[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 45 KB, 661x304, smartretard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12067507 No.12067507 [Reply] [Original]

Prove him wrong, /lit/.

>> No.12067517
File: 170 KB, 1149x832, 1510743760996.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>if your god is not physical, he must be mental, and therefore imaginary
How do people like that function in society?

>> No.12067524

I sincerely believe the pornhub comments section is more educated than the youtube ones

>> No.12067525

Too many specious dualisms..

>> No.12067527
File: 74 KB, 596x391, plague.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

holy... I want more...

>> No.12067542

The complex can only be explained by the simple. Even if there is an infinite regress of complex explanations the existence of this regress would not be accounted for because it can't account for itself.

It's a dumb argument. Read Plotinus.

>> No.12067546

You can't.

His argument is sound but he worded it a bit badly.

The state of if something is not physical than it must be mental is solid, factual. By "imaginary" I think he would be better off utilizing the word "unreal", since only physical states and existences exist.

He's basically just arguing empericism and only brainlets would argue against it.

>> No.12067547

>not physical
>transcends time
Isn't that how the Aristotilean proof of god goes?

>> No.12067566


>> No.12067578

>only brainlets would argue against empiricism
He would like to have a word with you

>> No.12067584
File: 22 KB, 220x298, 75A5B472-9716-480F-AF63-34884A7E7A5B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Forgot image

>> No.12067588

He's a materialist and he doesn't understand the concept of God which is obviously why he doesn't believe

>> No.12067608

please don't tell me you actually think that anselmic ontotheology is anything more than sophistry

>> No.12067612

>look mom, I read Heidegger!


>> No.12067616
File: 714 KB, 1000x700, Thomas Hobbes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Therefore, when any thing therein written is too hard for our examination, wee are bidden to captivate our understanding to the Words; and not to labour in sifting out a Philosophicall truth by Logick, of such mysteries as are not comprehensible, nor fall under any rule of naturall science. For it is with the mysteries of our Religion, as with wholsome pills for the sick, which swallowed whole, have the vertue to cure; but chewed, are for the most part cast up again without effect.

>> No.12067626

And as the Gentiles did vulgarly conceive the Imagery of the brain, for things really subsistent without them, and not dependent on the fancy; and out of them framed their opinions of Daemons, Good and Evill; which because they seemed to subsist really, they called Substances; and because they could not feel them with their hands, Incorporeall: so also the Jews upon the same ground, without any thing in the Old Testament that constrained them thereunto, had generally an opinion, (except the sect of the Sadduces,) that those apparitions (which it pleased God sometimes to produce in the fancie of men, for his own service, and therefore called them his Angels) were substances, not dependent on the fancy, but permanent creatures of God; whereof those which they thought were good to them, they esteemed the Angels of God, and those they thought would hurt them, they called Evill Angels, or Evill Spirits; such as was the Spirit of Python, and the Spirits of Mad-men, of Lunatiques, and Epileptiques: For they esteemed such as were troubled with such diseases, Daemoniaques.

But if we consider the places of the Old Testament where Angels are mentioned, we shall find, that in most of them, there can nothing else be understood by the word Angel, but some image raised (supernaturally) in the fancy, to signifie the presence of God in the execution of some supernaturall work; and therefore in the rest, where their nature is not exprest, it may be understood in the same manner.

thomas hobbes

>> No.12067627
File: 3 KB, 125x125, 1535106802472s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Now this is the caliber of true ingenious scholastics I expect to see on this prestigious board.

Good work OP keep challenging us with these difficult and well thought out discourses.

>> No.12067631

Empiricism and positivism and all the rest of this analytical-borne garbage all stems from that fucker Bertrand Russel. He is the proto-reddit, the original Rick and Morty.

>> No.12067658

This, holy fuck.

>> No.12067661

The vaccum of space isnt technically physical yet it "exists" in some form.

>> No.12067667

>He saved the thumbnail
I'm inclined to give the benefit of doubt that you were tired, instead of stupid.

