/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22743106]

What are your guy's best arguments against God. as in a singular supreme deity beyond time and space. I find that the only thing holding me away from Nietzsche and fully embracing his ideals such as the will to power

[Anonymous No.22743203]

>>22743106
The whole Chicken or the egg" thing but with gods.

[Anonymous No.22743209]

>>22743106
yes i acknowledge if i could identify it it wouldn't be all powerful

[Anonymous No.22743256]

The only arguments I have are arguments against the moment that I decided to accept that God exists

[Anonymous No.22743262]

>>22743203
we have only one God

[Anonymous No.22743267]

Go back to /his/ and piss.

[Anonymous No.22744055]

>>22743106
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, this universe could not possibly have a beginning or an end. Rather, space must be shaped in such a way that the total amount of energy is recycled eternally. This means God is not the cause, since such a structure need not a cause, or if God is the cause, then God has nothing at all to do with the events within that structure, since they are self-perpetuating, and therefore God is wholly irrelevant to our lives. Either way, God is dead.

[Anonymous No.22744095]

>>22744055
why are you talking about something you don't understand

[Anonymous No.22744101]

>>22744095
Both Nietzsche and Hawking arrived at the same conclusion, so make an argument or fuck off along with God.

[Anonymous No.22744114]

>>22744101
go kill yourself
this 2 scumbags are nothing but insects like you
you gave them so much power

[Anonymous No.22744128]

>>22744114

[Anonymous No.22744136]

>>22744055
>Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, this universe could not possibly have a beginning or an end

bullshit, who are you? how you managed to come to this conclusion?

atheists never fail to amuse me

[Anonymous No.22744141]

>>22744136
>how you managed to come to this conclusion?
If energy can't be created or destroyed, then the total amount of energy is fixed and eternal.

[Anonymous No.22744145]

>>22744141
>energy can't be created or destroyed
Matter can definitely be created and destroyed

God can do whatever he wants and he will never fail

[Anonymous No.22744153]

>>22744101
Even though physicists and Philosophers do have theories and speculate about such things, these speculations are just that... speculative.

[Anonymous No.22744152]

>>22744145
Matter is not energy and God is a faggot

[Anonymous No.22744157]

>>22744152
you will sink in the deepest depth of hell if you didn't repent you maggot

you are nothing but an insect

[Anonymous No.22744158]

>>22744153
The law of the conservation of energy was proven. The only way out of this dilemma is to adopt solipsism and ignore evidence to the contrary of your worldview, which is a fairly typical Christian practice.

[Anonymous No.22744164]

>>22743106
There is no positive evidence of a supreme deity anywhere in the universe, as far as we can tell. And we have no reason to believe in anything without evidence.

[Anonymous No.22744166]

>>22744158
>The law of the conservation of energy was proven.
"law of conservation of energy" isn't true. It requires your equations of physics to be invariant with time. This isn't always the case; for the simplest example, the Universe as a whole is expanding and so the cosmos has no such thing as a conserved energy

[Anonymous No.22744173]

>>22744164
there is prophets, holy books, Accidents
i don't care if you believe them or not, just don't say that there is no "evidence"
eat shit

[Anonymous No.22744182]

>>22743106
do internet searching for "prime mover" and "first mover"

the arguments are not refutable
that typed
claiming any 1 religion is THE truth is much much easier to refute

[Anonymous No.22744187]

>>22744166
Why is it not true when it is observably and verifiably true?

[Anonymous No.22744188]

>>22744187
matter can be destroyed. It happens every time there is a nuclear reaction. The total mass-energy of the system cannot be changed.

[Anonymous No.22744197]

>>22744188
Matter is not energy. You are failing to dispute the law of conservation of energy entirely.

[Anonymous No.22744202]

Fatima gave us first hand witnesses of God

[Anonymous No.22744207]

>>22744197
mass can be created/detroyed.

[Anonymous No.22744217]

>>22744207
Cool, but energy can't be, so force / movement does not cease and did not have a starting point.

[Anonymous No.22744240]

>>22744217
We simply have no idea what the laws of physics were at that time, or what the beginning of the Universe entailed.

By the way, "energy cannot be created or destroyed" isn't actually a law of physics in the first place! It's true only in systems which aren't changing over time

[Anonymous No.22744242]

>>22744152
>Matter is not energy
You don't even know anything about the hard-line scientism you're trying to argue for.
t. Physicist

[Anonymous No.22744243]

>>22743106
>a singular supreme deity beyond time and space.

It doesn't matter if this thing exists or not. What's certain is that humans and all animals and creatures were created through evolution and we even know how the planet was formed.

