Because some may be saved by knowing it since the whole point is to be saved by it. The main consensus is that some who don't know about it will be saved regardless of it since God is the just judge. Further, there's no certainty that you will be one of the ones who will make it.
THE SAME WAY THAT ONE CAN INGEST & DIGEST SOMETHING WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT IT IS; THE ESSENCE OF THE ACT IS IN THE ACT ITSELF, NOT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF IT.
Look, either explaining what sin is to people is doesn't really do anything (you seem to lean this way)
or
God is being kinda unfair to people who don't know what sin is
>Look, either explaining what sin is to people is doesn't really do anything (you seem to lean this way)
>or
>God is being kinda unfair to people who don't know what sin is
NEITHER.
EXPLAINING TO PEOPLE WHAT SIN IS, MAKES THEM AWARE OF IT, AND ABLE TO BE COGNIZANT OF IT, IN ORDER TO AVOID INCURRING IN IT.
IT IS NOT A MATTER OF FAIRNESS, BUT OF NATURE: IF YOU FALL, YOU HURT YOURSELF, NOT BECAUSE GOD INFLICTED PAIN TO YOU, BUT BECAUSE YOUR BODY HIT THE FLOOR.
GOD DOES NOT MAKE YOU SIN, NOR IS HE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR SINNING.
Nice dishonest comparison retard
People who go through life careful not to fall do not get sent to buttfuck dimension because they didnt worship a rabbi on a stick
The same way someone being punched feels hurts without knowing why or what pain. Further, most societies have a moral code, so sin isn't some fully foreign concepts.
Sexual attraction is not morality. The bible forbids homosexuality but homosexuality is not inherently amoral.
It seems all you can do is cope and seethe, christard. You are disproven yet again, just as always. Do you never get tired of the endless humiliation, or do you perhapse enjoy it?
The priest is an idiot. Anyone who hasn't heard about Christ goes to Hell when they die. >Remember to fill out the appropriate fields when responding to gaytheist threads.
No, God exist outside time. Jesus sacrifice was kinda like an episode of Doctor Who, where he retroactively saved everyone, past, present, and future, in all the different timelines.
ONE CAN SIN WITHOUT KNOWING GOD; THOSE WHO DIE, OR HAVE DIED, WITHOUT THE GRACE OF GOD & IN IGNORANCE OF HIM, GO & HAVE GONE TO LIMBO/PURGATORY; THEY WILL BE JUDGED AT THE END OF TIME IN CONCORD WITH THE JUSTNESS OF THEIR MORALITY DURING THEIR LIFE.
THAT MEMETIC IMAGE WAS MADE BY SOMEONE DEFICIENT IN THEIR GRASP OF THEOLOGY, AND IGNORANT ABOUT DOGMA.
Only those who search for God or would search for God can be saved. Those who would reject God upon hearing about Him in this life would also reject God upon meeting Him in the next life. The Gospel is only bad news to the unrepentant sinner, but good news to those being saved. No one, including those with complete ignorance of God may freely sin, for they are without excuse as God is written on every heart.
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
he would ONLY be saved from the sin of non-christianity but that doesnt mean a blanket-pass for any other sin against Natural Law (incest, rape, murder, etc)
so, the inuit must be a good human being, sexually moral, non-criminal and THEN it wont matter he never knew what a Bible or Jesus is
Christcucks derive a sadistic pleasure from the idea of people being tortured in hell, the goyim hatred is an inheritance from their israelite masters.
there is no god famalam, no matter how sad this makes you
Once Christians have control of America again people will be slaughtered for saying such things. Anyone who denies Christ will have their children raped then flayed alive in front of them, their entrails fed to dogs, then they will be burned alive on livestream. This is the will of our Just and Meeciful God, praise Him. PRAISE HIMMMM
I understand what you're doing and it's insane that the irony is lost on christians
You are the one claiming there is a god, you have to prove that there is one
As for there being no god, the entire universe can be explained with pure natural laws, and there is no need to assert a god in any capacity, whether it be for the start of the universe or for any causal systems within it. and no, causality itself is not a personal god, and doesn't need a god to be explained.