>> No.12067683

Arguing against the existence of God based on empirical evidence is sophistry

>> No.12067691

>he didn't get that saving the thumbnail is the joke

>> No.12067704

Even if it was I still expect you to post the real, still fabricated iq chart after.

>> No.12067707

I'll save your post and then put it in the recycle bin - let me see you laugh at that, faggot.

>> No.12067721

based and red pilled

>> No.12067783

Has anyone explored what existed before the big bang?

>> No.12067789

>what existed before existence

the potential for existence is the best answer you're ever gonna get

>> No.12067801

the smol bang

>> No.12067804

i dont think there ever was a big bang as such, it's just that this section of the universe was balled up really tight because a relatively big nigga was using it as a stress ball and then let go

the universe is probably just an infinite and eternal flux of random faggotry of this nature

>> No.12067809

Uhhh like nothing dude lmao

>> No.12069048

Nah, he's right.

>> No.12069122

he isn't, his claims are riddled with fallacies, besides the obvious category error that is trying to determine the existence of a prime mover empirically. how dumb can you be?

>> No.12069222

I don't understand, why did you end your post with a question to yourself?

>> No.12069259

a black hole

>> No.12069263

terrible, post an argument next time

>> No.12069264

Is he wrong?

>> No.12069305

he isn't wrong, the god of Christianity is basically the big bang.

>> No.12069309

no it isn't

>> No.12069587

>so brainlet that he forgot his image
pssh nice try kid

>> No.12069606

I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about that. The big bang is based on theories and observations that the physicists themselves admit are incomplete and irreconcilable. They will probably swap out the big bang theory for a different theory a hundred years from now. Like maybe 'The Cosmic Crinkle' or 'That One Emanation'. Who knows.

>> No.12069615


Scientists have actually been able to place the exact time of the Big Bang to within a few milliseconds. Too bad you are too stupid to engage with the studies.

>> No.12069624

basedest post so far today

>> No.12069628

I barely made it out of highschool.

>> No.12069637

jesus fuck this board is an embarrassment

>> No.12069646

>within a few milliseconds.

Yeah they wish. Every measurement made in astrophysics is always presented with a huge margin of error.

>> No.12069676
File: 8 KB, 350x420, IMG_4259.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>What is a non corporeal being?
>What is the fourth dimension?
>What is paradox transcendence?
>so in conclusion we and every law our universe abides by came from nothing and God doesn't exist

>> No.12069714
File: 44 KB, 500x592, 1537977078208.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I think I just got btfo'd

>> No.12069727

no you dumbo they know it took a few parts of sek, not when, considering we are talking for biilions of years do you believe they can place it with an error of a few milliseconds ?

>> No.12069746

Who's to say he isn't physical?

>> No.12069764

John 4:24 New International Version (NIV)
24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

>> No.12069769

pretty much, op sucks dick big time

>> No.12069843
File: 338 KB, 600x812, 1475133985324.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

No, there he's actually correct

>> No.12069849

>The state of if something is not physical than it must be mental is solid, factual.
Modern physics and mathematics irrevocably BTFO

>> No.12069854

>what created god? religion btfo
>what created physical space, time, the big bang? they just exist, it's as simple as that and requires no further explanation.

>> No.12069862

>If your god is not physical, he must be mental, and therefore imaginary.
I have never seen logic as solid as this, pack it up boys, he solved philosophy.

>> No.12069863

Finally something that i agree with Peterson

>> No.12069933

The flash bang? The gang bang? The bing bong? The mini bang? The seven bangs?

>> No.12069936


>> No.12070026
File: 201 KB, 1000x800, 1540304178348.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The universe is mental you moron, you fucking idiot.

>> No.12070045

the mental is physical, god is real because I believe he is

>> No.12070066

i always find it amusing when people on the internet think they can disprove the existence of god in 12 lines of condescending text. As if those simple arguments haven’t already been refuted thousands of years ago.

