>God isn't real because bad things happen
> God is real because the universe needs a first cause
>something can come from nothing
>Jesus is just son of God, he isn't God
>>827247
>ex nihilo nihil fit
>why? because i say so thats why :^) therefore god exists :^) t. willam lean crag
>Matter self-creates, self-organizes, and arranges into incredibly complex systems through purely random processes
>>827309
evolution isnt random
>>827311
My meme was general. If evolution is the only system you can think of, you may be autistic.
>>827316
Randy?
>God is real
>>827247
Of course something can come from nothing? Do you know anything about quantum mechanics? No of course not you're a 'philosopher'
>believing in God is patrician.
>>827309
>The Universe surely cannot have created itself, but God can
>>827480
Nice try but vacuum isn't nothing.
>Reality is subjective
>>827247
Isn't this what Christians beleive. Or was there a primal substance that God made the universe out of?
If God just poofed the universe into existence that's creation from nothing.
>>827495
Also pure vacuums do not exist
This means the whole idea of the universe being 'created' is an absurdity.
>existence must exist
>>827311
Evolution is random, natural selection isn't.
>>827316
you said purely random processes
evolution is not random therefore one of these processes is nonrandom therefore noone thinks that purely random processes are responsible for the world we see today
maybe you should read your own post and then decide if im autistic or if you're just a retard
>>827644
you are confusing evolution with mutation
evolution proceeds by natural selection
>>827666
Devil trips knows it. If God is just and powerful, then evil can't exist. Evil does exist so God can't have those two qualities at once, most Theists define their God to have both at once though, so their God isn't real, he can't be.
>>827666
>no causality
you answered your question
>>827665
No, that's what I was getting at. Mutations (evolution) are random. Natural selection is just the process that drives it forward by recognising if a mutation is beneficial.
>>827666
>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
epicurus said it best
>>827758
Yeah, Evolution is the progression of a species genes by mutating and being selectively killed off or surviving to breed again resulting in a species being best suited to it's niche.
>>827622
The waters above and below
>>827214
>Big Bang is proof something created the universe
>Fascism is bad because of muh rights!!
>>827759
Of course this assumes God doesn't just live by his own meta-mortality, instead of conforming to our three dimension standards.
>>827940
>fascism is good because muh degeneracy
>teleology isn't dumb at all
>causality is a flawless concept
>Aristotle, Averroes and Aquinas were right about everything, ever
>>827309
>Matter self-creates, self-organizes, and arranges into an omnipresent entity which then creates (and supposedly maintains) incredibly complex systems for an unknown purpose
>>827986
>omnipotent deity
>matter
>>827952
Yeah bro, I am sure there is a reason for babies suffering from awful diseases.
>>827986
But where did God come from anon?
>>828014
I'm sure there is but perhaps none that we would be able to comprehend with our limited view.
Look at it this way, how dare we allow the rain to destroy anthills.
>>828023
from another world more complex than this. This one is just a sandbox game for him, like GTA for us.
>>828061
There are. Ultimately, even the Bible says that we cannot know the will of God but merely follow the commands of him and his disciples. As shitty as it seems to us to have an omnipotent deity that seemingly does nothing for us, if it is true that we do, then how could we possibly understand the reason why? Just like our eyes aren't built to see beyond the three dimensions we've become accustomed to, our brains can't think beyond that either.
>>828055
Where did that world come from. What about the one before that?
>>827214
>"Man is rational" yet when it becomes demonstrable and even self defeating that man can not possibly be rational in any way as he claims without defeating himself it is somehow legitimate to revert to absurdity because you think you understand that you can not understand and so defeat yourself all because you want to deny the existence of something that has an affect after you die or because you want to appear intellectually "solid" but you didn't realize that if you can realize that you can not realize then you are in fact realizing and affirming the existence of that which you deny by the laws of reason by circumventing and at the same time adhering to the laws of reason
God necessarily exists t. "Truth" (truth) (Truth) [TRUTH]
1.1 God necessarily exists
1 God necessarily exists
>>827738
What? Are you unwell? Hows that an answer?
If there is nothing, there is no law of causality.
What would then prevent something from just popping into existance?
>>828074
We can think beyond 3 dimensions, easily.
What you just explained is "its the exact equivalent of unintelligeable gibberish, but THIS gibberish is true, but i can't explain why because its gibberish"
If people are ok with worshiping something they admittedly can't understand in principle, thats their right.
But why would anyone demand to be taken seriously at that point?
