If you can conceive of things having meaning or value without a God. Stay a theist, you'd go nuts on atheism.
Still I don't get how a God existing magically gives stuff meaning, how does that work?
>We should be able to kill anyone and not have to answer before actual justice.
"actual" justice, so not like the police or a judge or something? something more ~actual~-
If you mean a God, just say so.
God-justice, lol
Look, I think this perfectly describes what happens in reality. There's no God-justice. Just made up people-justice, humans don't even agree with each other
People do "bad" stuff (bad being a word humans made up for stuff they don't like), and people don't have to answer to a God for it.
They may not even have to answer to a "non-actual" justice, like the police, they sometimes get away scoff free.
I know this sounds very unfair, but it's not like I'm gonna invent a God to feel better about it.
Life is objectively good. Not because of a reason or mechanism, it's a fundamental decreed by God.
No decree from God that life is good. Then life don't TRUELY ACTUALLY have REAL and TRUE meaning?
It just have made-up fake meaning ;(
>Reducing anything that challenges your preconceptions to nonsense doesn't help you or anyone.
Correct. As
pointed out the Rabbis have been wrong several times, about this very topic, so why should we just throw our hands up in the air and trust them now?
>Reducing anything that challenges your preconceptions to nonsense doesn't help you or anyone. You're just a dishonest retard undermining your own ability to think and communicate.
The point is that you're a hypocrite
Schizobabble
See
.
You said that when molecules were discovered, and then when atoms were discovered, and then when quarks were discovered. Why not just give up on defending Judaism and just admit that you don't know everything?
Theists employ God of the gaps for everything.
Atheists employ an evolution of the gaps. But they're too busy with their schizo internet rants to understand this.
actually it was a god that did it
Actually, you will never be a real woman, satan.
>Science can't explain the root of why things are
>But it's totally some guy who knows everything but has strong opinions on what you put up your butt and will torture you forever if you don't believe in him
You're absolutely right, and the only explanation for this gap in knowledge could be His divine grace.
It never ends does it?
Why is the speed of light exactly this number?
Why is strong force inversely exponential?
Why is the mass of an electron this?
How do all of these constants perfectly interact to allow all of this? What if they didn't?
>What if they didn't?
The answer to this is painfully obvious. If you change anything in the universe by an iota, it would all breakdown.
>Why is the speed of light exactly this number?
>Why is strong force inversely exponential?
>Why is the mass of an electron this?
>How do all of these constants perfectly interact to allow all of this?
No reason
>What if they didn't?
You wouldn't be here to ask this
Matter warping spacetime is caused by God farting
Yes, and God ordained matter to wrap spacetime, I see no problem there.
So we got the data, ye
- Newton was a Christian
Now what best explains this?
People making stuff up 2000 years ago + contingent historical facts
or
This universe's cause rising from the dead 2000 years ago + contingent historical facts
I just think people making stuff up, is that much more common that this universe's cause rising from the dead.
It's just a probability thing, I'm going with it being made-up
NOT a naturalist, btw. I believe in ghosts, I've had serval spooky encounters
Same braindead memes as ever but this time presented especially incoherently. You homosexuals are all completely fucked in the head.
How do you explain Newton being a Christian?
If we take away some historical facts, like the Roman Empire, do you think Newton still would have been a Christian?
There's something seriously wrong with you. You absorb nothing said and then repeat the same tired memes over and over and over. Everything said has now apparently been forgotten, nothing has been thought about at all and we're back to regurgitating a ricky gervais bit from 2007.
Yep. God of the Gaps.