>> No.12070072

>if your God is not physical, he must be mental
This does not follow, as (not only is God immanent in the physical) but it cannot be said that the only alternative to the physical is the mental.
>If your God transcends time, then he does not exist for any time
This is poor thinking, as time is within God, not the other way around. Since God is transcendent, God exists in all points of time, and all points of time exist within God, yet God is not contained within time.
>What created your God
This is always a dumb point because God is described - perhaps first and foremost - as a Creator. The whole point is that nothing created God, yet God created all. In my view, God is in part a Void-process, which generates both form and non-form, movement, being, time, etc. through its sheer alterity with even itself; in other words, it is constantly Emptying.

>> No.12070101

if god wasn’t so often personified, perhaps more people would be religious.

>> No.12070151

Sounds like he read Nietzsche, though his phrasing is immature and unrefined, so maybe he's only read secondary literature.

After Nietzsche, the entire enterprise of Plato and the metaphysics that unraveled from him went stale. Everyone who denies this is choosing to ignore what Nietzsche wrote.

>> No.12070173

After Kant you mean

>> No.12070178
File: 20 KB, 319x234, 4483822.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

That's the 9th grader argument

>> No.12070212

Definitely not when Kant was still perpetuating said metaphysics in the way of synthetic a priori judgments, which Nietzsche dismantled. There is no one before Nietzsche who formulated such a deep antithesis to Plato.

>> No.12070240

Is the number π mental or physical?

>> No.12070255

You can’t derive morality from any form of God that you adscribe to. What point is there in saying there is a God if you are talking about a primal mover or God of substance and thought? You are not religious. And even if your representation of God makes sense to you it’s still just ideas whose resolution is outside of your realm of knowedge and you will never have access to these ‘truths’

>> No.12070319

Universe was antimatter and matter on equal portion, then somehow matter overpowered antimatter and thus the big explosion

>> No.12070347

"What created your God"
The more I look at this argument the more I am convinced it is just ignoring the first cause argument. You could just as well ask "what created the thing that created your God" and then you're on the same circular argument again.
I'm sure he assumes the big bang is what caused everything, but I'm also gonna guess he doesn't really understand it and is taking it based on faith because the higher ups told him it was true.
The more you look into the actual science, there are plenty of assumptions and contradictions with the big bang model theory, we just haven't got any better theories yet.

>> No.12070374

To create the universe God would have to be outside it, so he wouldn't be bound by the laws of space and time of our universe.
God is eternal.
Faith can't rely on empiricism.

>> No.12070380

Depends on whether or not you believe a circle exists if we don't.

>> No.12070772

YouTube comments are just filled with people who fight for one side because they like that person without even hearing the ideas of the other.

>> No.12070892

>muh dichotomies
what a faggot

>> No.12070904

This is amazing

>> No.12070907

Wow, sure convinced me.

>> No.12070924

Please post source video.

>> No.12070933


>> No.12071097


You can find the comment replied to one of the top comments named "Sebastian Gomez"

>> No.12071194

Reading about space almost automatically puts me into a state of trance. It's pretty peculiar.

>This was interpreted to mean that all distant galaxies and clusters are receding away from our vantage point with an apparent velocity proportional to their distance: that is, the farther they are, the faster they move away from us, regardless of direction.[20] Assuming the Copernican principle (that the Earth is not the center of the universe), the only remaining interpretation is that all observable regions of the universe are receding from all others. Since we know that the distance between galaxies increases today, it must mean that in the past galaxies were closer together.

Pure kino.

>> No.12071211

>This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[22] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[23][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work.

This is so good, I'm tearing up.

>> No.12071229
File: 9 KB, 430x170, NietzscheInANutshell.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.12071449

Oh shit guys this anon just solved quantum mechanics and the question of consciousness simultaneously.

“If I can’t see it, it doesn’t real lmao”

>> No.12072285

he aint wrong tho

>> No.12072450
File: 49 KB, 870x395, Screenshot_14.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Is he right, /lit/?