>>828195
>We can think beyond 3 dimensions, easily.
We can speculate based on what we understand of our physical world but we can't comprehend it.
>But why would anyone demand to be taken seriously at that point?
Because this is philosophy. It's weapons are logic, speculation, and rhetoric. That way of thinking is really no less valid, based on those standards.
>>828240
We can't intuit it, but we certainly can reason about it coherently. Its not a mystery, or beyond comprehension.
>That way of thinking is really no less valid
"it cant be understood, but i understand it can't be understood somehow, and also that its true!" Its not even valid as speculation. Its just nonsense. Not philosophy.
>>827666
believe me m8.
i was you once.
No point in discussing this once. You'll just get very, very, very tired
>>827214
I mainly feel bad for you that you are not even smart enough to contemplate the Problem of Evil and Suffering.
>>827764
>progression
>>827247
>things can't come from nothing
>unless it's God
>>827214
>[God Came] from another world more complex than this. This one is just a sandbox game for him, like GTA for us.
>>827214
>I can have a meaningful discussion about religion on the internet
>>827214
>I believe in revelation
>ITT: dumb shit plebs say
>what /his/ needs right now is more Christian shitposting
>[x negatively viewed historical event/period] would have been better if Christianity hadn't existed
>>831283
>Christianity dindu nuffin
>>827214
>Problem of Evil
That's admittedly a dumb way to put it, it'd probably be better to work off of >>827759
>>827952
>meta-mortality
but in saying that god has an alternative morality you've tacitly admitted to the fact that morals are not absolute
>>828054
>Look at it this way, how dare we allow the rain to destroy anthills.
We aren't all powerful
>limited view
>MYSTERIOUS WAYS MAN
>>827308
>ex nihilo nihil fit
>why? Because I say so that's why :^) Therefore, all change is illusion. T. Adi Shankara
Ebin thread!!!
>>827214
>God is real because [any reason ever given]
>Thought, cognition, and consciousness can't be just chemicals. That's absurd! It can't be a biological construct and if it were then it's definitely created by intelligent design!
>>827497
>Reality is objective
>God is real because a book says so
Might as well argue Sauron is real.
I love how Christians nowadays tend to brush away the Problem of Evil so easily.
Of course they can brush it away, as they sit back on their computers living in the developed West where no major wars, famines, or plagues have occurred for half a century.
>>831324
>morals are not absolute
And? Why do morals need to be absolute?
>>833557
Well why is Christianity so popular in shit holes like sub-Saharan Africa and South America? Why was Christianity even more popular in the West centuries ago when we were exposed to those "evils?" I don't think they were and are "brushing it way" as you claim.
>>827666
i've had enough of your shit, satan. you cause the pain and suffering of this world and your plan works in that people blame their god rather than you and your tricks. there is no suffering in jesus christ and you were already defeated on the cross
>>831324
the morals of god are absolute, the morals of men are not
>>837404
God has no morality. He cannot - for that would mean there is something more powerful or more perfect than God to judge His actions by.
>>837412
no it doesn't
>>837418
Yes it does.
>>837424
morality has nothing to do with judgment by a higher power
>>837432
Oh good, actual discussion.
Morality are the principles of right and wrong. Ignoring for this post where these principles come from, do you agree with this definition?
I am assuming for this that God is real, and that God is the sentient origin and creator of all existence. Do you agree with this assumption?
With those two terms defined, do you agree that the principles of right and wrong were created by God?
>>837443
sure but knowing right from wrong is just the tree of knowledge which brought sin into the world. the tree of life however is all the goodness of god and the only 'wrong' thing is to not accept that life i.e. jesus christ. the moral judgments that were given to us by the tree are inconsequential. the only thing matters is accepting god and living with him. and he is only right, never wrong.
>>837454
OK, but almost all of this post is irrelevant to the discussion.
>knowing right from wrong is just the tree of knowledge which brought sin into the world. the tree of life however is all the goodness of god and the only 'wrong' thing is to not accept that life i.e. jesus christ. the moral judgments that were given to us by the tree are inconsequential. the only thing matters is accepting god and living with him.
This is in regards to humans. Not God.
>he is only right, never wrong.
Then you agree with my assertion that there is no morality for God. If God can only ever be right, then there cannot be a principle of right and wrong outside of Him.
In order for God to be moral, there would have to be actions God could take that would be "wrong" or "bad."
>>827758
Evolution isnt mutation. Evolution is the successful chains of mutations.