ultimately it's a fear of death. Death is scary now but when we're dead we are nothing so it's not something to be afraid of in a sense. Youre gonna die and be gone forever and so is everyone in your family and such, it's all good senpai just accept it.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>the entire universe can be explained with pure natural laws
It may happen bu for now that is absolutely not the case. We are missing key pieces of the puzzle.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You're right
I just see no reason to think there is a god, or rather, I see no evidence for a personal god and no reason to believe in a personal god
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>You are the one claiming there is a god, you have to prove that there is one
and by necessity you are claiming there is concepts like: logic, reason, human consciousness, objective truth, but has no basis for you have to prove that there is one
if you cannot show that objective truth exists then the statement there is no god cannot be objectively true
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Objectivity can exist without a personal god
There can be material things, in our universe's case it would be the particles of the standard model, that objectively exist, without there being any god.
logic and reason do not need a personal god
consciousness does not need a personal god.
it is perfectly possible for dumb impersonal natural forces and blobs of matter to coagulate into larger structures without any plan or guidance or god. I don't understand why this is so scary or difficult for religious people to understand.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Objectivity can exist without a personal god
ok prove it >There can be material things, in our universe's case it would be the particles of the standard model, that objectively exist, without there being any god
you're just asserting this you haven't shown that to be true. >logic and reason do not need a personal god
ok prove it, how do you know logic and reason exist? >consciousness does not need a personal god.
again just begs the question how do you know this is true >it is perfectly possible for dumb impersonal natural forces and blobs of matter to coagulate into larger structures without any plan or guidance or god. I don't understand why this is so scary or difficult for religious people to understand.
only further assertions, no proof whatsoever
you have no understanding of epistemology
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The statement "Objectivity can exist without a god" is trivial. Mathematical laws are an example of objective laws which do not require a personal god.
There absolutely was a "before" the first movement. You seem to be creating a materialist parody of an argument that you don't quite understand.
if there was something before a first movement, it wasn't the first.
Anyway, I'm not claiming a "first'. You are. There is no beginning, the things i'm calling natural laws have no beginning and no end.
You asserting that there is a first movement doesn't mean anything. There wasn't one.
What it comes down to is you all simply saying that laws of logic and reason and shit require a god to exist. They don't, and they aren't personal. Why is this hard for you to wrap your minds around?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>There wasn't one.
Ahhhh so you're a believer in the "infinite regression" myth? That dominos have been falling forever and there was no first domino, the further you go back you just find more and more dominos with no beginning. Riiiiiight...
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>if there was something before a first movement, it wasn't the first.
Conflation fallacy. This and the rest of your post demonstrates how unaware you are of what a mover and what a movement is in the First Cause argument. Sorry, again, you just don't know what you're talking about and it's becoming increasingly apparent with each consequent post.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>the entire universe can be explained with pure natural laws
No it can't. Explain who the First Mover was with "Natural Laws". You lost.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Natural laws are themselves the so called first movers
The a priori is not a conscious personal god being, but just dumb forces of nature that always were and always will be. They do not have personalities or minds.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Natural laws are themselves the so called first movers
Natural laws are patterns. Where were the patterns before the first movement?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
So which natural law specifically was the First Mover, and what did it "move first"? Will you give an actual answer, or a "well I don't believe it was God so it must have been some natural law which I will not define"
The things I'm calling "natural laws" are eternal and do not come from anywhere, much like you claim god is eternal and does not come from anywhere. The difference is that you are asserting it is a personal being with a mind and a plan and other such things. This is false.
A implies B and B implies C, thus A imply C is not a personal thing, does not require any god to exist, is eternal, and has no personality or mind. It is an eternal natural law that has no beginning and no end, and it isn't a law "created by" a personal god or something. It itself IS the eternal thing. As an example.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The things I'm calling "natural laws" are eternal and do not come from anywhere
That doesn't answer
>Natural laws are themselves the so called first movers
Natural laws are patterns. Where were the patterns before the first movement?