>> No.12072494

well, if he was wrong you'd think it'd be really easy to prove that he was, right? I mean, surely there would be some nice, clear evidence that would show otherwise. evidence that could easily be posted that proves jesus as being more than just a character, along with citations to confirm its validity and sources.

but of course there won't be any of that. because there isn't any

>> No.12072958

His is absolutely and obviously wrong, but you won't like any answer that shows this. "The Physical" is not opposite "The Mental". But these are poor words, so let us refine. I think we both take "The Phsyical" to mean material being, or The Material. Given the dichotomy he believes to be present, I can only assume that by "Mental" he means idealization being, or The Ideal. But of course, as soon as you call it The Ideal, you quickly realize that hardly any argument that discusses The Ideal considers it to originate within the mind, making his argument a non sequitur. So for a second, let us assume by "The Mental" he means The Psychological. But if the Material is taken, as he seems to, as the fundamental quality of being, than the Psychological is simply an extension of materiality. This would seem to be the same path Dawkins takes when he first conceptualizes the Meme. The problem with this line of reasoning, however, is that it leads directly to an inverse conceptualization of being. Though he would describe thoughts and feelings as a byproduct of chemical reaction, by noticing in these the same patterns of "survival of the fittest" that he ascribes to the chemicals themselves, he inadvertently acknowledges that these thoughts and feelings are in fact a codification of whole systems of chemical behavior to which we are otherwise unaware. At first what seems like a victory for the materialist ushers in chaos for his beliefs. Is this code exists, and this code works (which it must, if it is to have any prolonged existence in time), then the code itself--the pattern of behavior--becomes more meaningfully real than carriers of the pattern. More real than the fish becomes Swimming, as an abstract relationship to the systems which surround the interchangeable chemicals system which executes the code. So, inadvertently, Dawkins as found, essentially, biological evidence of The Ideal. The pattern of Life becomes more real than the organic chemistry which we have become so obsessed with. For dramatic example, consider a bolt of lightning--the old material view holds that the lightning is the particular channel of energy which courses through the charged particles of the sky. But, from the Ideational perspective, the lighting already exists latent in the charged particles, and it is upon their synchronous alignment than the idealization bolt is "actualized." Slowly, you being to realize that this preceding pattern exists at all moments, in all things, across all time. We, based on our time and perspective bias, see a mouse searching and then finding food, seeing it as one chemical system interacting, almost arbitrarily, with another chemical system. But from the Ideational, the scene is inversed. Each chemical system is itself merely the execution of a pattern. Each of those patterns, more properly considered something of a function, is in some sense primed for the other. (1/2)

>> No.12073020

Like the bolt of lighting in slow motion, the actualized particles lay in wait until the connection is made. As the frame of time is widened, we see that the material "cause and effect" is actually the manifestation of latent possibilities. Widening the perspective even wider, we see that a whole species is simply the numerous executions of the same underlying pattern. All that changes between the mice are the specific and localized actualizations of other patterns. The whole of life begins to seem something of a dance: in one sense everything is relative, but there remains a rather fixed pattern of relationships. Charting these patterns back in time, it starts to become readily apparent that they trace back to the same source. Some of this is no shock. No one seriously doubts that all life on earth traces back to one original organism. Even if it were multiple simultaneous organisms, the underlying pattern of the organisms were the same. After all, they grew out of the same chemical material.

No matter which way you go, you find the same thing--the always growing pattern, continuiously branching off, growing in complexity as it relates back to all the other extensions of what is ultimately the same dissipative structure. Although, like Xeno's paradox, you can never trace back to the beginning every detail and every divergence, you can see clearly the single unifying element--a will to being. And this is the Christian God. I am that I am. That which will itself into being. Everything else is an extension of that will, but nothing can be reduced beyond that will. It is neither material nor ideational, psychological nor phenomenological. Unfortunately, this is a very complicated answer (and not properly fleshed out) for what is fundamentally obvious. The root of all being is being-ness itself. We know the universe is, because there is an is to doubt. If you have trouble seeing all this, it is simply because you have taken too myopic a perspective. You are stuck in history, and so have forgotten life itself.

>> No.12073120

TL;DR: Nah.


>> No.12073152

if you can't explain it, why share it?

>> No.12073160

Holy shit I hadn't planned on dying from cancer until a ripe old age but this website pretty much instantized the process.

>> No.12073440

Why do atheist feel so motivated to tell anyone who believes in God how wrong and stupid they are? What is the point of it? Who benefits from them doing this?

