/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12067507]

Prove him wrong, /lit/.

[Anonymous No.12067517]

>>12067507
>if your god is not physical, he must be mental, and therefore imaginary
How do people like that function in society?

[Anonymous No.12067524]

>>12067517
I sincerely believe the pornhub comments section is more educated than the youtube ones

[Anonymous No.12067525]

>>12067507
Too many specious dualisms..

[Anonymous No.12067527]

>>12067507
holy... I want more...

[Anonymous 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.

[Anonymous No.12067546]

>>12067507
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.

[Anonymous No.12067547]

>>12067507
>not physical
>transcends time
>etc
Isn't that how the Aristotilean proof of god goes?

[Anonymous No.12067566]

>>12067546
retard

[Anonymous No.12067578]

>>12067546
>only brainlets would argue against empiricism
He would like to have a word with you

[Anonymous No.12067584]

>>12067578
Forgot image

[Anonymous No.12067588]

>>12067507
He's a materialist and he doesn't understand the concept of God which is obviously why he doesn't believe

[Anonymous No.12067608]

>>12067588
please don't tell me you actually think that anselmic ontotheology is anything more than sophistry

[Anonymous No.12067612]

>>12067608
>look mom, I read Heidegger!

stop

[Anonymous No.12067616]

>>12067507
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.

[Anonymous No.12067626]

>>12067546
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

[Anonymous No.12067627]

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.

[Anonymous 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.

[Anonymous No.12067658]

>>12067612
This, holy fuck.

[Anonymous No.12067661]

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

[Anonymous No.12067667]

>>12067627
>He saved the thumbnail
I'm inclined to give the benefit of doubt that you were tired, instead of stupid.

[Anonymous No.12067683]

>>12067608
Arguing against the existence of God based on empirical evidence is sophistry

[Anonymous No.12067691]

>>12067667
>he didn't get that saving the thumbnail is the joke

[Anonymous No.12067704]

>>12067691
Even if it was I still expect you to post the real, still fabricated iq chart after.

[Anonymous No.12067707]

>>12067691
I'll save your post and then put it in the recycle bin - let me see you laugh at that, faggot.

[Anonymous No.12067721]

>>12067616
based and red pilled

[Anonymous No.12067783]

Has anyone explored what existed before the big bang?

[Anonymous No.12067789]

>>12067783
>what existed before existence

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

[Anonymous No.12067801]

>>12067783
the smol bang

[Anonymous No.12067804]

>>12067783
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

[Anonymous No.12067809]

>>12067783
Uhhh like nothing dude lmao

[Anonymous No.12069048]

>>12067507
Nah, he's right.

[Anonymous No.12069122]

>>12069048
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?

[Anonymous No.12069222]

>>12069122
I don't understand, why did you end your post with a question to yourself?

[Anonymous No.12069259]

>>12067783
a black hole

[Anonymous No.12069263]

>>12069222
terrible, post an argument next time

[Anonymous No.12069264]

>>12067527
Is he wrong?

[Anonymous No.12069305]

>>12067507
he isn't wrong, the god of Christianity is basically the big bang.

[Anonymous No.12069309]

>>12069305
no it isn't

[Anonymous No.12069587]

>>12067584
>so brainlet that he forgot his image
pssh nice try kid

[Anonymous No.12069606]

>>12067783
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.

[Anonymous No.12069615]

>>12069606
Wrong.

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.

[Anonymous No.12069624]

>>12067631
basedest post so far today

[Anonymous No.12069628]

>>12069615
I barely made it out of highschool.

[Anonymous No.12069637]

>>12069606
>>12069305
jesus fuck this board is an embarrassment

[Anonymous No.12069646]

>>12069615
>within a few milliseconds.

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

[Anonymous No.12069676]

>>12067507
>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

[Anonymous No.12069714]

I think I just got btfo'd

[Anonymous No.12069727]

>>12069615
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 ?

[Anonymous No.12069746]

>>12067507
Who's to say he isn't physical?

[Anonymous No.12069764]

>>12069746
John 4:24 New International Version (NIV)
24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

[Anonymous No.12069769]

>>12069676
pretty much, op sucks dick big time

[Anonymous No.12069843]

>>12067527
>>12069264
No, there he's actually correct

[Anonymous No.12069849]

>>12067546
>The state of if something is not physical than it must be mental is solid, factual.
Modern physics and mathematics irrevocably BTFO

[Anonymous No.12069854]

>>12067507
>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.

[Anonymous No.12069862]

>>12067507
>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.

[Anonymous No.12069863]

>>12067527
Finally something that i agree with Peterson

[Anonymous No.12069933]

>>12067783
The flash bang? The gang bang? The bing bong? The mini bang? The seven bangs?

[Anonymous No.12069936]

>>12067783
Nothing.

[Anonymous No.12070026]

>>12067507
The universe is mental you moron, you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.12070045]

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

[Anonymous No.12070066]

>>12067507
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.

[Anonymous No.12070072]

>>12067507
>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.

