/lit/ - Literature

>>14992983
>inb4 le goat herder semitic jew fairy tale

>>14992983
Use logic to prove the validity of logic.

>>14993000
Ludicrously based

>>14993000
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-consistent-histories/

I explored the universe within my mind last night, while staring at an unchanged physical world.
Saw through the perspective of God, well not quite, but had a glimpse.

>>14992983
1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
3. Only God can pre-exist the universe.
4. Therefore God exists.

>>14993033
The logic between 1 and 2 is faulty because what began was the expansion of the universe, an event inseparable from the instantiation of linear time, but not the universe itself which was existing as a singularity in which time was as yet an unmanifested dimension within and not encompassing the universe.

>>14993000
transcendentally based argument
>>14993033
naturally retarded argument

>>14993000
coming to learn of logic through experience doesn't mean logic is not eternal and true a priori.

>>14992983
>Disclaimer, I'm not religious
ITT: We've never read St. Thomas Aquinas

Why?

>>14993052
>what began was the expansion of the universe
So what caused the universe to begin to expand?

>>14992983
I have a feeling I'm gonna win the mega millions and if I do I'm going to screen cap my ticket here tomorrow. It will be proof god exists. And if I don't, he still exists, merely his will that I would not win.

>>14993079
Based phoneposter

>>14993078
this is not an argument. saying "we don't know why this happened, therefore God" is stone age shit and has been shown to be wrong before.

Who else would have given Socrates his divine sign?

>>14993078
Prove without using bugman science that the universe "began" to "expand".

>>14993169
the argument isn't "we don't know what, therefor god", its "we do know what, and it is god"

1. God wrote the bible
2. The bible says God is real
3. Therefore God is real

You're move, retard.

>>14993183
Based.

>>14993183
>1.
>2.
>3.
Trinitarianly based

>>14993169
It is a logical argument. There are only a few possibilities:
1. The universe is eternal.
This cannot be the case since the universe had a beginning.
2. The universe had a beginning but nothing caused it to begin.
This is a logical impossibility because it require that either / both:
a.) The universe created itself out of nothing
b.) This event happened without a cause (since there was nothing that pre-existed it to start the chain of events)
3.) The universe had a beginning and the cause was uncaused and pre-existed the universe (which requires both eternality and omnipotence).
4.) The universe does not exist.
This one should be obviously false.

>>14993033
Define "had", define "a", define "exist", define "pre", define "cause".

>>14993181
>God exists because uh... I know he does! Actually many people know he does! Yeah.

>>14993200
>This cannot be the case since the universe had a beginning.
How do you know this without already presupposing the God that tells you he created the universe?

>>14993183
/thread

>>14993207

>>14992983
Use God to prove the existence of Logic

>>14993209
Because of the Big Bang Theory? Because the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate which implies that it was previously closer together in the distant past?
Because entropy exists and an infinite universe would imply infinite entropy which is impossible?

>>14993223
>Because of the Big Bang Theory?
So you're using the scientific method to prove God but which can only work if God created it in the first place?

>>14993078
Not sure. I am just pointing out that most scientific models don't presuppose an ex nihilo creation of existence so it doesn't really make sense to argue against a materialist ex nihilo when most scientists likely agree on that. I think many Christians, and similar religions that also share the concept of linear time with materialist science, assume that only they hold a distinction between the infinite and the eternal, or inside and outside of time, when this isn't true at all and in many ways this distinction has been recreated on its own term within theoretical physics.

>>14992983
Godel already did this and it never been refuted - in fact, it has been computer verified numerous times

>>14992983
∃x
x=God

>>14993200
>This cannot be the case since the universe had a beginning.
What? This is a huge thing that you just brushed over like it was a logical certainty. Please enlighten us on how you found the boundary of time anon.

>>14993229
The intelligibility of the universe is the necessary prerequisite of scientific knowledge. Also it is evidence for the existence of an intelligent Creator.