>>>> Where were the patterns before the first movement?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
the natural laws are eternal, they dont "come after" a "first movement".
"all things are identical to itself" is not something that "came after" a "first movement" by a "god" who "decided" it or something.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>they don't "come after"
That's why I'm asking where they were "before".
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
There is no "before"
The natural laws are the eternal things, not a personal god.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
There absolutely was a "before" the first movement. You seem to be creating a materialist parody of an argument that you don't quite understand.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
If there was no "before" then was there even a "first"? What made the natural laws decide, suddenly, to start lawing and existing. Why did they decide to start a chain of events that would create everything around us? What were they doing before they created all of this around us?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Again, you keep attributing personalities. "Decide" doesn't apply to impersonal forces.
>There wasn't one.
Ahhhh so you're a believer in the "infinite regression" myth? That dominos have been falling forever and there was no first domino, the further you go back you just find more and more dominos with no beginning. Riiiiiight...
Yes, that is in fact what is happening, and the laws that are eternal are not created nor are they personal.
A -> B -> C => A -> C does not need a personal god to create and doesn't have a beginning.
>if there was something before a first movement, it wasn't the first.
Conflation fallacy. This and the rest of your post demonstrates how unaware you are of what a mover and what a movement is in the First Cause argument. Sorry, again, you just don't know what you're talking about and it's becoming increasingly apparent with each consequent post.
Nope, you simply asserting there needs to be a first mover doesn't mean there needs to be one, and you simply saying that impersonal laws actually have a personality doesn't mean anything.
There is no actual reason or need for a personal god. None whatsoever.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>you simply asserting there needs to be a first mover doesn't mean there needs to be one
Correct. Inductive logic providing proof means there needs to be one. >you simply saying that impersonal laws actually have a personality
I never said that. I asked you where the laws were. You couldn't answer.
Again, you just gave me more proof of you not understanding the First Cause argument. No understanding. None whatsoevere.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Correct. Inductive logic providing proof means there needs to be one.
no, it doesn't. >I never said that. I asked you where the laws were. You couldn't answer.
I did - the natural laws are eternal, they do not have a first cause or mover, and they are not personal.
>Again, you just gave me more proof of you not understanding the First Cause argument. No understanding. None whatsoevere.
This is wrong, the first cause argument doesn't actually hold. That's what I'm explaining.
It is not the case that everything needs a first mover and it is not the case that there is a personal god which is this first mover.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>>I asked you where the laws were >eternal
No comment.
>no, it doesn't
If you say so. I concede. I have made it completely apparent you have nothing.
>>your assertions mean nothing >[his explanation is a mere assertion]
Coolio.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
But that's the point.
You are claiming personality to things where there doesn't need to be one.
A is a subset of B and B is a subset of C, thus A is a subset of C does not require a god or personality or something which caused it, but it is still true and eternal.
Why attribute a personality or a personal god to create this? It's pointless and just a cope to feel good about the fact that you're going to die. There is no actual logical argument or reason that you can give to explain why you need a god or a personality for natural laws. You just want there to be one.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>You are claiming personality to things where there doesn't need to be one.
It does. If you had ever seen the inductive logic part of the argument, you would know. But all you seem to actually know is "there is a first mover being claimed".
Again, I completely concede everything. It's pointless to discuss this with you.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>It does. If you had ever seen the inductive logic part of the argument, you would know.
I have seen it, and it doesn't hold. You getting angry doesn't mean anything. You going "I, like, can't even right now!" doesn't serve as an argument.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Totally you have. That's why you answered a "where" with a "when" and then skipped over half the points.
You got your concession and you can do nothing to convince me you currently know what you're talking about. Feel free to disengage.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Nope, eternal laws don't have a "where" nor a "when". They have no personalities and nothing created them. And there is no part of any cosmological arguments that prove otherwise.
You getting angry at this doesn't mean anything. If you actually have an argument, provide it rather than sitting there seething about this.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>more assertions >none in line with First Mover argument
Sure!