[Anonymous No.22744244]

It is impossible for there to be action from nothingness.
And to the contrary, infinite time having elapsed is also impossible, because "how the fucking shit would it have elapsed." An infinite amount of time would have taken an infinite amount of time, so unless there is a start the progression of time would never have reached the present, because infinitely can not be reached or exceeded.

God does not exist because we do not exist.

W-wait...

[Anonymous No.22744249]

>>22744243
Charles was technically a believer in God

[Anonymous No.22744257]

>>22744244
>It is impossible
>also impossible
>how the fucking shit
>would never have reached
These are reasons *for* the existence of a supernatural God who transcends the laws we observe in the universe

[Anonymous No.22744264]

>>22744240
>the beginning of the Universe
Impossible given the law of the conservation of energy.

>It's true only in systems which aren't changing over time
i.e. the universe.

>>22744242
Energy does not have mass. Matter and energy are distinct concepts.

[Anonymous No.22744265]

>>22744264
>conservation of energy.
you are close minded, pathetic

[Anonymous No.22744268]

>>22744265
>just don't observe and think bro

[Anonymous No.22744269]

>>22744264
I didn't say energy had mass, faggot. My point is that if you'd gone past Physics II you would've learned that mass and energy can be converted into one another, i.e. you clearly don't even have an undergraduate understanding of the worldview you're trying to build here.

[Anonymous No.22744273]

>>22744268
>>22744268
>>the beginning of the Universe
>Impossible given the law of the conservation of energy.

you are talking like you were there, you are so funny

[Anonymous No.22744275]

>>22743106
Something like Spinoza's god. The problem with these types of question is that God is such a loaded term, I just know you're talking about the type of god that's anthropomorphized, which is silly and a fantasy for adults in my view.

[Anonymous No.22744283]

>>22744269
The ability to convert does not imply sameness. The law is about energy, and it's a law, as in it's observably and verifiably true.

>>22744273
I wasn't there, but given the evidence, I can tell you that "there" does not exist as you think it does, since force / movement is fixed and eternal.

[Anonymous No.22744284]

>>22744257
Well shit.
Maybe there is a god,
Or perhaps external dimensions allow for this kind of shit without a conscious actor

[Anonymous No.22744285]

>>22744055
There is no concept of the total energy of the universe. In special relativity, you could point to the invariant mass as a candidate: it is an energy of the system that is the same for all observers. But with the universe you have to account for gravity and accelerating frames, and it doesn't leave a known or obvious candidate.

Further, the accelerating expansion of the universe is an open question in physics. We call it dark energy because we don't know what it is.

[Anonymous No.22744289]

>>22744283
>I wasn't there, but given the evidence, I can tell you that "there" does not exist as you think it does, since force / movement is fixed and eternal.

why are you talking about your evidence like it's something mortal, do you know that humans are not that capable of deep understanding of the nature of reality and they usually get everything wrong

[Anonymous No.22744292]

>>22744285
There would need to be a total amount of energy in the universe if energy can't be created or destroyed.

>>22744289
Scientific laws aren't just speculation. They are proven through tests to be verifiably true.

[Anonymous No.22744314]

>>22744292
>>22744292
>They are proven through tests to be verifiably true.

your tests has limitations and is not capable of verifying anything at all you have so much faith in science

science is much better at discovering what is false rather than what is true.

[Anonymous No.22744322]

>>22744314
So, solipsism. Got it.

[Anonymous No.22744345]

>>22744292
>there must be a total energy because otherwise I'm wrong.
Yes, that is what I was explaining to you.

[Anonymous No.22744361]

>>22744345
You didn't explain how there is no "total amount of energy," even though the law requires that there would be.

[Anonymous No.22744372]

>>22744292
Tests can be done again and again and it doesn't prove anything for tomorrow, really. Science can observe surface phenomena but when it comes to understanding why things are the way they are it's not so simple. Useful as it is it can't really give us meaning either or has just done a poor job in doing it so far. Ultimately the way I see it is we'll probably never understand the totality of things, it's too unfathomable. In the end everything goes through our conscious brains to be interpreted, there's no such thing as truth beyond ourselves. I appreciate the Physics professor who can describe phenomena in great detail, but at no point is he getting to the real heart of things. It's all just deep analysis of how surface phenomena operates.

[Anonymous No.22744414]

>>22744361
What law? Your statement that energy is neither created nor destroyed? I'm explaining to you that there is no such law, and in fact much evidence to contradict it. Yes, your undergraduate physics textbook will include the conservation of energy, but it does not have any corresponding principle in general relativity. The concept of dark energy and the accelerating expansion of the universe (and the associated direct observations) are actually evidence against the conservation of energy, as you are using it.