>>14993253
What is the alternative? Do you believe the universe is eternal? How do you account for entropy and the laws of thermodynamics?

>>14993255
>The intelligibility of the universe
It doesn't exist without God creating it in such a manner.

1. who cares?

>>14993261
That's why it is evidence that God created it.

>>14992983
discord gg/6agtph6

>>14992983
Just read Aquinas and Aristotle

>>14993183
Holy fuck nigga

>>14993183

>>14993260
I think the big bounce model is pretty credible. That being said, I have no background in this stuff.

If I understand you correctly, entropy always increasing doesn't prove that time cannot be infinite.

>>14993339
If the universe did not have a beginning, and energy is constantly being dispersed, it logically follows that the universe could not still exist since it would have already infinitely dispersed all of its energy. Or if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, and the universe had no beginning, then the universe should be moving infinitely fast away from itself since it had no beginning.

>>14993339
Hold up i gotta figure out if time was infinite I might be wrong

God exists because I want to.

>>14993183
HOLY SHIT

>>14993183
>>14993186
>>14993300
cringe samefag

>>14992983
God exists because God exists.

>>14993383
wrong dipshit retard

>>14993183
BASED

>>14993183
this is the actual level these tards are on. a waste of time to even sage.

>>14993223
>>14993353

After looking over the research, it appears to me that the issue of temporal finitism has not been solved.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=6027685487537679713&as_sdt=5,44&sciodt=0,44&hl=en

You are free to look over these and the paper they cite at the top.

>>14993183
Based.

>>14993353
oh god why do you people have to be so painfully stupid

>>14993434
>>14993455
>The universe is expanding and losing energy over time
>The universe is infinitely old
>The universe hasn't expanded infinitely or lost all of it's energy yet because _____ ?

>>14993502
If you were as interested in the question at hand as you are in being right, you would have seen that there are numerous proposed models for an infinite past. This isn't a philosophical question where you can just throw your own simplified logic at it and ignore actual research.

>>14993562
This much mental gymnastics to just evade the question. The beginning of space is also the beginning of time. You can't have space without time or time without space. Bounce theories are false because we know that the universe is infinitely expanding at an accelerating rate, hence it will not collapse in on itself, and it still wouldn't answer the question of what started that universe. You're just moving the goalpost.

>>14993614
How you understand space or time is not the reality of space and time at the beginning of the universe. Also, we don't know that the universe is infinitely expanding, we think it probably is but the science is still up in the air. You pretty clearly have no real understanding of what is relatively basic astrophysics, so stop trying to argue it.

On top of this, your whole premise: something existed, therefore something had to create it, is just as easily applied to your god. Your answer, that god created himself, could just as easily be applied to the universe. Why can God come from nothing but not the universe? Why can god exist forever, but not the universe?

God is that which nothing greater can be conceived

>>14993676
God can be eternal because He doesn't have entropy. Entropy is a property of the universe. How can something come from nothing, for no reason? Placing this even infinitely distant in the past only makes it harder to justify. God is not a created being, He didn't "create Himself".

>>14993502
>>14993614
>The universe hasn't expanded infinitely
bounce theory
>or lost all of it's energy yet
The universe does not gain or lose energy.

>bounce theories are false because we know that the universe is infinitely expanding at an accelerating rate, hence it will not collapse in on itself
Sure. Because it is not currently contracting, it never has/will.

Listen man, if you want to become a cosmologist and answer the question yourself, go right ahead. I just wanted to say that physics was unsure, a claim which you have not provided any actual evidence against. I have no idea what you mean by moving the goalpost, because you are grasping at straws to try to be right while I am just citing stuff to prove my original claim.

>>14993741
So let me get this straight, the universe was infinitely locked in a perpetual "bounce state" until this version of the universe which will not bounce, and it changed for no reason? By "lose energy" I'm referring to the eventual heat death of the universe, where all of the energy in the universe is uniformly dissipated, which will eventually happen.

Okay, I think I have an argument which refutes God.