The mutation is random, the successful chain isnt.
>>837467
i was clarifying that they were created by god but not necessarily for humans to follow. right and wrong in terms of the tree of knowledge aren't what is judged. if god were a moral being and could do right or wrong, it wouldn't have anything to do with judgment
>>827487
we can make that case by looking at the universe and knowing its laws, that it is very unlikely it came from nothing. It's much more rational to believe that God could have always existed, because we have no way to prove the opposite. Not saying it's the most obvious conclusion, or intrinsically logical, but it's still more plausible than the universe creating itself out of nothing
>>837484
If I follow you properly, then judgement as you refer to it isn't relevant. It's whether the principles hold authority over God.
Let me try to explain it this way. If I create a Silly Hats club, and declare anyone in the club must wear a silly hat, then for club members it is immoral to wear a serious hat. But for anyone else in my town, this code of morality holds no sway. And more importantly - neither the club nor the code itself has a moral standing in regards to this principle. Continuing outward, there may be a morality in my town that holds no sway over my nation, a morality for the nation that doesn't influence my culture, etc.
You can continue this way until you get to (assumed for this discussion) the universal moral system laid down by God. But you cannot apply said moral system to God or to the system itself. It's a tautological impossibility.
In order for God to have morality, there would have to be some principle of right and wrong that holds authority over God. A principle God could not change.
>>837504
>It's much more rational
>It is because I say it is.
>>837515
>>It is because I say it is.
Can you read or are you just being disingenuous? I explained why. We can look at the universe, know its laws, and safely come to the conclusion with a solid degree of probability that the universe did not create itself.
We can therefore assume that to believe it did is less rational than believe an entity creating said universe could have properties that surpass it in terms of thermodynamics laws and physics in general.
>>837529
>We usually say that nothing can be created out of nothing because we think it would violate the law of conservation of energy,” a hallowed principle in physics holding that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, Vilenkin explains. So how could you create a universe with matter in it, where there had been nothing before?
>“The way the universe gets around that problem is that gravitational energy is negative,” Vilenkin says. That’s a consequence of the fact, mathematically proven, that the energy of a closed universe is zero: The energy of matter is positive, the energy of gravitation is negative, and they always add up to zero. “Therefore, creating a closed universe out of nothing does not violate any conservation laws.”
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point
>>837512
so the state is above following its own laws
>>837547
Are you referring to my analogy? Because yes; in my nation it goes city ordinance - state law - federal law. But these are explicit laws, and morality extends beyond to implicit cultural mores. This can be greater than national law such as Western civs' basic human rights or religious dietary habits, or smaller than laws such as living in Alabama and not having a preference for UofA or Auburn.
>>833522
If reality isn't objective, then nothing is objective. And believing everything is make-believe has zero benefit to anything.
Even if this was the Matrix or some shit, unless we had the ability to do anything about it, we might as well treat things like they exist. Otherwise, what's the fucking point?
>>827309
>purely random
Fortunately for us, the physical laws seem to be unchanging (or changing on an insignificant level), thus non-random and you don't have a ghost of a point.
>>837370
Because it offers the false consolation of life after death. Simple shit, mate.
>>837541
>That’s a consequence of the fact, mathematically proven, that the energy of a closed universe is zero:
Who the fuck wrote this? The energy of a flat universe is zero, for a closed universe it is strictly positive.
>>837676
Alexander Vilenkin. There's a brief bio of him in the article.
>>827311
>Genetic Drift
>not random
>>837858
>Evolution
>Solely influenced by Genetic drift
>>837862
>implying that I was implying that genetic drift is the only way evolution works
>implying I wasn't just says how Evolution as a whole cannot be considered uniform and predictable
>inb4 m-muh Natural Selection, which is only a part of Evolution
>>837869
Not him, but in some ways, sexual selection is even more important than natural selection tbqh, so you're right.
>>837541
>I'll quote some theoretical speculation by some scientist
>that sure will show him
This isn't a rebuttal friendo
>>838001
>Replying to someone anthropomorphising that hard with a non anthropomorphic explanation.
>Islam is a peaceful religion
>morality is objective
>I post on 4chan
>>827309
IF given enough time (=opportunities). Add to that countless generations of short-lived organisms, and you should start to realize how life can grow complex and 'independent' in 3.7 Billion years.
Do you even realize how long time that rrally is? Doubtful, given that people generally have trouble even grasping numbers that go above 100, let alone 1 000 000 000 (1 Billion years).