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The reason you aren't actually writing out any argument is because you don't have one. Stop coping about it
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
There is no argument going on since
>>I asked you where the laws were >eternal
No comment.
>no, it doesn't
If you say so. I concede. I have made it completely apparent you have nothing.
>>your assertions mean nothing >[his explanation is a mere assertion]
Coolio.
I don't know why you keep engaging.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You asked "where are the laws". They aren't anywhere, A < B < C -> A < C doesn't have a location. It also has no beginning and was not created by anything. It is eternal and impersonal.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Nice.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>If you say so. I concede. I have made it completely apparent you have nothing.
No you haven't
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Yes, that is in fact what is happening
Your natural laws don't work without meeting a specific set of prerequisites. The Water Cycle, evaporation, condensation, precipitation... none of that works if there is no water, or if there is no atmosphere. No law works in a vacuum. Even the natural laws require a "first" in order to work, and because they require something first, they cannot be the "first mover". The first mover needs to be unmovable and all-powerful, and only God is such. Your infinite regression is paradoxical, and it is not an explanation for anything but your stupidity.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
God is a Natural Law. He is THE LAW actually. So me saying the First Mover was God is no different than you claiming it was some arbitrary unknown random law that you cannot pinpoint or define. In fact, my answer is better and more precise than yours. It's very easy to say "everything can be explained through natural laws" when you decide you don't even have to define what those natural laws are or how they worked.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
This is a bullshit thing to believe
You are as cucked as a religious retard
There is no proof or knowledge of ANY such laws
In fact, as far as we can tell EVERY law of our realoty was randomly generated due to the conditions during its creation
We have NO WAY to know of fundamental laws even exist, much less what they vould possibly be
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
So which natural law specifically was the First Mover, and what did it "move first"? Will you give an actual answer, or a "well I don't believe it was God so it must have been some natural law which I will not define"
THISSSS SO MUCH THIS
AND SINCE ATHEISM IS A HERRTIC PAGAN IDOLATRY WR HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL THEM, SLAUGHTER THEIR CHILDREN, BURN THEIR HOMES, RAZE THEIR CITIES, RAPE THEIR WIVES
DEUS VULTT
Once Christians have control of America again people will be slaughtered for saying such things. Anyone who denies Christ will have their children raped then flayed alive in front of them, their entrails fed to dogs, then they will be burned alive on livestream. This is the will of our Just and Meeciful God, praise Him. PRAISE HIMMMM
>Romans 2:14-15 >Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. >They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.
If you are not a good Christ-like person, then you will go to Hell for breaking the law that God has written into your Human conscience. Therefor, you stand a better chance at going to Heaven if you hear God's word through his followers, and so they teach you why it must be followed. If you hear the good word and still refuse to believe it, then you're going to Hell just like you would have before.
if they genuinely understood that they would go to hell, and not just face consequences in this life (which even other species can intuit through evolved instincts), then they probably wouldn’t sin in the first place. Nobody deserves eternal hell just because of their natural predisposition to sin. What fucking nonsense. You really have to be a Calvinist or universalist to be a Christian
It's not just that they fear they will "just face consequences in this life" but that a piece of their soul protests against whatever sin it is they are committing. Take any evil action you want: murder, rape, theft; in each case the perpetrator understand there is something wrong with the action, even if they do not fear consequences of their actions, they do it anyway. Through a Christian Missionary coming to spread the good word, we can better explain to these savages why these actions are immoral.
Because some may be saved by knowing it since the whole point is to be saved by it. The main consensus is that some who don't know about it will be saved regardless of it since God is the just judge. Further, there's no certainty that you will be one of the ones who will make it.
how can one sin if one does not know what is sin?
THE SAME WAY THAT ONE CAN INGEST & DIGEST SOMETHING WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT IT IS; THE ESSENCE OF THE ACT IS IN THE ACT ITSELF, NOT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF IT.
