Help me out /his/
Christian: Something can't come from nothing
Atheist: Then where did God come from?
Christian: He has always existed
Atheist: If God has always existed, it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get from the beginning to today, meaning it would be impossible for it to be now.
Christian:
>>1428299
Stop applying rationale from this universe to a being that's obviously from a higher one.
>>1428299
1. TIME IS NOT A THING IN ITSELF, BUT ONLY A MEASURE FOR EVENTS, AND PROCESSES.
2. EVENTS, AND PROCESSES, ONLY OCCUR, AND TRANSCUR, IN THE KOSMOS; ID EST: TIME IS EXCLUSIVE TO THE KOSMOS.
3. GOD PERSISTS BEYOND THE KOSMOS; TIME DOES NOT APPLY TO GOD.
>>1428299
> If God has always existed, it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get from the beginning to today, meaning it would be impossible for it to be now.
>>1428326
>events and processes only occur and transcur in the kosmos
>God persists beyond the kosmos
Seems like a fairly blatant contradiction
>>1428332
HOW IS THAT A CONTRADICTION AT ALL, ACCORDING TO YOU?
>>1428341
because "persisting" is a process, and as you said, processes can only occur in the cosmos
>>1428349
PERSISTENCE IS NOT NECESSARILY A PROCESS; PERSISTENCE CAN ALSO BE A STATIVE CONDITION, AS SOMETHING THAT "STANDS THROUGHOUT".
>>1428307
>obviously from a higher one.
And how did you discover this? How do you test whether he is? Or did you just assume it to make your ideas fit?
>>1428387
>And how did you discover this?
GOD IS RECOGNIZED VIA GNOSIS.
>How do you test whether he is? Or did you just assume it to make your ideas fit?
GOD IS NOT A PHENOMENON SUBJECT TO "TESTING"; GOD IS ABSOLUTE, AND RECOGNIZED AS SUCH; ID EST: ONE IS AWARE OF GOD, OR NOT.
>>1428387
I'm not him and I'm not a theist, but that's some stupid shit you're saying so I'll point it out and leave it at that -
God must be outside this universe if he is the creator of it. He couldn't have been within the universe prior to it's creation, since he would preclude himself, ie he cannot create himself. So he must have been outside this universe, and given he created it, he must have been above it, as-well.
>>1428407
>GOD IS ABSOLUTE
>ONE IS AWARE OF GOD, OR NOT.
How can I hold absolute if I'm just a man?
>>1428381
No it cant. If read the Torah, it is clear that this is not so.
>>1428326
The Bible does not say this.
>>1428463
YOUR QUESTION IS INVALID DUE TO FALLACIOUS PREMISE; BEING AWARE OF SOMETHING IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO CONTAINING, OR COMPRISING, SOMETHING.
>>1428478
YES, IT CAN, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE WORD LITERALLY MEANS; A "STANDING THROUGHOUT", FROM "PER" ("THROUGH", "ACROSS", "THOROUGHLY"), AND "SISTERE" ("TO STAND").
>If read the Torah, it is clear that this is not so.
HOW IS THE TORAH RELATED TO THIS?
NOONE HAD MENTIONED THE TORAH UNTIL YOUR POST.
>>1428489
AND?
Everything has cause.
God is Everything
God not has cause.
hmmmmm
>>1428299
God created everything, including time. He transcends it.
>>1428504
This means that your interpretation of the essence of God is not true.
>>1428523
Go away, gummy.
>>1428519
If God transcends time can you say anything about him? Since every sentence will have a verb, it will be temporal, so it cant really describe God can it?
>>1428519
God don't created everything, God is a cause of everything. Is it so difficult to understand?
>>1428523
>mfw a tripfag is contributing more than a christfag
>>1428542
>When flying stone smashes the glass, we are not saying that the stone create "breaking of the glass". We say that the stone is the cause for the "breaking of the glass".
God is not planning universe, God did not keep in mind the concept of the universe. He just the cause of the universe.
>>1428535
Not sure that I'd want to commit to all verbs being temporal. Idk why you'd even say that except for the fact that many are. A lot of philosophy, mathematics as well as theology would be in trouble if that's the case.
>>1428576
It also solves the problem of complexity. The First Cause should be the easiest phenomenon which only can be, not a most complex.
>>1428579
I can't think of a philosopher who would deny this. All verbs have a tense, they necessarily place the action in time. You can't create a logically sound proposition without a copula. Any "God is..." sentence will be temporal.
>>1428611
Any Platonist philosopher would deny it. Forms or abstract ideas are supposed to be eternal or at least "non-spatiotemporal". This is directly related to the concept of God since many Christian writers used Platonic ideas of The One and emanation to explain God and creation.
And besides, the very fact that "Something transcends time." is a grammatically correct sentence shows that verbs don't have to be temporal.
>>1428637
Good point, some Platonists would definitely be on board with this. And this is arguably the longest standing tradition in philosophy, so it's a big one for me to miss. Though "transcends" is still temporal. It's in the (present?) tense, indicating when the transcending is happening.
>>1428637
Wait, I still don't think Platonists would deny verbs are temporal. Just that forms can transcend time. Though of course Platonists still think you can come to know the forms through dialectics, so they would still be on board with the idea of knowing something supra-temporal
past exists or not? future exists or not?
>>1428640
Nah, man, if an object or thing transcends something else it obviously can't be extended in the thing it transcends. And if the act of transcendence takes place both on the thing that's transcended and the thing that transcends it's happening outside both those things. If the transcended thing is time and the object that is doing the transcending is outside of time that the entire event, so to speak, isn't entirely within time.
And, imo, the structure of language is based mostly on necessity and convention long before grammarians come sniffing around trying to find "rules". Most language is temporal because our sphere of existence is temporal. It's not suprising, then that when we augment ordinary language to talk about unordinary or non-temporal things that we have to use the terms we usually use in irregular, metaphorical ways. But this isn't a huge problem since all language contains a lot of idioms and metaphors, anyways.
>>1428696
> that the entire event, so to speak, isn't entirely within time.
THEN the entire event.
>>1428611
>All verbs have a tense
Not in Chinese.
>>1428326
>autistic shitskin tripfag is a gnostic
Not even shocked. What is it about gnosticism that attracts clinical spergs?
>>1428747
The experience of being autistic is to be disconnected from reality. Not in the sense that a Schizophrenic is, but more in the sense that you're still disconnected from the world in a VR game. Everything feels floaty (which is why they're clumsy) and the external world comes through in mental tunnel vision, or like trying to drink a really thick milkshake through a really thin straw. You are constantly more mindful of what is going on in your own head then what you're getting from the outside.
This is also why autists enjoy trains so much. Autists can't take in diverse information through their senses and comprehend it easily. Everything therefor, is an awful chaotic mess (which is why autists also just insist that they are right in the face of social realities). Train networks allow for diverse information from multiple sources to be taken in abstractly and combined into a meaningful complex image, distinct from it's parts. This is the closest some severe autists get to social interaction.
Gnostism is therefor a very attractive doctrine. It makes intuitive sense. Of course external reality doesn't real. It doesn't feel real. Of course actual reality is achieved in your own mind, your own mind is overpoweringly, painfully loud. And then, it takes this natural intuition, and makes a virtue out of it. Your only thoughts are the place where you are free. Your body and sensual experiences are limitations, and you can transcend them. Why WOULDN'T that appeal to an autist?
T. Autist
>>1428775
Wow, that's actually a really insightful post. Thanks anon!