So, yeah. Creator God makes sense if all of creation is some thousands years old (at most), but it quickly loses ground when you realize life can support itself on its own terms, AND had been around long enough to make that theory seem plausible.
>>837869
Evolution is driven by randomness, but the fact that it is dependent on what happened before makes it a random process, not just a random number generator that randomly shits out DNA sequences.
Pic related. This is what you get when you add up RANDOM!!!11 numbers ~ N(1,3) over time. The process is random, but there's nothing random about the trend.
People who think "random" is an argument against anything have no clue what randomness entails.
>>838098
Yes I know patterns exist and trends form, but so say Evolution is not random is disingenuous.
>>838111
Not that anon, but could you call it random if only some aspects of it are, while a lot of the pressures select for adaptive features (even sexual selection isn't random, just arbitrary sometimes)
>>838111
It's not random in the way people arguing against it are using the word, no. It has random elements.
>defending the notion that god is at all related to the guesswork of illiterate sand dwelling peasants
>It is logical.
>Scientists say "..."
>I got a high IQ.
>The definition is...
>Feminism is for the equality of women, not men!
Basically any statement on 4chan about feminism tbqh.
>But if relativism is true that's an objective truth!
>There are no objective truths since it is relative to your perspective!
>Free will is against determinism.
>But it is natural!
>It is a social construct!
>There is no true/false, good/bad, beautiful/ugly.
>Well, anyone could argue for anything.
>That's just your opinion.
>Maths solves Zeno's paradox.
>Logical fallacy.
>Favourite philosopher? Nietzsche/Ayn Rand/Popper/Adam Smith/Sam Harris.
>What happened to art?
>Evolution is a fact.
(as opposed to certain regions of evolution being facts but it is still not a complete understanding of "evolution")
>Colours are wavelengths.
>Magic/supernatural/immaterial/whatever is a logical impossibility!
>Eastern philosophy/Life philosophy/Existentialism is what philosophy should be/mainly deals with.
>Metaphysics deals with questions about physics, right?
>Scientific theories must be falsifiable.
Glad I got that out of my system.
>>838165
Man you are a fucking retard aren't you?
>>838200
Why?
>>838200
Not him but I'd also want to know what's so retarded about what he said.
>>838165
>Colours are wavelengths.
I suppose you could say they are interpretations of visible wavelength intervals.
>(as opposed to certain regions of evolution being facts but it is still not a complete understanding of "evolution")
What are you talking about?
>Scientific theories must be falsifiable.
Outside pure math, if you consider it science, I agree with the statement. And even in math, there were a few leaps.
>Maths solves Zeno's paradox.
It does, and physics can kinda do it too.
>only worshipping the first layer god who directly created this one universe
>not worshipping the infinite chain of creator gods
>>838208
> It is logical.
Legit statement.
> Scientists say "..."
Factual but isn't conclusive because science can be mistaken and correct itself by new researches
>I got a high IQ.
Really stupid shit to say.
>The definition is...
Legit statement if you remember that definitions changes with the time.
> Feminism is for the equality of women, not men!
This is retarded because equality of women is an equality of men. If you really against feminism you should say that it is for the women right but not for men's right or something like this.
> But if relativism is true that's an objective truth!
Relativism excludes objective truth? I don't know if this is legit or retarded.
> There are no objective truths since it is relative to your perspective!
Clearly wrong and could be easily argued against.
> Free will is against determinism.
Retarded because compatibilism exists.
> But it is natural!
Classic logical mistake.
> It is a social construct!
Social constructs are real thing even if phrase is commonly misused to imply that something isn't real because it is social construct.
> There is no true/false, good/bad, beautiful/ugly.
Subjective doesn't means nonexistent so he is right here.
>>838208
> Well, anyone could argue for anything.
This is legit statement. Especially for the fucking 4chan.
> That's just your opinion.
Can easily be legit but mostly used as retarded counter argument against some factual based opinions.
> Maths solves Zeno's paradox.
Math doesn't solves Zeno paradox. It is just formulates it better in terms of calculus. There are other known super-tasks in math. So in broad sense paradox doesn't solved.
> Logical fallacy.
Logical fallacies exists. Anon clearly retarded here.
> Favorite philosopher? Nietzsche/Ayn Rand/Popper/Adam Smith/Sam Harris.
There is nothing retarded here. There is no need for your philosopher to be the best.
> What happened to art?
This is retarded because great modern art exist and sane people couldn't deny this.