>> No.12073480

few things are so addicting in life as feeling good about yourself. Someone finds a cheat? They'll rid that drug into the ground. Just look at Peter Hitchens. He spent his whole life getting pats on his back and accomplishing nothing, dying a broken, bitter old man.

>> No.12073509

>religious people literally burn people at the stake, wage wars against nations that don't drink the same coolaide they do, hold back scientific progress and understanding of existence for centuries, and discriminate against any sexual preference that isn't heteronormative missionary position practicing nuclear families
>non religious people: hey, stop that, what you believe isn't even real anyways
>religious people: omg what r the deal with these atheistss guyss??

>> No.12073515

Because they are resentful.

>> No.12073523

>All religions are the same.
Religions are just beliefs and you can easily say this about secular ideologies such as the Soviets and their retarded views on genetics and the current transgender hysteria.

>> No.12073565

See what I (>>12073480) mean? People were burned at the stake several hundred years ago, and because you want to feel good about your neet existence, you act as though you are standing up to a mob of people with torches and pitchforks, as though it wasn't the same religious people who stopped burning people at the stake, or as thought people needed any reason at all to do fucked up shit. Right, like you act as though the normal position is Hyperborean utopia, when in reality, without needed any religious motivation, we slaughter hundreds for condensed carbon, and go to war so that we have free two-day shipping on our amazon prime deliveries.

>> No.12073595

Revelation is the epitome of intellectual dominance

>> No.12073603
File: 39 KB, 645x773, 1506979913794.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>if your god is not physical he must be mental

>> No.12074017

these niggas are straight up cattle

>> No.12074067

A lot of this is just based on not knowing the definitions of words.
>if your god transcends time, then he does not exist for any time
God transcends time, therefore he is present for all time

>> No.12074072

very high iq posts

>> No.12074093
File: 3.91 MB, 1292x8757, shroud.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

No. The shroud of Turin is physical evidence.

>> No.12074094
File: 566 KB, 1080x975, received_2104136726538168.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>be having a lambo
>god must be my lambo
>Lambo breaks
>my god is dead
Absolute degradation of intelligence

>> No.12074105

The only medium that produces any meaningful proof for God's existence is experience. Everything else is worthless

>> No.12074117


smart and brainpilled

>> No.12074622

This. The person doesnt know what hes talking about

>> No.12074629

Sorry, but 5'10.5" is waaay too tall for the average Palestinian Jew of the 1st Century. We're talking 5'3", 5'4" MAX. When the Romans came to take Jesus away, they asked 'which one's Jesus?', meaning they couldn't tell him apart from any of the 12 disciples around him, meaning he didn't have Divine Height or whatever and towered over everybody. I'm not saying the Shroud was faked or that it wasn't of A persecuted Roman citizen, but it sure wasn't Yeshua of Nazareth.

>> No.12074643

Josephus, a Jewish historian, vouched for Jesus's existence in an account written fewer than 100 years after Jesus's death. There is definitely evidence to point that a rabbi from Nazareth named Yeshua preached in Roman-Palestine, was baptized by John tha Baptist, and was crucified by the order of Ponitus Pilate. That's all we know for sure about the guy that we can prove. I'm not saying go ahead and believe Jesus walked on water and was the son of a virgin and was God, but he definitely existed. There was definitely a 'Historical Jesus'.

>> No.12074688

So the light spoke into the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it?

>> No.12074735

thanks for the pic

>> No.12074779

>I can't see it, therefore it's wrong

There are forces in this realm beyond all human reckoning.

>> No.12074780

why does Paul think he's cosmological though? Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus, he was born in the 60s, well after Paul's cult had formed
it's fake m8
because people's worldviews matter, and they should strive to be correct

>> No.12074805

>ridicoulous used twice in 5 sentences
I agree with him but this is pathetic

>> No.12074935

Imagine being this much of a metaphysicslet

>> No.12074941

His argument is ironically enough logically inconsistent, even as he claims to cling to rationality.

>> No.12074956

>There are forces in this realm beyond all human reckoning.
like what?