Look, either explaining what sin is to people is doesn't really do anything (you seem to lean this way)
or
God is being kinda unfair to people who don't know what sin is
>Look, either explaining what sin is to people is doesn't really do anything (you seem to lean this way)
>or
>God is being kinda unfair to people who don't know what sin is
NEITHER.
EXPLAINING TO PEOPLE WHAT SIN IS, MAKES THEM AWARE OF IT, AND ABLE TO BE COGNIZANT OF IT, IN ORDER TO AVOID INCURRING IN IT.
IT IS NOT A MATTER OF FAIRNESS, BUT OF NATURE: IF YOU FALL, YOU HURT YOURSELF, NOT BECAUSE GOD INFLICTED PAIN TO YOU, BUT BECAUSE YOUR BODY HIT THE FLOOR.
GOD DOES NOT MAKE YOU SIN, NOR IS HE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR SINNING.
Nice dishonest comparison retard
People who go through life careful not to fall do not get sent to buttfuck dimension because they didnt worship a rabbi on a stick
what a contrived way of saying "god is not just"
Do you have a YouTube video explaining the Trinity and Metaphysics. Someone posted a link, and I think it was in all caps. Was that you?
The same way someone being punched feels hurts without knowing why or what pain. Further, most societies have a moral code, so sin isn't some fully foreign concepts.
Morality is subjective. I do not feel bad for being greedy a priori .
Then go have sex with an infant. I’m sure it will benefit someone, shlomo
Sexual attraction is not morality. The bible forbids homosexuality but homosexuality is not inherently amoral.
It seems all you can do is cope and seethe, christard. You are disproven yet again, just as always. Do you never get tired of the endless humiliation, or do you perhapse enjoy it?
Vatican II
Priest is wrong
The priest is an idiot. Anyone who hasn't heard about Christ goes to Hell when they die. >Remember to fill out the appropriate fields when responding to gaytheist threads.
Says more about how Christians don't know shit about their religion
>all the people born before Jesus were condemned to eternal hellfire for bad luck
Do people really believe this shit?
No, God exist outside time. Jesus sacrifice was kinda like an episode of Doctor Who, where he retroactively saved everyone, past, present, and future, in all the different timelines.
He didn't though because all the people born before him are burning forever in Hell
>Anyone who hasn't heard about Christ goes to Hell when they die
hmm
You seriously think it's possible for God to fail to have the elect hear his gospel?
>God already elected people who get to be saved
Lmao very cool and just god you got there Schlomo
In that case the Christian God is objectively evil.
By what objective standard?
Did you mean subjectively evil?
because he hurts my feelings
ONE CAN SIN WITHOUT KNOWING GOD; THOSE WHO DIE, OR HAVE DIED, WITHOUT THE GRACE OF GOD & IN IGNORANCE OF HIM, GO & HAVE GONE TO LIMBO/PURGATORY; THEY WILL BE JUDGED AT THE END OF TIME IN CONCORD WITH THE JUSTNESS OF THEIR MORALITY DURING THEIR LIFE.
THAT MEMETIC IMAGE WAS MADE BY SOMEONE DEFICIENT IN THEIR GRASP OF THEOLOGY, AND IGNORANT ABOUT DOGMA.
Papist fanfiction
Heretic ranting
>Namefag cope
>IGNORANT ABOUT DOGMA.
As one should be. Dogmatism is for retards.
Only those who search for God or would search for God can be saved. Those who would reject God upon hearing about Him in this life would also reject God upon meeting Him in the next life. The Gospel is only bad news to the unrepentant sinner, but good news to those being saved. No one, including those with complete ignorance of God may freely sin, for they are without excuse as God is written on every heart.
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
I've seen this fucking image like 2,000 times already
It's a big problem for non-universalist/non-Calvinist Christians
he would ONLY be saved from the sin of non-christianity but that doesnt mean a blanket-pass for any other sin against Natural Law (incest, rape, murder, etc)
so, the inuit must be a good human being, sexually moral, non-criminal and THEN it wont matter he never knew what a Bible or Jesus is
Do Christians even care about sins except for those big "against natural law" ones?
Like wearing mixed fabric, or working on a Sunday.