> Colors are wavelengths.
Colors are based on wavelength perceptions. There is some difference here.
> Magic supernatural immaterial whatever is a logical impossibility!
Depends on how logically contradictory magic system is. Physical possibility is other kind of critic.
> Eastern philosophy/Life philosophy/Existentialism is what philosophy should be/mainly deals with.
I agree with him here. Philosophy of life is mostly overrated field. Anyway you can't exclude other disciplines from philosophy even if you are don't agree with me here.
> Metaphysics deals with questions about physics, right?
Retarded beyond retardation. He is right here.
> Scientific theories must be falsifiable.
This is true and perfectly in accordance with definition of scientific.
>>828054
>DUDE MYSTERIOUS WAYS LMAO
>>838252
The Absolute is biggest number not infinity chain of infinites. Check this graph to understand how it works.
>>838264
Allahu akbar, God is the Unique.
>>838243
>>(as opposed to certain regions of evolution being facts but it is still not a complete understanding of "evolution")
>What are you talking about?
Evolutionary theory is not a "fact" but the best and most viable theory we have, and it kinda consists of several different theories (Neo-Darwinism mixes Darwinian evolution with Mendelian genetics etc.)
To have a full understanding of evolution we must make progress in neuroscience, psychology etc., but we aren't there yet.
Evolutionary theory is not complete and is not a fact, but is the best theory we have.
>Scientific theories must be falsifiable.
Outside pure math, if you consider it science, I agree with the statement. And even in math, there were a few leaps.
The problem is that it is a loaded statement, and sure, you can agree with it. But claiming that there are no other views of how to do science (through verificationism etc.) is simply to disregard a lot of theories.
A problem with early evolutionary theory, as an example, was the impossibility to falsify some parts of it even though it seemed verified to an extent. An example is "Why do giraffes have long necks?" can be explained by several different hypotheses within the framework of evolutionary theory.
>>838256
> It is logical.
>Legit statement.
No, not really. Logic really deals with formal logics or ways to formalise stuff. Most of the reasoning we do in everyday life is informal and not deductive, but we kinda fill in the gaps.
If you look at a published paper on logic, sure I can accept that claim.
>Factual but isn't conclusive because science can be mistaken and correct itself by new researches
You don't need to agree with everything in science, and there is no single scientific consensus. A lot of sciences are even incompatible to some extent. To basically refer to "scientists" is also an additional proof they've got it from a facebook post.
>There has to be a God because it makes me feel comfortable and emotions are more important than facts also reality should be my safe space.
>Evolution is just a religion too!
So we agree that religions are bad?
>>838243
>Maths solves Zeno's paradox.
>It does, and physics can kinda do it too.
Then you've clearly no idea what the paradox is about.
I think the idea of chopping down a board is the best one. Imagine taking a half of a board at each step. You'll either never reach a last entity and continue chopping forever, and thus you'll never reach the end, or you'll get an absolutely smallest particle.
This illustrates the point better, since the very last part can create two enormously different outcomes for metaphysics. This isn't purely solved by maths. The idea isn't "Movement is impossible", it is rather an idea to explain what movement is in a new way. It is also worth noting that some Atomist theories arose from this paradox.
Also, there are undefined limits in maths.
>>838258
> Well, anyone could argue for anything.
>This is legit statement. Especially for the fucking 4chan.
What I mean is when people disregard my opinion for being unconventional with such statements as "That's just an argument for argument's sake.", it happens a lot.
>Logical fallacy.
>Logical fallacies exists. Anon clearly retarded here.
Most of the things I refer to here aren't necessarily something I claim is total bullshit. There are logical fallacies, but they are seldom present in normal languages. Use "Formal" or "Informal" fallacy instead since it is more appropriate to this kind of discourse.
>There is nothing retarded here. There is no need for your philosopher to be the best.
Sure, I just think anyone who likes these people are plebs.
>Physical possibility is other kind of critic.
The idea of magic derived originally from "hard to interpret text" or something. The supernatural isn't necessarily, metaphysically, contradictory to physics (such as a realm of ideas, dualism etc.) I am tired of people presuming materialism in our society to the extent they cannot even imagine other forms of metaphysics.
The universe seems to have come from something operating outside the laws of the universe as we know them - whether this force had a will or not determines whether God exists
Anything with a smug meme picture or accompanied by green text
It's fine for shitposting but do you really think you'll change someone's mind with abrasive meme arrows?
