Daily Readings
1 Corinthians 4:9-16
For I think that God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death; for we have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are distinguished, but we are dishonored! To the present hour we both hunger and thirst, and we are poorly clothed, and beaten, and homeless. And we labor, working with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; being defamed, we entreat. We have been made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things until now.
I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I urge you, imitate me.
>>79298019
Matthew 9:36-10:8
But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd. Then He said to His disciples, “The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.”
And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him, He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him.
These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.”
Hi.
>>79298284
Hello
>>79299040
Thanks for these threads.
>>79299342
You're most welcome. It's always good to spread the Gospel.
>>79300029
I'm actually an agnostic atheist. I just like these threads and discussing things.
>>79301801
How can you be both?
>>79298019
bump
>>79301954
Both what? Agnostic atheist?
>>79303353
the special snowflake redefinitions and categorizations of atheists and agnostics is really new and pointless.
for someone to be a gnostic anything you'd have to define gnosis/knowledge as something incredibly silly.
>>79303353
Yes, how can you be not sure if God exists and sure that God doesn't exist at the same time?
>>79303779
>the special snowflake redefinitions and categorizations of atheists and agnostics is really new and pointless.
I agree. But no one seems to understand or gets confused unless you use them.
In simple terms, I'm an atheist due to disbelieving in theism, but don't claim there is definitely no God, because I have no actual way of knowing that.
>>79304151
Why don't you believe in God?
>>79305542
Because I've listened to just about every possible argument for theism and found them to be illogical and full of fallacies. Including mainstream religions and various occult beliefs.
However, I like (some of) Christianity because of it's righteousness and teachings. I've also seen what happens when you take it out of American societies.
>>79306172
what about the kca?
p1: whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence (PSR, ex nihilo nihil fit)
p2: the universe began to exist (incoherence of an infinite regression of events, impossibility of an actual infinite)
c1: therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
p3: the cause is either impersonal or personal (law of excluded middle)
p4: the cause of the universe is not impersonal (impersonal causes cannot alone elect to change one state of affairs to a different state of affairs)
c2: therefore, the cause of the universe is personal
characteristics of the cause:
• personal (c2)
• timeless (existed causally 'before' time)
• spaceless (existed causally 'before' space)
• unimaginably powerful (created the entire universe)
valid, i'd say sound, deductive argument with each premise more plausible than their negation
>>79298019
Thanks for making these threads friend
You are a light in the darkness (Matthew 5:14-15)
>>79306172
>I've listened to just about every possible argument for theism and found them to be illogical and full of fallacies
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
Never lose hope
OP I don't understand why you used that particular image in your first post
>>79306172
That's because faith and logic are two separate entities. Faith implies belief without hard evidence, that is literally the definition.
If you want to enter the realm of pure reason then Pascal's wager would dictate that it is wiser to believe than not given the stakes.
>>79307479
The only argument I've ever found to have some credibility (in my view) is the beginning of the universe.
Before the big bang, there was absolutely nothing. The big bang literally birth time and space itself. So we're left with the question of how and why. What was before our universe? What caused it?
I've listened and read various scientific arguments on it, but it seems to do a lot of mental gymnastics.
But therein lies even more questions if one is to presume God created the universe. Why create billions of galaxies, each containing billions of planets, stars, gas giants, constellations, etc, only to have his grand plan take place on one small insignificant blue dot? It doesn't make sense. And the religious only ever seem to dodge this with excuses.
>>79307787
It isn't a "fallacy fallacy", because I've heard every possible way for specific arguments to be made. And if the claim is something that cannot be proven or disproven, we have no way of verifying if the claim is actually false, thus we can only rely on what is evidence and reason based, and what is logical or illogical.
>>79308771
>If you want to enter the realm of pure reason then Pascal's wager would dictate that it is wiser to believe than not given the stakes.
That's the worst possible theist argument you could make. Also the most discredited, even to theists.