[Anonymous No.12070101]

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

[Anonymous No.12070151]

>>12067507
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.

[Motoko No.12070173]

>>12070151
After Kant you mean

[Anonymous No.12070178]

>>12067507
That's the 9th grader argument

[Anonymous No.12070212]

>>12070173
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.

[Anonymous No.12070240]

>>12067507
Is the number π mental or physical?

[Anonymous 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’

[Anonymous No.12070319]

>>12067783
Universe was antimatter and matter on equal portion, then somehow matter overpowered antimatter and thus the big explosion

[Anonymous No.12070347]

>>12067507
"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.

[Anonymous No.12070374]

>>12067507
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.

[Anonymous No.12070380]

>>12070240
Depends on whether or not you believe a circle exists if we don't.

[Anonymous No.12070772]

>>12067524
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.

[Anonymous No.12070892]

>>12067507
>muh dichotomies
what a faggot

[Anonymous No.12070904]

>>12067616
This is amazing

[Anonymous No.12070907]

>>12069764
Wow, sure convinced me.

[Anonymous No.12070924]

>>12067507
Please post source video.

[Anonymous No.12070933]

>>12067783
Bazooper

[Anonymous No.12071097]

>>12070924
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiFixVjwAYk

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

[Anonymous 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.

[Anonymous No.12071211]

>>12071194
>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.

[Anonymous No.12071229]

[Anonymous No.12071449]

>>12067546
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”

[Anonymous No.12072285]

>>12067517
he aint wrong tho

[Anonymous No.12072450]

Is he right, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.12072494]

>>12072450
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

[Anonymous No.12072958]

>>12072285
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)

[Anonymous No.12073020]

>>12072285
>>12072958
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.

[Anonymous No.12073120]

>>12072958
>>12073020
TL;DR: Nah.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/god.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/universe.html

[Anonymous No.12073152]

>>12073120
>links
if you can't explain it, why share it?

[Anonymous No.12073160]

>>12073120
Holy shit I hadn't planned on dying from cancer until a ripe old age but this website pretty much instantized the process.

[Anonymous 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?

[Anonymous No.12073480]

>>12073440
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.

[Anonymous No.12073509]

>>12073440
>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??

[Anonymous No.12073515]

>>12073440
Because they are resentful.

[Anonymous No.12073523]

>>12073509
>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.

[Anonymous No.12073565]

>>12073509
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.

[Anonymous No.12073595]

>>12073440
Revelation is the epitome of intellectual dominance

[Anonymous No.12073603]

>>12067507
>if your god is not physical he must be mental

[Anonymous No.12074017]

>>12067517
these niggas are straight up cattle

[Anonymous No.12074067]

>>12067507
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

[Anonymous No.12074072]

>>12072958
>>12073020
very high iq posts

[Anonymous No.12074093]

>>12072450
No. The shroud of Turin is physical evidence.

[Anonymous No.12074094]

>>12067517
>be having a lambo
>god must be my lambo
>Lambo breaks
>my god is dead
Absolute degradation of intelligence

[Anonymous No.12074105]

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

[Anonymous No.12074117]

>>12072958
>>12073020

smart and brainpilled

[Anonymous No.12074622]

>>12074067
This. The person doesnt know what hes talking about

[Anonymous No.12074629]

>>12074093
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.

[Anonymous No.12074643]

>>12072450
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'.

[Anonymous No.12074688]

>>12070319
So the light spoke into the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it?

[Anonymous No.12074735]

>>12074093
thanks for the pic
amazing

[Anonymous No.12074779]

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

There are forces in this realm beyond all human reckoning.

[Anonymous No.12074780]

>>12074643
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
>>12074735
it's fake m8
>>12073440
because people's worldviews matter, and they should strive to be correct

[Anonymous No.12074805]

>>12067507
>ridicoulous used twice in 5 sentences
I agree with him but this is pathetic

[Anonymous No.12074935]

Imagine being this much of a metaphysicslet

[Anonymous No.12074941]

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

[Anonymous No.12074956]

>>12074779
>There are forces in this realm beyond all human reckoning.
like what?

[Anonymous No.12074959]

>>12073509
wrong

[Anonymous No.12074970]

>>12074956
My dick

[Anonymous No.12074976]

>>12072450
>gospels are written to be pro-Roman and anti-Jewish.

[Anonymous No.12075745]

>>12074629
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.

[Anonymous No.12076245]

>>12073603
and this third stuff is?

[Anonymous No.12076327]

>>12074780
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.
>>12075745
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.

[Anonymous No.12076518]

>>12074970
based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.12076546]

>>12067507
>if your morals are not physical, they must be mental and therefore imaginary

[Anonymous No.12076864]

>>12076546
You're right.

[Anonymous No.12076884]

>>12067507
is that guy seriously unable to even comprehend the idea of existence outside of the physical sphere?

[Anonymous No.12077570]

>>12067546

[Anonymous No.12077944]

>>12076327
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

[Anonymous No.12079147]

>>12077944
Checked.