>>838264
>Check this graph to understand how it works
>>827309
The first part of this phrase is true, however the second isnt. Randomness does not exist outside of human perception. Energy follows the path of least resistance, and carry neutrons with it.
Fun fact: a majority of the human body on an atomic level is empty space.
>>838299
>posting this pic here
Remind yourself
>>840736
The majority of all ordinary things on the atomic level is empty space because atom themselves are mostly empty space.
ITT: people who don't know Leibniz's best of all possible worlds
>>840684
I've seen that before!
>>827214
I don't believe in the quantified quality
>>837584
Sorry lad he won, he posted a cute anime face you can't possibly top that.
>>827480
>something comes from nothing
Actually, it's something comes from nowhere. Big difference.
A thing can come out of nowhere. But it's just a thing that would be from somewhere else.
>>845042
>>827666
It wouldn't have been nothing then. If Something is a potential, it can't exist within nothing, nor come from nothing, because then it wasn't real nothing. Nothing has no potential. So, nothing.
Or God.
You pick.
>>845077
that's still not a cute anime girl. come on man you can do this
>Look. A few thousand years ago, a couple of eastern thought systems and customary practices coalesced into a series of belief systems formed around a few operative characters. The middle one (you can think of it as an expansion on the first with a new aspect to God) is exactly correct. God is a really powerful p- err., well, he defies explanation. Basically he's just really powerful and he made the Earth (the big ball of matter you're standing on now!) and all the animals and plants and the sun and everything else that was important to people around two thousand years ago. Two thousand years ago was a very important time and the Middle East was a very important place because that's when God really out did himself and made a human who was actually himself God (this is really integral to this medial and only correct belief system in the series). A lot of people claim the same thing, but it is important to remember that this guy was the only one who didn't lie. I mean, you can't really know that, but it's true. So this guy goes around his immediate surroundings performing exactly the kind of things you hear liars say they do but this time for real, and people saw him do this. People of character, unlike the people who saw the other important guys do things. Eventually he made some guys mad and got drawn up on a big wooden pole and died. What this means to you, is that you should follow a lot of what this guy said. I know I said he is actually God, but God mellowed out a bit in his human years and you can mostly take the parts where he says to do things that are hard like selling all of your things and forsaking your family as metaphor. What's REALLY important is that you talk to this long dead Jew every night and ask him to forgive you for all the shit he said you shouldn't do or you will be tortured for all of eternity. On the plus side, if you die and the last thing you did was pretty good, you get to kick it with God at his place for the rest of forever.
>>840142
Someone pls reply, I want to know whether my line of thinking is wrong or not
>>845313
>The universe seems to have come from something operating outside the laws of the universe as we know them
give me one reason this is evident
>>845319
Given that something can't come from nothing, unless that's wrong?
>>845337
It's a notion from a wholly Abrahamic perspective anyway. What does it mean that "something can't come from nothing"? If that is necessarily true, the fact that there is 'something' means that it never 'came' at all, because there would have otherwise been nothing.
>>845375
Assuming its true, as a law of the universe, then for there to be a cause it has to come from outside it
If there was no cause and the universe existed forever, then it would have taken forever to reach this point
And why is it Abrahamic? Energy laws can't be totally destroyed or created
ITT: Plebs spout off reddit-tier refutations of solid theological concepts of which they have no understanding.
>>827666
Because if there is nothing to begin something, nothing can exist. It's pretty self-explanatory.
>>827728
>>827759
Boethius would like a word with you
>>837404
>>837412
See Kirkegaard
This is why /lit/ is better suited for the discussion of philosophy and theology.
>>828014
Population control, just like war. Its a failsafe programmed into humans so we dont overpopulate.
>>838291
>Evolutionary theory is not complete and is not a fact, but is the best theory we have.
Models are not facts. This obsession with calling evolution "not a fact" makes you look like a fucking mouthbreather.
Evolution - the change of species over time - IS a fact. We just don't know all of the processes guiding it to the absolute extent yet.
>>845449
>Assuming its true, as a law of the universe, then for there to be a cause it has to come from outside it
You're assuming it's true, and then you're assuming there must be a cause. There doesn't have to be a cause any more than there has to be a beginning of a circle.
>If there was no cause and the universe existed forever, then it would have taken forever to reach this point
And the universe might not care that you find this problematic. In the next post you're going to come back saying GAWD fixes this problem. He doesn't, he just introduces new ones.
>And why is it Abrahamic? Energy laws can't be totally destroyed or created
Because this notion literally came from christian pseudo intellectuals trying to rationalize their shit tier beliefs two thousand years ago.