>>79308806
Humanity is human centric, obviously. I'm religious, and believe extraterrestrial life exists, and likely other intelligences. If we're talking about an infinitely powerful entity beyond comprehension, I'm sure there's some reason for all that other crap, right?
>>79309031
Pascal's wager was never about whether ot not god exists, and anyone who thanks that is a dumbass. It's merely a suggestion on how to act, a simple calculation of expected value, nothing more.
>>79308129
Death to the World or DTTW is an Orthodox counter culture magazine started by California desert punk rockers who became monks. deathtotheworld.com check it out.
>>79308806
Even now much of the Earth is empty of mankind, but we're slowly filling it up. Eventually we'll want to colonize the rest of the Universe, so it's ready
>>79309157
>If we're talking about an infinitely powerful entity beyond comprehension, I'm sure there's some reason for all that other crap, right?
So why not tell us about it in his book? Why leave us in the dark, only for us to discover all of it ourselves? Why have we, human beings, evolved primates, been able to discover so much of our entire universe in a relatively short time period, while God is nowhere to be seen?
And no, there doesn't seem to be a reason, because destructive and chaotic shit happens all the time on cosmological scale. In about 5 billion years, the Andromeda galaxy is set to collide with our own. And before that, our Sun is likely to burn out, and all of our stars will eventually fade and die.
Scientists and researchers have discovered all that. With no help from God.
If this is a God's grand design and plan, he apparently made everything to be chaos and galactic destruction.
>>79309311
>It's merely a suggestion on how to act, a simple calculation of expected value, nothing more.
No it isn't. The argument is that it's better to believe in God just to be safe than not believe and risk going to Hell. There's a whole list of fallacies with it.
>>79308806
can you point out a fallacy in my formulation of the kca?
or do you concede to the conclusions?
are you now a #theist? (or at least #deist)
there's only a short leap from deism to christianity.
i'd dodge the 'the universe is really big, why would god make a universe this big' question too, i don't really see how it's a defeater for theism, and don't know the answer.
>>79308806
Protestantfag here, I grew up hating the people in church completely in denial of many aspects of science that are proven, and Id hear people who would talk about how "it's impossible for there to be life on other planets because the bible doesn't say that Jesus died for them." Shit drove me crazy, if our God is all powerful and omnipotent how could he not have an infinite amount of plans under his control not only in our galaxy/universe but in whatever other realities he's created.
>>79310045
>Even now much of the Earth is empty of mankind
There's 7 billion people. We're overpopulated.
>Eventually we'll want to colonize the rest of the Universe, so it's ready
No it isn't. Our galaxy (and universe) is unbelievably hostile to life and nowhere is habitable. We can't even colonize our moon (yet).
>>79298019
>For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I urge you, imitate me.
What does this mean? 10 thousand instrutors? not many fathers?
>>79309311
So its out of fear or? Im confused by acting out of pascals wager
>>79298019
Reminder that these are /pol/ heritage threads
>>79310119
Can't expect an explanation for the infinite in a finite thing. Includes (mostly) only pertinent information to us. Also, science is the study of the natural, not the supernatural.
It's the difference in the questions "should I gamble?" and "will I make money gambling?" It answers the first, not the second.
>>79310334
I expanded on it and explained why there's both pros and cons with the argument. And no. I'm still just agnostic.
>>79310336
I've always been fascinated by the theory of multiple (or infinite) universes.
>>79310897
>Can't expect an explanation for the infinite in a finite thing.
So why create humans with inquiry and an inner passion to discover things? God seems to punish those who ask questions in the bible.
>Also, science is the study of the natural, not the supernatural.
Because the supernatural has never had proof to study.