>> No.12074959


>> No.12074970

My dick

>> No.12074976

>gospels are written to be pro-Roman and anti-Jewish.

>> No.12075745

The shroud is a pretty obvious forgery. Literally the first record of it is a bishop saying it is a forgery, and saying that they already got the culprit, and if you doubt it, just wash your face and then wrap a towel around it, and then compare it to the shourd.

>> No.12076245

and this third stuff is?

>> No.12076327

I'm trying to be as skeptical and conservative here as I can be. I'm not here to argue Jesus's divinity or comsology or whatever. I'm just trying to say that he existed.
That's the beautiful part: it doesn't matter if it's a forgery or not. We know Jesus must've been a short brown Jew like all of his disciples (excluding Luke.) So, off of height alone, it can't be real.

>> No.12076518

based and redpilled

>> No.12076546

>if your morals are not physical, they must be mental and therefore imaginary

>> No.12076864

You're right.

>> No.12076884

is that guy seriously unable to even comprehend the idea of existence outside of the physical sphere?

>> No.12077570
File: 39 KB, 401x480, brainlet.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.12077944

I know, I could tell that was your position. I used to be in the same boat. Check some of Richard Carrier's arguments for mythicism. Likely was a Yeshua of Jerusalem honestly, but possibly entirely unrelated to Paul's Christ Jesus

>> No.12079147


Well, looking into theology, talking about Jesus as Christ and all, I never liked Paul, sorry, SAUL. SAUL never met Jesus. He met some of his disciples after he was already dead. He went from a Jewish Roman Jew executing Christians to being 'blinded by the light', seeing the error of his ways, changing his name, and spitting out his version of Christ's Church. Jesus said to follow the old laws of the Torah down to the iota. From Jesus's preachings, it sounds like he wants all future Christians to become Jews first (circumcision and dietary laws) before they can even be considered for being born again as Christians. Saul's looking at his hot new religion, realizing it'd be a much easier sell to do away with circumcision and the dietary laws. So, IF Jesus were real and here really WERE/IS the Son of God/God Himself, I don't think He really talked to Saul and this and that. I think Saul either saw this new religion as a business opportunity or he really did believe and really did convert but was mistaken, deluded himself into think Jesus/God spoke to him.

>> No.12079173

Holy shit, the old-timey punctuation makes this painful to parse.

>> No.12079218 [SPOILER] 
File: 75 KB, 810x540, 1542176721037.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Top 10 Anime Betrayals

>> No.12079258

>Jesus said to follow the old laws of the Torah down to the iota.

No he didn't.

> it sounds like he wants all future Christians to become Jews first (circumcision and dietary laws) before they can even be considered for being born again as Christians

This is also nonsense.

Might help to actually do theological research, as these issues where dealt with very early on theologically and then affirmed over centuries by various councils. However, it appears to me you have simply regurgitated Nietzsche's uniformed opinion christian of theology, especially the Pauline bit. Much Your post is absolute nonsense.

>> No.12079265

Autocorrect eating my "of"s I see.

>> No.12079291

I hate it when people type this, my inner voice reads it as ‘blown the fuck outed’ 100% of the time

>> No.12079844

Read a brief history of time, there is so much more than the big bang.

>> No.12079855

One thing I hate, possible the thing I hate the most, is the way internet atheists type. All theological issues aside, they always seem to insist on bringing up how "simple" everything is. "Its basic history", or "its simple facts". "Basically its simple facts, just a fairy tale, QED ur a retard lol"

Anyone who keeps insisting on how simple or obvious their position is should be mistrusted. Inevitably, these people never actually understand what they claim to be refuting either.

>> No.12079882

>Has anyone explored what existed before the big bang?
Nothing, there wasn't even a "when" before the big bang, since space and time started with the big bang. There is no room in modern physics for God without defining God as complete incomprehensible gibberish without meaning, such as being "outside" of space and time. Only 29% of physicists, cosmologists, and astronomers believe in God, 14 percent believe in a "higher power" or universal spirit, 46% are atheists, and 11% don't know/refused to answer.