>Energy laws can't be totally destroyed or created
Really?
>>847004
>You're assuming it's true, and then you're assuming there must be a cause. There doesn't have to be a cause any more than there has to be a beginning of a circle.
This is fucking retarded. Literally everything that begins to exist must have a cause. This is an indisputable empirical fact. Only dipshit atheists who refuse to properly understand the cosmological argument make idiotic statements like this. This is the most fedora of fedoraed and literally flies in the face of everything we know about the universe.
>And the universe might not care that you find this problematic.
You're not understanding the problem. If there is no first cause, literally nothing would exist. If I line up and incredibly long line of dominoes so that the first domino would land on the next and that domino the next, and so on until all dominoes had fallen, I would still need an outside force (a finger from a person for example) to set into motion the "domino effect". The problem with your stance is that there is no initial "domino pusher" to get the chain going. If this is the case, the dominoes will sit upright forever, not doing anything, until an outside force which exists outside the domino chain pushes that first domino.
> In the next post you're going to come back saying GAWD fixes this problem. He doesn't, he just introduces new ones.
And what would those problems be?
>Because this notion literally came from christian pseudo intellectuals trying to rationalize their shit tier beliefs two thousand years ago.
Nah. Augustine and, more specifically, Aquinas, refined these ideas (particularly Aristotle's prime mover argument), but most of them started with the greeks (hurr hurr). My guess is you're a dawkins baby who learned the history of philosophy through The God Delusion. My suggestion would be to educate yourself before spouting dumb shit off next time.
>>827214
>napoleon was short
>>848115
>Literally everything that begins to exist must have a cause. This is an indisputable empirical fact.
Not really. Some particles seem to pop into existence and out for no reason.
And the notion that the universe has a beginning isn't as widely accepted as is generally believed by outsiders.
"My conception of the universe and all it's mysteries is both coherent and correct"
That level of certainty is granted only by powers of supreme ignorance.
>Meaning can also be found through unmeaning
>>848115
>This is fucking retarded.
You're literally too stupid to understand a curved spacetime. All it takes is for it to be curved in the shape of a circle (or any other closed topological object), and voila, you have a self-contained universe with no beginning or end.
>You're not understanding the problem. If there is no first cause, literally nothing would exist.
And going by that argument, the first cause needs a first cause. If you go the special pleading route and try to say it doesn't, we can simply attribute that plea to the universe itself and shed the unnecessary assumptions.
>Nah. Augustine and, more specifically, Aquinas, refined these ideas (particularly Aristotle's prime mover argument)
I'm not familiar with Augustine's phrasing, but as far as Aquinas goes, his arguments are trash and have been debunked a million times on this board. Mounting assumptions on top of assumptions until you reach the conclusion you desire does not an argument make.
>>827243
Go back 2 sleep, Hume
>>827952
>meta-mortality
But if man is made in God's image, shouldnt we both be bound by the same morals?
>>845449
by that same logic God couldn't exist forever because it would take forever to get to now and he would require a cause
>>827214
>Why would God do x?
>A negative claim doesn't require evidence.
>>828055
Do you think he uses cheats?
Do you think he leaves?
Do you think he is flawed?
Mortal?
Are you implying there's a world of all powerful god-people?
>>827728
Why does a powerful God's existence negate Evil's existence?
>>848115
>If I line up and incredibly long line of dominoes so that the first domino would land on the next and that domino the next, and so on until all dominoes had fallen, I would still need an outside force (a finger from a person for example) to set into motion the "domino effect". The problem with your stance is that there is no initial "domino pusher" to get the chain going. If this is the case, the dominoes will sit upright forever, not doing anything, until an outside force which exists outside the domino chain pushes that first domino.
You've merely explained how dominoes work. That doesn't indicate that all of the universe has to align to the properties of some of the things in it. Things why using metaphors for arguments are somewhat flawed. Why do we still do this? If we relate the whole universe to this line of dominoes, how do we discern which of the dominoes' properties apply? Clearly not all of them, unless you're trying to argue that all of reality is a series of white slabs in a line pushed over by some human. Just the ones that assist in your argument then? Oh, how convenient!
>>855064
Gawd is PERFECT! He isn't bound by rules that I invented for an IMPERFECT universe! (^:
>God is real because I feel it
>>827214
"I like /his/."
>>857580
>morality cannot exist without religion
This one gets me everytime.