>>79310645
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
When presented something that has some nonzero probability of happening, but has infinite value, it is infinitely valuable to you. That's the gist of what he's saying.
thread theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOK0v2QYy9Y&list=PLknidvzcLCRFU2E_2wLM6PK9VWfCsHDVi
it may be the devil and it may be the lord but you're gonna have to serve somebody
>>79310119
>scientists on Earth know whats going to happen 500000000 years from now
hahaha
>God cant exist because He isnt giving me endless monies and a gf and and and i cant see him
"Things which eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love Him" 1Cor 2:7
You put faith foolish Man who has changed his findings over the course of years, and will continually plunge itself into damnation and corruption. God asks you to put FAITH in the LORD CHRIST for He has sacrificed Himself for YOU! And yet you do not see the love He has for you? Such disgrace.
>>79311220
To the first, not really... Bible pushes knowledge agenda pretty well. Proverbs especially. Those specifically are the things that make humanity interesting.
That's the point of the supernatural. Likely can never be proven. CS Lewis makes an interesting case in "miracles", you can read the first chapter or so on Amazon.
>>79311220
if you read it, why would you ask this?
>What caused it?
my argument answered this, an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, and unimagineably powerful personal creator.
i.e. God.
>>79311220
>God punished men who seek wisdom
>it in bibel
AYY LMAO Go read the Bible or shut up about it. You heathens are so twisted in your worldly pride you think you know anything of the spirit!
"But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised"
2Cor 2:13
>>79311496
>>scientists on Earth know whats going to happen 500000000 years from now
Yes. We do. Just like we learned when the big bang happened thanks to Cosmic Microwave Background radiation research.
>>God cant exist because He isnt giving me endless monies and a gf and and and i cant see him
Yeah you're not interested in rational discourse. Out.
>>79311636
>Bible pushes knowledge agenda pretty well
That must be why he punished the first humans he created for eating from the tree of knowledge. And then punished humans trying to work together to build a tower to Heaven. Then fucked 'em all up by giving them different languages.
>>79311691
>my argument answered this, an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, and unimagineably powerful personal creator.
>i.e. God.
And I addressed the flaws with this. Also you sound like you're repeating Frank Turek.
>>79310400
>(yet)
The moon is shit
As for overpopulation, that doesn't mean we occupy every inch of the globe. It just means we're crammed together.
And it is ready, waiting to be explored. You think man's conquest of the Earth was easy?
>>79310596
Many will teach about Christ without actually following Him
>>79312049
1) it was the tree of knowledge of god and evil. That is, it made them capable of evil. 2) It's a parable, not a historical account.
>>79312049
Don't dance around the Word of God silly. Answer me this ol chap: Why do you NOT believe in God, and what convinces you to put your faith in Man instead of God? Rational discource = me me me am right, i know what your kind are like my friend. I want discussion, not "rational" because that always fundamentally means "worldly." We, you and I, need understanding discourse. Thats an even footing for both the spiritual folks like me, and the worldly folks like you. Wadda ya say?
>>79311220
Why tell us if we can figure it out ourselves?
>>79312049
>That must be why he punished the first humans he created for eating from the tree of knowledge. And then punished humans trying to work together to build a tower to Heaven. Then fucked 'em all up by giving them different languages.
woooooow do you understand context. Jesus Christ, help this anon.
>>79312049
They were trying to attack Heaven
Good day all.
>>79312649
Praise the Lord!
>>79312222
ah it's so clear and obvious now
also nice quads
>>79310596
He's simply telling them that he is their spiritual father.
>>79312154
>The moon is shit
I don't know why but I laughed at that.
>It just means we're crammed together.
Yeah. That's a problem. Resources are being used up rapidly.
>And it is ready, waiting to be explored.
You have any idea how long it took just to land on the damn moon?
>>79312252
>it was the tree of knowledge of god and evil. That is, it made them capable of evil.
So God intentionally put the tree there to tempt them. They had a choice between self discovery or be mind slaves forever. It's a terrible parable and makes Satan look like the good guy.
>>79312364
Filtered.
>>79312454
Why not?
>>79312570
Did they have happen to have chariots of iron with them?
>>79312049
>And I addressed the flaws with this.
okay i'll address them.