>> No.12079889

The universe has always existed. Why are so many people obsessed with the idea that the universe needs a starting point? Surely it makes more sense that it’s simply always been here as a canvas on which astronomical phenomena has gradually unfolded upon.

>> No.12079892

>14 percent believe in a "higher power" or universal spirit

So they believe in God, but don’t want to get bullied by their nerd friends

>> No.12079896
File: 196 KB, 1300x797, religioushats.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

One thing I hate about internet theists is the way they turn into special snowflakes when their ideas are subject to the same skepticism that any other ideas receive. Instead of advancing their own arguments and offering evidence (which they are terrible at doing because there is no tenable argument or valid evidence for theism) they instead attack those criticizing their position, call them Fedoras, and derail the topic towards their personal feelings.

Fedorafedorafedora, pay no attention to our own silly hat fetish.

>> No.12079902

This entire thread has been full of theists offering rebuttals that are logical and entirely plausible. Please point me to these people you’re talking about, because I can’t see any of them.

>> No.12079907

>There is no room in modern physics for God without defining God as complete incomprehensible gibberish without meaning, such as being "outside" of space and time.
"Complete incomprehensible gibberish"? Really? Maybe you're just a brainlet mongoloid if you can't understand a concept that was readily obvious to bronze age goat herders.

>The universe has always existed.
Only if you assume that cause and effect don't exist. Causality implies a starting point.

>> No.12079912

Of course they can't offer you any evidence if the only thing you are willing to accept is materialistic data.

>> No.12079919

Cause and effect don't exist. Causality is a mental construction intelligent animals use to model entropy.

>> No.12079923

>Only if you assume that cause and effect don't exist. Causality implies a starting point.
>believing in cause and effect
>in 2018
wew lad. brush up on your Hume and then all contemporary currents of thought on the subject asap.

>> No.12079931


>reads Hume once

at least read Kant you mongoloids

>> No.12079937

>Causality implies a starting point
no it doesn't, tell me how it implies a starting point independent of the knowledge of the universe being discrete and having finite energy.

>> No.12079938

>This entire thread has been full of theists offering rebuttals that are logical and entirely plausible.
Care to point to them? The only thing resembling a coherent argument in this thread is this:
but it's ultimately sophistry to anyone who doesn't already believe in God and is trying to squeeze God into metaphysics, requiring a huge leap of logic to go from "stuff exists" to a "will to being." Points for at least some effort though.

>> No.12079950

When did I call anyone a fedora? Why are you projecting all this irrelevant shit onto my post? Why didn't you read the part when I specifically said I'm not talking about theological issues, only rhetorical?

Is this really the best you can do?

>> No.12079953

Google 'unmoved mover', you mong.

>> No.12079956

>ultimately sophistry

try actually reading his post

>> No.12080000

every "logical" argument for the existence of god is rooted in physical observation.

>> No.12080011

>Maybe you're just a brainlet mongoloid if you can't understand a concept that was readily obvious to bronze age goat herders.

>> No.12080024

>Only if you assume that cause and effect don't exist. Causality implies a starting point.
A start or a beginning is only a five dimensional object entering a four dimensional spacetime, thus looking like it appeared (or, began) out of nowhere.

>> No.12080036

>spacetime is real

Oh no no no

>> No.12080069

>lol all these religious people with their arbitrary and fanciful metaphysics
>Its only a five dimensional object bro

The absolute state of atheists

>> No.12080202

He's right tho. Our human senses only go so-far and even with all of the tech at our disposal we still can't pereive our surroundings (universe) with 100 percent accuracy, both due to our physical (brain) and technological limitations, which is why theories exist in the first place, where they function as attempts to paint a better picture of the world we live in.
That's the whole point of science.

You cannot prove that God exists simply because God as a concept cannot be measured or be compared with anything out there. Both disproving and believing in God is in itself absurd because there's no argument for an ultimate abstraction such as God itself.

>> No.12080220
File: 289 KB, 1024x1008, 1491952031628.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>what created god
>not why god created us
If he was really god he wouldn't need to create us, therefore I'm god larping as human.