>>838291
For the last goddamn time, a scientific theory isn't the same thing as a theory. A scientific theory never becomes a scientific law. Laws are there for you to predict how something will play out (ie how many seconds it will take for a bowling ball to hit the ground on earth given its mass and the current value for g), a scientific theory is there to explain why things follow that law. By the same strain of logic gravitation is just a theory and the FSM is actually pushing down on his with his appendages.
>>856277
>You don't need a reason (or cause) to like spaghetti
>The big bang was the first cause in a chain of cause and reaction relationships
>The big bang has no cause
>Liking Spaghetti is the only thing with no need for cause
>Thus, the flying spaghetti monster created the universe
This shitty domino logic can be applied to literally any deity your brain can think of
>>858476
Morality might exist without god but it would be completely subjective unless you replaced God with a concept that pretty much equals God; ergo communism's worship of the state and equality. And if morality is completely subjective then its as good as not existing at all.
>the universe can't not have a cause
>what do you mean, "what caused God"?
>>856248
It doesn't.
But an all-powerful and all-benevolent God does.
>>858562
>And if morality is completely subjective then its as good as not existing at all
This is the most idiotic thing I've read in this thread, yet.
>you can't prove that God doesn't exist
>our morals come from God
>atheists just want to sin
>it's impossible to be an atheist
>Jesus was real
>the earth is only 6000 years old
>God's designs are perfect
>I can eat shellfish because I don't interpret the Bible that way
>Everything in the Bible is true, but I don't believe in Dragons
>Only some parts of the old testament apply
>You can't prove that Jesus didn't exist
>you can't prove that Moses wasn't instructed by God to write the bible
>I hate gay people because the Bible says so
>the do not kill commandment only applys to people I like
>just because you're correct doesn't mean you're right
>Christianity is better than islam because I think so.
>There are no Christian terrorists
>every cell is sentient
>it is harmless to eat cyanide because the hydrogen and nitrogen that make up it are harmless
>research? What are you talking about, the Bible has all the answers
>God is all good
>everything goes to God's plan
>you should pray
>>845736
But humans are still overpopulating, why isn't God doing anything about it.
>>858620
But, can you prove God doesn't exist?
>>858598
That's a nice ad-hominem there bud. Want me to explain further? Morality would physically exist if god existed because the universe would naturally follow the pattern set by which the Bible created. If you are a Nazi then your morality is real because you fully believe the aryan race is superior in all aspects, and that creating a world completely dominated by them is the only way. If you believe morality is subjective then you believe none of this is real, thus nothing you believe in can be real. You might as well be saying the rights in the US constitution are real too.
>>858620
Hello, Reddit.
>>858620
*tips le fedora*
I wish the mods would delete these off topic shit threads.
>Rasputin was an evil immortal wizard who ate his own shit, had a 30 cm cock and fucked the queen
I literally can't fathom how people can believe in 100 year old horseshit propaganda fabricated by a handful of butthurt nobles
>>860388
How do you know he wasn't?
> you should listen to Dan Carlin
>>862884
By having a brain.
>>860388
have you seen his dick, tho? its legit family
>the French are pussies
>the French did nothing of significance during World War Two aside from surrendering
>there were no significant French leaders/generals except maybe Napoleon and Joan
>>855835
Absence of evidence for a positive claim is evidence for the negative claim.
>>858562
>Morality might exist without god but it would be completely subjective
And dropped. There are, as of today, 10000 "objective" systems of morality. Now are they all objective? Which one, if any, are true? What does objective mean in your view?
Any morality, no matter how "objective" you claim it is, is in fact subjective at its core. Simple asinine claims of objectivity don't make them any more credible.
>>863238
Its hurts because until Bismark France had spent most of their history curb stomping Europe.
>>863238
>the French Resistance was so cool, they were totally not all murderous commies that wanted to establish a totalitarian dictatorship worse than the actual Vichy Regime
Now that's dumb shit plebs say.
>>858723
Yes, evidence exclusively by religious fanatics who didn't even come from the region he purportedly lived in (greeks), and 40-80 years after his death. The evidence is flimsy at best.
>>841082
but what is empty space anon
>>852535
Wait, are you confusing Hume with Kant, or Kant took that too from him?
>>827214
>SCIENCE IS A RELIGION
Jees, this should be dealt in philosophy 101
>>827247
there was no beginning, there will be no end, you just perceive there to be because you view things a linear fashion, you view all events as occurring in relation to your birth and death