>>79308806
>some arguments have mental gymnastics
ok
>Why create billions of galaxies, each containing billions of planets, stars, gas giants, constellations, etc, only to have his grand plan take place on one small insignificant blue dot? It doesn't make sense.
why not?
can you show that 'God creating a universe larger than absolutely necessary for his purposes (if we're pretending we know exactly what they are) and 'God existing' are mutually exclusive?
wew lad these are some powerful objections. i wish you'd focused on the KCA though instead of this bizarre tangent.
>>79308806
>It isn't a "fallacy fallacy", because I've heard every possible way for specific arguments to be made.
You haven't heard all
>And if the claim is something that cannot be proven or disproven, we have no way of verifying if the claim is actually false,
>thus we can only rely on what is evidence and reason based, and what is logical or illogical.
If we only want to be logical
But there are some things outside logic
>>79313148
>why not?
Because it implies God created too many houses to live in.
The universe is chaotic destruction and hostile to practically all life. Why create all this? Just because?
>i wish you'd focused on the KCA
I'm going off the hypothetical argument that the universe had a creator as you implied.
>>79313496
>You haven't heard all
I would say most.
>But there are some things outside logic
That's called illogical insanity.
>>79313004
Of course, if you go into any book or movie looking for reasons it's stupid and unejoyable, you'll find them, every time. None of what you're saying is of any real interest of the debate on the existence of the supernatural anyway.
If I may, your approach to religion is entirely backwards. You're working bottom up, not top down. You should be asking philosophical questions like "what even is God, why does anything exist, are we in a simulation, why do things exist the way they exist, are there things that are unknowable, etc" not digging into low level theology where you don't bother researching the historical context, time for writing, or author and bragging about how it doesn't make any sense to you.
>>79313004
I don't remember exactly, but I do remember making war on Heaven.
And it really doesn't matter how long. It's a continual expansion with minor fits and setbacks.
As for knowledge, let me put it this way: God had no obligation to tell us anything, so again, why bother?
>>79312530
lel in the crusades, most of the fcking conflict was instigated/caused BY the muslims. They try to make it seem like Christians are bad for the Crusades but Muslims wanted to take over the entire world through force. That is why its started
And so they decided to put Jesus Christ on a pedestal to make null everything he ever said.
>>79313517
>Why create all this? Just because?
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Roman 1:20
>>79313640
See this is what i mean. Your prerequisite for even speaking to you is under this ephermal guise of undefined "rational." You are being close minded by denying any phrase or word that goes outside of your tiny bubble of undefined, un-limited "reason."
tldr;
>god dont real because i say so
>well heres why we think so
>no thats wrong because rationality
>>79313640
>I would say most.
You could not know that
>That's called illogical insanity.
There are things that exist outside logic m9. They're called alogical things, not illogical (against logic)
And by definition God is alogical. Human reason may not encapsulate Him
>>79313517
>too many
by whose count?
maybe he's given us the possibility of exploring the stars, setting up home elsewhere~
maybe the exact size and scope of the universe is necessary for life to come into existence under the laws he's set up~
i don't know, but i do know that we are not in a position to look at the size and scope of the universe and say that 'because it is the way it is, then God could have no reason for making it that way.'
there's no logical contradiction here.
>as you implied
i didn't imply, i deduced, and showed you the steps.
God exists.
>>79313517
so because you cannot fathom the reason behind its creation, it must have not been created? You claim to have heard "every" argument, but have youeven spoken to every theist for that to be factual? If not, then its a figure of speech. If you're speaking figuratively while bashing parables and metaphorical language contained in Biblical scripture, that makes you a hypocrit
>>79313800
Mt 10:37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
>>79314030
Do you also sense KP anon'S shaky foundation of skepticism?
>>79313700
>If I may, your approach to religion is entirely backwards
Or I'm just pointing out flaws that you're uncomfortable with. And no. It isn't my approach to religion. It's my approach to the theistic beliefs. Religion is social.
>You should be asking
Things that you can give BS answers to instead of ones that you don't.