I guess there's blasphemy, that one's bad. But then you already kinda need to know about God.
Since God murders, does he also sin?
Wrong, Christians literally believe anyone who wasn't by chance exposed to their particular religion deserves hell.
Christcucks derive a sadistic pleasure from the idea of people being tortured in hell, the goyim hatred is an inheritance from their israelite masters.
christianity is genuinely one of the stupidest religions out there.
atheism is genuinely one of the stupidest religions out there.
Atheism isn't a religion, no matter how angry it makes you and how many times you try to conflate them
its also the easiest religion to troll apparently
there is no god famalam, no matter how sad this makes you
I understand what you're doing and it's insane that the irony is lost on christians
>there is no god famalam, no matter how sad this makes you
ok prove it
You are the one claiming there is a god, you have to prove that there is one
As for there being no god, the entire universe can be explained with pure natural laws, and there is no need to assert a god in any capacity, whether it be for the start of the universe or for any causal systems within it. and no, causality itself is not a personal god, and doesn't need a god to be explained.
ultimately it's a fear of death. Death is scary now but when we're dead we are nothing so it's not something to be afraid of in a sense. Youre gonna die and be gone forever and so is everyone in your family and such, it's all good senpai just accept it.
>the entire universe can be explained with pure natural laws
It may happen bu for now that is absolutely not the case. We are missing key pieces of the puzzle.
You're right
I just see no reason to think there is a god, or rather, I see no evidence for a personal god and no reason to believe in a personal god
>You are the one claiming there is a god, you have to prove that there is one
and by necessity you are claiming there is concepts like: logic, reason, human consciousness, objective truth, but has no basis for you have to prove that there is one
if you cannot show that objective truth exists then the statement there is no god cannot be objectively true
Objectivity can exist without a personal god
There can be material things, in our universe's case it would be the particles of the standard model, that objectively exist, without there being any god.
logic and reason do not need a personal god
consciousness does not need a personal god.
it is perfectly possible for dumb impersonal natural forces and blobs of matter to coagulate into larger structures without any plan or guidance or god. I don't understand why this is so scary or difficult for religious people to understand.
>Objectivity can exist without a personal god
ok prove it
>There can be material things, in our universe's case it would be the particles of the standard model, that objectively exist, without there being any god
you're just asserting this you haven't shown that to be true.
>logic and reason do not need a personal god
ok prove it, how do you know logic and reason exist?
>consciousness does not need a personal god.
again just begs the question how do you know this is true
>it is perfectly possible for dumb impersonal natural forces and blobs of matter to coagulate into larger structures without any plan or guidance or god. I don't understand why this is so scary or difficult for religious people to understand.
only further assertions, no proof whatsoever
you have no understanding of epistemology
The statement "Objectivity can exist without a god" is trivial. Mathematical laws are an example of objective laws which do not require a personal god.
if there was something before a first movement, it wasn't the first.
Anyway, I'm not claiming a "first'. You are. There is no beginning, the things i'm calling natural laws have no beginning and no end.
You asserting that there is a first movement doesn't mean anything. There wasn't one.
What it comes down to is you all simply saying that laws of logic and reason and shit require a god to exist. They don't, and they aren't personal. Why is this hard for you to wrap your minds around?
>There wasn't one.
Ahhhh so you're a believer in the "infinite regression" myth? That dominos have been falling forever and there was no first domino, the further you go back you just find more and more dominos with no beginning. Riiiiiight...
>if there was something before a first movement, it wasn't the first.
Conflation fallacy. This and the rest of your post demonstrates how unaware you are of what a mover and what a movement is in the First Cause argument. Sorry, again, you just don't know what you're talking about and it's becoming increasingly apparent with each consequent post.
>the entire universe can be explained with pure natural laws
No it can't. Explain who the First Mover was with "Natural Laws". You lost.
Natural laws are themselves the so called first movers
The a priori is not a conscious personal god being, but just dumb forces of nature that always were and always will be. They do not have personalities or minds.