You are right to point out that you have no argument without the conservation of energy, though.

[Anonymous No.22744420]

>>22744414
>What law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

>The concept of dark energy and the accelerating expansion of the universe (and the associated direct observations) are actually evidence against the conservation of energy, as you are using it.
How so?

[Anonymous No.22744427]

>>22744420
Read the General Relativity section of your own Wikipedia page reference.

[Anonymous No.22744432]

>>22744173
>there is prophets, holy books, Accidents
That's evidence against the existence of a supreme deity because all of these prophets and holy books look entirely man-made.

[Anonymous No.22744450]

>>22744152
This 100000000000000x

[Anonymous No.22744518]

>>22744427
>For asymptotically flat universes, Einstein and others salvage conservation of energy by introducing a specific global gravitational potential energy that cancels out mass-energy changes triggered by spacetime expansion or contraction. This global energy has no well-defined density and cannot technically be applied to a non-asymptotically flat universe; however, for practical purposes this can be finessed, and so by this view, energy is conserved in our universe.[27][3] Alan Guth even famously stated that the universe might be "the ultimate free lunch", and theorized that, when accounting for gravitational potential energy, the net energy of the Universe is zero.

So, it is still being discussed, but I see no evidence that the conservation of energy doesn't hold true in the end.

[Anonymous No.22744525]

>>22744427
>>22744518
I'd also like to add that absolute zero can't be reached.

[Anonymous No.22744586]

>>22744518
But there is no "verifiable" law. You are asserting it to be true because your argument relies on it. It may well be true, but It may not.

Now propagate that through your argument. The whole thing may be true, but it may not. Doesn't seem very persuasive.

[Anonymous No.22744595]

>>22744586
>You are asserting it to be true because your argument relies on it.
I argued it because it was asserted true for centuries. You brought some new information to light for me.

>Doesn't seem very persuasive.
You know what's not very persuasive? The presence of an immovable object in a universe where immovable objects are impossible, or the influence of such an object on such a universe, which is incoherent.

[Anonymous No.22744613]

>>22744518
I think John Baez explained conservation of energy in GR as "it depends what you mean by 'conservation' and it depends what you mean by 'energy'". https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
It's a thorny question.

[Anonymous No.22744725]

>>22744518
I want to believe in God, I do.
But what God truly is is the reference to a culture of what "should and shouldn't be".
The bible is an allegorical story of bloodlines and energy. Peace is a lie in Nature. God (cultural reference and Christianity) has everything pacified through peace. The natural state of things isn't peace? Jesus is Light, symbolized. God gave his only SUN (light).
Christianity is veiled Paganism. God isn't real. It's a cultural reference to how people should and shouldn't act. Light is encoded in the DNA. God is who we are when we activate DNA. To have a society under God, we must all act as Jesus. Will light always defeat darkness? Man must become human and shed beast.

[Anonymous No.22744764]

>>22743106
My argument is that the Demiurge is hands off and pretending to know what it wants is just an excuse to kill people you don't like

[Anonymous No.22744919]

>>22744157
I like how the first thing e-Christians do when disagreed with is to resort to threats they themselves cannot act out.

[Anonymous No.22744927]

>>22744157
>pssh, Deus Vult, kid...

[sage No.22744943]

>>22743106
I believe in nothing, lol

[Anonymous No.22745022]

>>22744919
especially when accompanied by an anime pic

[Anonymous No.22745094]

[Anonymous No.22745107]

[Anonymous No.22745114]

>>22744919

[Anonymous No.22745121]

>>22743106
Look into Buddhist logic and how they attempted to disprove any and all notions of theism or a ground of being. Their objections are pretty fucking solid, even if they won't convince everyone. The downside would be that they rely entirely on their version of causality, which is neither bulletproof, nor wholly agreed on by the different schools.

[Anonymous No.22745125]

>>22743106
There’s no real argument against and for it.

[Anonymous No.22745419]

>>22744725
>Christianity is veiled Paganism.
"Pagans" were not a single unit. This term applies to many different cultures, from many different races, from many different geographic regions.

Christianity is a desert religion. It's a desert culture from a desert people. It's a code to enforce a desert way of life — well, one such desert way of life. Even in the deserts of the Mediterranean, Middle East and Northern Africa, there were various tribes, of various geneticultural compositions.

>Man must become human and shed beast.
Man must integrate the beast and become superhuman. Human squared. Stories of devils are about us just as much as stories of gods are.

[Anonymous No.22745436]

>>22745419
are you a pagan or an atheist?