>>79313721
>God had no obligation to tell us anything
Then why bother at all? Is God a kid with an ant farm?
>>79313879
>Your prerequisite for even speaking to you is under this ephermal guise of undefined "rational." You are being close minded by denying any phrase or word that goes outside of your tiny bubble of undefined, un-limited "reason."
Because reason is what moves us forward in debate. Unreasonable and illogical rhetoric leads nowhere.
>>79313900
>You could not know that
I would say so when the arguments start getting obscure and then repeat over and over.
>There are things that exist outside logic m9. They're called alogical things, not illogical (against logic)
>And by definition God is alogical. Human reason may not encapsulate Him
And there's the old "we can't even like comprehend so how dare you ask questions" bullshit.
>>79300930
Atheists BTFO
>>79314235
kids full of shit. speaking from some imagined intellectual entitlement. We don't even understand all the laws that govern our universe yet we should listen to those that deny the existence of God
>>79314434
Why bother? Why not? It's really that to me. You or I could maybe come up with logical reasons, but the point is ultimately moot
>>79314434
Everyone has flaws and no one is perfect. But you're attempting to say that you've heard every argument which means you've obviously spoken to every theist on the planet.
>>79314434
>I would say so when the arguments start getting obscure and then repeat over and over.
That just means the people whom you're getting arguments from are just less imaginative than conceivably possible
>And there's the old "we can't even like comprehend so how dare you ask questions" bullshit.
More like "we can't even like comprehend God's nature through logic so how dare you STOP trying to reach God altogether"
>>79314553
CHRIST BLESS YOU THANK GOD FOR THE RIGHTEOUS MEN WHO FOLLOW CHRIST
>>79313517
You say the Universe is chaotic and hostile and on this basis God doesn't exist because why would someone create destruction? Life isn't some fucking fairy tale. Its the very chaotic nature of our Universe that even made life possible. You fail to acknowledge the possibility that God operates on an agenda that you cannot comprehend. All your responses say is "It doesnt make sense to me therefore its irrational. I am right and I cannot be wrong." Youre full of fuck lmao
>>79314434
why do you believe the universe can be understood rationally? and why does the universe seem to have consistent natural laws?
>>79314434
You have really only pointed out flaws in your own knowledge... I'm perfectly comfortable with the flaws in the bible and in my own ability.
And I didn't mean questions you should ask me, or anyone even really, other than yourself.
You're looking at something many billions of people have spent their entire lives studying. You look at it for a few hours and call it nonsense. Who do you think knows more about a topic? The newcomer or the expert? I tend to trust experts. You're no different than people who deny evolution and climate change, or people who practice alternative "medicine". Your ignorance and pride are getting in the way of your progress.
>>79314007
>maybe he's given us the possibility of exploring the stars
We have. Without him. But all this "maybe" is worthless because we have no verification in the first place.
>but i do know that we are not in a position to look at the size and scope of the universe and say that 'because it is the way it is, then God could have no reason for making it that way.'
Well I'm not saying there is no God. I just do not personally believe there to be one.
>>79314030
>so because you cannot fathom the reason behind its creation, it must have not been created?
This is assuming its a "creation" in the first place. But no. I never claimed that. I said it doesn't make sense and is illogical. For all I know, there was/is a creator and I could have it wrong. But because I have no way of actually knowing either way, so I only go with what I have: reason and evidence.
>>79314553
>kids full of shit. speaking from some imagined intellectual entitlement.
The irony here is hilarious.
>>79314434
UNDEFINED REASON ONCE AGAIN.
Sinners are all the same fundamentally. They cling to things of the world and WILL themselves ignorant of their spirit and the Spirit of God.
This is why i do not fall into this pit of "rationality," because sinners use it as their armor to block off any comprehensive discussion of God and His creation of reality.
"Rationality" is fundamentally trapped within the framework of one's own perspective, especially with abstract concepts like God and His holiness, and this limited perspective is almost always without God in mind, and with sin in mind.