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.

[Anonymous No.12079173]

>>12067626
Holy shit, the old-timey punctuation makes this painful to parse.

[Anonymous No.12079218]

>>12067527
Top 10 Anime Betrayals

[Anonymous No.12079258]

>>12079147
>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.

[Anonymous No.12079265]

>>12079258
Autocorrect eating my "of"s I see.

[Anonymous No.12079291]

>>12069714
>btfo'd
I hate it when people type this, my inner voice reads it as ‘blown the fuck outed’ 100% of the time

[Anonymous No.12079844]

>>12067783
Read a brief history of time, there is so much more than the big bang.

[Anonymous 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.

[Anonymous No.12079882]

>>12067783
>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.

[Anonymous No.12079889]

>>12067783
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.

[Anonymous No.12079892]

>>12079882
>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

[Anonymous No.12079896]

>>12079855
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.

[Anonymous No.12079902]

>>12079896
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.

[Anonymous No.12079907]

>>12079882
>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.

>>12079889
>The universe has always existed.
Only if you assume that cause and effect don't exist. Causality implies a starting point.

[Anonymous No.12079912]

>>12079896
Of course they can't offer you any evidence if the only thing you are willing to accept is materialistic data.

[Anonymous No.12079919]

>>12079907
Cause and effect don't exist. Causality is a mental construction intelligent animals use to model entropy.

[Anonymous No.12079923]

>>12079907
>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.

[Anonymous No.12079931]

>>12079919
>>12079923

>reads Hume once

at least read Kant you mongoloids

[Anonymous No.12079937]

>>12079907
>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.

[Anonymous 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:
>>12072958
>>12073020
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.

[Anonymous No.12079950]

>>12079896
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?

[Anonymous No.12079953]

>>12079937
Google 'unmoved mover', you mong.

[Anonymous No.12079956]

>>12079938
>ultimately sophistry

try actually reading his post

[Anonymous No.12080000]

>>12079953
every "logical" argument for the existence of god is rooted in physical observation.

[Anonymous No.12080011]

>>12079907
>Maybe you're just a brainlet mongoloid if you can't understand a concept that was readily obvious to bronze age goat herders.
Basedest

[Anonymous No.12080024]

>>12079907
>Only if you assume that cause and effect don't exist. Causality implies a starting point.
>>12079923
>>12079937
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.

[Anonymous No.12080036]

>>12080024
>spacetime is real

Oh no no no

[Anonymous No.12080069]

>>12080024
>lol all these religious people with their arbitrary and fanciful metaphysics
>Its only a five dimensional object bro

The absolute state of atheists

[Anonymous No.12080202]

>>12069854
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.

[Anonymous No.12080220]

>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.

[Anonymous No.12080606]

>>12079258
>>12079265
“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)

[Anonymous No.12080618]

>>12067783
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.

[Anonymous No.12080633]

>>12067546
t. STEMnigger

[Anonymous No.12080911]

>>12067783
Yes. The theories are called eternal inflation.

[Anonymous No.12080937]

>>12067527
Has anyone created Pepes falling out of the sky in Egypt?

[Anonymous No.12081569]

>>12080937
i saw one a couple days ago

[Anonymous 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.

[Anonymous No.12082523]

>>12069849
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

[Anonymous No.12083615]

>>12074629
Listen to the evidence given by Fr. Spitzer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aXudXRBbro

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.

>>12074735
Thanks for reading it.

[Anonymous No.12083697]

>>12079889
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.

[Anonymous No.12083716]

>>12067517
Every fucking thing you use to function is made up! Langauge, symbolics, concepts, system of ideas! Metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.12084288]

>>12083697
>entropy always increases

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

[Anonymous No.12084305]

>>12080606
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.

[Anonymous No.12084431]

>>12067783
Neil Turok, Paul Steinhardt, Justin Khoury, Burt Ovrut, and I think to a degree Randall and Guth (sort of)

[Anonymous No.12084699]

>>12067783

the big foreplay

[Anonymous No.12084824]

>>12067546
Please, I don't like empiricists much but even them don't deserve to be associated with your retardation.

[Anonymous No.12084873]

>>12067783
I'd like to think a large ball of spiders.

[Anonymous No.12084903]

>>12079291
The only true intellectual on this board.

[Anonymous No.12085331]

>>12083615
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.

[Anonymous No.12085350]

>>12083615
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.

[Anonymous No.12085354]

>>12080202
> 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.

[Anonymous No.12086802]

>>12076245
The magical land of your ideas sweaty

[Anonymous No.12086818]

>>12072958
>>12073020
absolutely based post more please

[Brazilian simple user No.12086818,1]

>>12070072
Here is a smart guy.

[Brazilian simple user No.12086818,2]

>>12070240
Good question. And the mathematics, the physics, the consciousness?

[Anonymous No.12086818,3]

>>12070319
>>12074688
This is wrong and stupid. Your pet theory is stupid.