>Natural laws are themselves the so called first movers
Natural laws are patterns. Where were the patterns before the first movement?
The things I'm calling "natural laws" are eternal and do not come from anywhere, much like you claim god is eternal and does not come from anywhere. The difference is that you are asserting it is a personal being with a mind and a plan and other such things. This is false.
A implies B and B implies C, thus A imply C is not a personal thing, does not require any god to exist, is eternal, and has no personality or mind. It is an eternal natural law that has no beginning and no end, and it isn't a law "created by" a personal god or something. It itself IS the eternal thing. As an example.
>The things I'm calling "natural laws" are eternal and do not come from anywhere
That doesn't answer
>>>> Where were the patterns before the first movement?
the natural laws are eternal, they dont "come after" a "first movement".
"all things are identical to itself" is not something that "came after" a "first movement" by a "god" who "decided" it or something.
>they don't "come after"
That's why I'm asking where they were "before".
There is no "before"
The natural laws are the eternal things, not a personal god.
There absolutely was a "before" the first movement. You seem to be creating a materialist parody of an argument that you don't quite understand.
If there was no "before" then was there even a "first"? What made the natural laws decide, suddenly, to start lawing and existing. Why did they decide to start a chain of events that would create everything around us? What were they doing before they created all of this around us?
Again, you keep attributing personalities. "Decide" doesn't apply to impersonal forces.
Yes, that is in fact what is happening, and the laws that are eternal are not created nor are they personal.
A -> B -> C => A -> C does not need a personal god to create and doesn't have a beginning.
Nope, you simply asserting there needs to be a first mover doesn't mean there needs to be one, and you simply saying that impersonal laws actually have a personality doesn't mean anything.
There is no actual reason or need for a personal god. None whatsoever.
>you simply asserting there needs to be a first mover doesn't mean there needs to be one
Correct. Inductive logic providing proof means there needs to be one.
>you simply saying that impersonal laws actually have a personality
I never said that. I asked you where the laws were. You couldn't answer.
Again, you just gave me more proof of you not understanding the First Cause argument. No understanding. None whatsoevere.
>Correct. Inductive logic providing proof means there needs to be one.
no, it doesn't.
>I never said that. I asked you where the laws were. You couldn't answer.
I did - the natural laws are eternal, they do not have a first cause or mover, and they are not personal.
>Again, you just gave me more proof of you not understanding the First Cause argument. No understanding. None whatsoevere.
This is wrong, the first cause argument doesn't actually hold. That's what I'm explaining.
It is not the case that everything needs a first mover and it is not the case that there is a personal god which is this first mover.
>>I asked you where the laws were
>eternal
No comment.
>no, it doesn't
If you say so. I concede. I have made it completely apparent you have nothing.
>>your assertions mean nothing
>[his explanation is a mere assertion]
Coolio.
But that's the point.
You are claiming personality to things where there doesn't need to be one.
A is a subset of B and B is a subset of C, thus A is a subset of C does not require a god or personality or something which caused it, but it is still true and eternal.
Why attribute a personality or a personal god to create this? It's pointless and just a cope to feel good about the fact that you're going to die. There is no actual logical argument or reason that you can give to explain why you need a god or a personality for natural laws. You just want there to be one.
>You are claiming personality to things where there doesn't need to be one.
It does. If you had ever seen the inductive logic part of the argument, you would know. But all you seem to actually know is "there is a first mover being claimed".
Again, I completely concede everything. It's pointless to discuss this with you.
>It does. If you had ever seen the inductive logic part of the argument, you would know.
I have seen it, and it doesn't hold. You getting angry doesn't mean anything. You going "I, like, can't even right now!" doesn't serve as an argument.
Totally you have. That's why you answered a "where" with a "when" and then skipped over half the points.
You got your concession and you can do nothing to convince me you currently know what you're talking about. Feel free to disengage.
Nope, eternal laws don't have a "where" nor a "when". They have no personalities and nothing created them. And there is no part of any cosmological arguments that prove otherwise.