>> No.12080606

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)

>> No.12080618

We don't know, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

There was a nothingess at some point, but maybe there was an existence before that and we bounced into a new version of the universe, part of a perpetual cycle of nothingness, explosion, expansion, retraction, nothingnesss, explosion, etc.

>> No.12080633

t. STEMnigger

>> No.12080911

Yes. The theories are called eternal inflation.

>> No.12080937

Has anyone created Pepes falling out of the sky in Egypt?

>> No.12081569

i saw one a couple days ago

>> No.12082102

There is a difference between abstract and imaginary objects. Objects of mathematics are abstract, yet they do present themselves in physical world. Classification is abstract, yet still is present in the physical world. Believing that God is purely imaginative or purely physical is an incorrect interpretation of God. As an abstraction, God can have existence without having a physical form. The universe is ordered in some way, given logical and physical laws, which can be attributed to God. As an potency, God can be abstraction by which all things come into being and by whose laws are followed.

>> No.12082523

modern physics still thinks everything it works with is physical though. as for math, it's a complicated discussion but there are plenty of anti-realist mathematicians, as compared to exactly 0 such theists

>> No.12083615

Listen to the evidence given by Fr. Spitzer.


The shroud is a genuine artifact from after Christ's crucifixion. The Church doesn't recognize it because accepting it as genuine would make the shroud a target to be destroyed or disproven, and raise serious new problems. It is literally priceless. All the wealth in the world could not buy it. And what about the blood? The genetic material? Could it be used somehow?

Official doctrine is Jesus was fully man and fully divine. What if a clone was made from this? What if it is destroyed? Who should hold it, and where? It is better that it remain unverified.

Thanks for reading it.

>> No.12083697

Also, the universe is kind of time-dependent in a way. I don't know that much, but I do know entropy always increases, so there must have been a starting point when entropy was 0 and the universe is always going back to equilibrium.

>> No.12083716

Every fucking thing you use to function is made up! Langauge, symbolics, concepts, system of ideas! Metaphysical.

>> No.12084288

>entropy always increases

That's what you learn in high school, but it's actually much more complicated than that.

>> No.12084305

And the old law is not abolished, but fulfilled, much the same way a loan once payed off is not abolished, but fulfilled, and we stop making payments. Your readings are so facile.

>> No.12084431
File: 63 KB, 750x742, 1541703502960.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Neil Turok, Paul Steinhardt, Justin Khoury, Burt Ovrut, and I think to a degree Randall and Guth (sort of)

>> No.12084699


the big foreplay

>> No.12084824

Please, I don't like empiricists much but even them don't deserve to be associated with your retardation.

>> No.12084873

I'd like to think a large ball of spiders.

>> No.12084903

The only true intellectual on this board.

>> No.12085331 [DELETED] 

Like I said, I'm disputing that SOME GUY, A GUY was wrapped up in that shroud at some point, BUT IT WAS NOT JESUS. I'm not even suggesting that Jesus wasn't wrapped up in a shroud Himself, but the Shroud of Turin IS NOT His shroud.

>> No.12085350

Like I said, I'm not disputing that SOME GUY, A GUY was wrapped up in that shroud at some point, BUT IT WAS NOT JESUS. I'm not even suggesting that Jesus wasn't wrapped up in a shroud Himself, but the Shroud of Turin IS NOT His shroud.

>> No.12085354

> is in itself absurd because there's no argument for an ultimate abstraction such as God itself

Psssshhhhhh there’s no argument???

What about historical evidence? Metaphysical arguments arrived at by Aristotle showing the congruence of thought and human creation and existence itself? The divine monad understood by the Pythagoreans? I mean, cmon, you can just admit you don’t agree but don’t say there is ‘no argument’ for Gods existence. That’s just wrong.

>> No.12086802

The magical land of your ideas sweaty

>> No.12086818

absolutely based post more please

>> No.12086818,1 [INTERNAL] 

Here is a smart guy.

>> No.12086818,2 [INTERNAL] 

Good question. And the mathematics, the physics, the consciousness?

>> No.12086818,3 [INTERNAL] 

This is wrong and stupid. Your pet theory is stupid.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.