If he is truly eternal, then touching matter (which he did when talking to Moses) would necessitate that the passes into the non-eternal, thus negating eternality of at least some part of him, thereby showing that he is not fully eternal, thus necessitating the fact that he had to create the non-eternal part of himself, which is absurd.

>>14993768
I did not mean to say that the universe will not bounce this time. That was meant to be a sarcastic comment criticizing your logic. I think in the situation that the universe does eventually collapse, there would be no heat death.

>>14993783
If God can incarnate Himself into a human body I'm sure He would have no difficulty in touching a rock.

>>14993794
>in the situation that the universe does eventually collapse
That won't happen because we know that the universe is expanding and instead of slowing down it is accelerating.

>>14993794
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe

>>14993818
>That won't happen because we know that the universe is expanding and instead of slowing down it is accelerating.
Come on, dude. The entire point of bounce theory is that it expands and then contracts. You can't seriously think that I didn't know that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

At this point, I'm pretty sure it's just been different people jumping in to say the dumbest thing possible to bait me.

>>14993783
or you know, maybe God isn't this infinite omnipresent god is everywhere shit and he's actually a dude with a body, and that's why man is made in the image of God

>>14993000
based trips, but can someone elaborate on this pls? Lob's theorems have a similar gestalt but are different, and Godel's theorems are obviously tangentially related, but has anyone ever talked coherently about this kind of idea?

>>14993857
Look up the Münchhausen trilemma. You can't use logic to prove logic without resorting to a circular argument, a regressive argument ad infinitum, or an axiomatic argument which is merely asserted to be true.

Check em for God

>>14993000
Meta-based

>>14993977
>frustrated
No, I'm comfy and I do enjoy a good conversation.

>>14993977
Really seems like it would be you who's annoyed here lol

>>14993000
red based.

>>14992983
use a shovel to prove the existence of God.

>>14994119
um... Baste???

I smell some April Fool's 4chan trickery amongst here.

>>14994324
same

I'm a bugchaser, give it to me...

>>14992983
Is there any question of greater importance in the world?

>>14993183
God literally did not write the bible and the bible even explains that.

>>14993000

Being skeptical of Logic is often the result of implicit or explicit Earth Mommy worship, whereby simply being presented with any and all Phenomena is enough to make one not only affirm them as true, but affirm the Phenomenal itself as the measure of Truth. Whereas, inasmuch as you are truly skeptical of Logic, a true analysis of the Phenomenal would make you MORE, not less, skeptical of it.

>>14992983
Van Til summarized the main drive of his apologetic by saying: "the only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything."

>>14995372
said the fool in his heart

>>14995372
God has been killed by the coofer gang

>>14995372
>>14995385
>>14995422
how do I join the coofer gang?

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
Assume that every being is a contingent being.
For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The bible says He exists. Do you really need any better proof?

The mind is a spark of the divine.
I think, therefore I am.
When I think, the divine is thinking.
God thinks, therefore God is.

Representation/imagination of God is contingent to type and degree of revelation of its Truth, which, therefore, can only be apprehended intuitively, recognized/understood, and rationally affirmed, not logically "proven".

Representation/imagination of God is contingent to type and degree of revelation of its Truth, which, therefore, can only be apprehended intuitively, recognized/understood, and rationally affirmed, not logically "proven".

>>14993242
What works go into this in detail, both the argument and things that verify it?

>>14993339
Even an eternally cyclic universe would still require something. I believe it was Aquinas (?) who dealt with this, as well as William Lane Craig.

>>14993395
Based

ITT: anons who take Space/Time as things in themselves and predicate them on ontological concepts without the slightest caution. Reading Kant should be mandatory for you retards.

>>14992983
a=a
dont @ me

Representation/imagination of God is contingent on type and degree of revelation of its Truth, which, therefore, can only be apprehended intuitively, recognized/understood, and rationally affirmed, not logically "proven".

>>14993079
I didn't win by the way guys.

>>14993000
Non-contradiction?