You getting angry at this doesn't mean anything. If you actually have an argument, provide it rather than sitting there seething about this.
>more assertions
>none in line with First Mover argument
Sure!
The reason you aren't actually writing out any argument is because you don't have one. Stop coping about it
There is no argument going on since
I don't know why you keep engaging.
You asked "where are the laws". They aren't anywhere, A < B < C -> A < C doesn't have a location. It also has no beginning and was not created by anything. It is eternal and impersonal.
Nice.
>If you say so. I concede. I have made it completely apparent you have nothing.
No you haven't
>Yes, that is in fact what is happening
Your natural laws don't work without meeting a specific set of prerequisites. The Water Cycle, evaporation, condensation, precipitation... none of that works if there is no water, or if there is no atmosphere. No law works in a vacuum. Even the natural laws require a "first" in order to work, and because they require something first, they cannot be the "first mover". The first mover needs to be unmovable and all-powerful, and only God is such. Your infinite regression is paradoxical, and it is not an explanation for anything but your stupidity.
God is a Natural Law. He is THE LAW actually. So me saying the First Mover was God is no different than you claiming it was some arbitrary unknown random law that you cannot pinpoint or define. In fact, my answer is better and more precise than yours. It's very easy to say "everything can be explained through natural laws" when you decide you don't even have to define what those natural laws are or how they worked.
This is a bullshit thing to believe
You are as cucked as a religious retard
There is no proof or knowledge of ANY such laws
In fact, as far as we can tell EVERY law of our realoty was randomly generated due to the conditions during its creation
We have NO WAY to know of fundamental laws even exist, much less what they vould possibly be
So which natural law specifically was the First Mover, and what did it "move first"? Will you give an actual answer, or a "well I don't believe it was God so it must have been some natural law which I will not define"
Who do you homosexuals end up here? Is the the Reddit echo chamber boring?
All ideologies are religions. Cope and seethe gaytheist.
THISSSS SO MUCH THIS
AND SINCE ATHEISM IS A HERRTIC PAGAN IDOLATRY WR HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL THEM, SLAUGHTER THEIR CHILDREN, BURN THEIR HOMES, RAZE THEIR CITIES, RAPE THEIR WIVES
DEUS VULTT
very true
this is your brain on atheism
there is no hell and there is no heaven
Once Christians have control of America again people will be slaughtered for saying such things. Anyone who denies Christ will have their children raped then flayed alive in front of them, their entrails fed to dogs, then they will be burned alive on livestream. This is the will of our Just and Meeciful God, praise Him. PRAISE HIMMMM
>Romans 2:14-15
>Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it.
>They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.
If you are not a good Christ-like person, then you will go to Hell for breaking the law that God has written into your Human conscience. Therefor, you stand a better chance at going to Heaven if you hear God's word through his followers, and so they teach you why it must be followed. If you hear the good word and still refuse to believe it, then you're going to Hell just like you would have before.
if they genuinely understood that they would go to hell, and not just face consequences in this life (which even other species can intuit through evolved instincts), then they probably wouldn’t sin in the first place. Nobody deserves eternal hell just because of their natural predisposition to sin. What fucking nonsense. You really have to be a Calvinist or universalist to be a Christian
It's not just that they fear they will "just face consequences in this life" but that a piece of their soul protests against whatever sin it is they are committing. Take any evil action you want: murder, rape, theft; in each case the perpetrator understand there is something wrong with the action, even if they do not fear consequences of their actions, they do it anyway. Through a Christian Missionary coming to spread the good word, we can better explain to these savages why these actions are immoral.
There is no hell as a place in Christianity (Proties need not apply). Hell is the absence of God.
So that you stopped sinning you fucking savage. Why is this even a meme? It’s so stupid.
Because you already know.
Because people evolve?
Because the white man come... with all his "civility". And you need to keep your mind in check - because there is an infection you do not see Eskimo
The classical Christian view would be that of Aristotle, in that you can to an extent come to understanding of moral law through pure rationalism.
If the eskimo went around killing people he'd still probably go to hell, even if he didn't know Jesus.