>>79315201
No irony at all. I'm pointing out your hypocritical arguments, which you didn't even address. You speak figuratively in claiming youve heard every argument. But you havent yet you bash the parables and metaphorical language in the Bible. Your entitlement is hilarious. You're going in circles, waiting for an explanation that will never arrive.
>>79315201
>Without him. But all this "maybe" is worthless
the point of my 'maybe' scenarios were to show that 'the universe is big lol' and 'God exists' are not mutually exclusive.
>Well I'm not saying there is no God
you raised the 'the universe is really big/too many houses' objection in the context of the cosmological argument i'd put forth.
if you're now admitting that it doesn't refute the argument i've made, and have no other objections, you should accept the conclusions that were brought forth and acknowledge God exists.
>>79314753
>But you're attempting to say that you've heard every argument which means you've obviously spoken to every theist on the planet.
You're not a very intellectually honest person. Unsurprising given how pompous you are.
But let me simplify it for you. "I've heard it all" is an expression used to convey that you've heard many things on a subject over a long period of time. That is the expression I was using. Over the course of many years I've heard many arguments for theism often to where they're repeated (IE: Pascal's Wager) and new arguments get smaller and smaller.
>>79315059
>I am right and I cannot be wrong." Youre full of fuck lmao
Yes. Just act completely oblivious to the fact that I've said the opposite of that several times.
>>79315101
>why do you believe the universe can be understood rationally?
Why not?
>>79315135
>You're looking at something many billions of people have spent their entire lives studying.
This is implying billions of people can't be wrong.
>You look at it for a few hours and call it nonsense
More intellectual dishonesty.
But let me propose something. If the "expert" here was still wrong in the end does it matter?
Say for instance someone spent their life on explaining and arguing that the Earth is flat. What does him being an "expert" on it matter if he's wrong?
>>79316110
>>why do you believe the universe can be understood rationally?
>Why not?
Burden of proof biatch
>>79316110
>Why not?
The universe is a product of time, chance, and matter. Why could the universe be understood rationally?
What can we do about evangelicals turning people away from God en masse? Their outrageous behavior is really damaging to our society.
>>79315480
>This is why i do not fall into this pit of "rationality,"
Clearly.
>>79315533
>I'm pointing out your hypocritical arguments
No. You're strawmanning and then act like you've done anything else.
And the most ironic part is you call me all these (projected) buzzwords like "intellectual entitlement", when all you've done is exactly that. You're so far up your own smug little ass that you don't even realize it. You're exactly the type who I'd expect to be a Rato voter because you're just like him.
Now, if you'd like to have rational discourse instead of this silly nonsense, feel free. But I don't expect that anytime soon
>>79315711
>the point of my 'maybe' scenarios were to show that 'the universe is big lol' and 'God exists' are not mutually exclusive.
Sure. And I acknowledged that I could be wrong. But ultimately, because God is essentially just speculation, we have no way of actually knowing.
>you should accept the conclusions that were brought forth and acknowledge God exists.
You seem to be more concerned with people just agreeing with you than if the premise is actually true.
>>79316512
>Burden of proof biatch
Doesn't fit here. Learn what buzzwords mean first.
>>79316742
Because we already can and do. You being ignorant of it doesn't negate that.
>>79316110
> implying thousands of doctors can't be wrong
> implying thousands of meteorologists can't be wrong
If I was interested in flat earth theory, especially if I was interested in disproving it, I'd go to the people/articles that say the earth was flat to talk about why they think that, not read round earth theory constantly, dip my toe into one or two writeups on flat earth that I demonstrably don't understand, and act like an expert in flat earth. You should probably spend more time studying, and less time stroking your ego. Talking about intellectual dishonesty...
>>79316822
catechesis
>>79317073
>non sequitur
you didn't explain why the universe can be understood rationally, you only said that it could be.
>>79317073
It absolutely does. You're trying to apply an argument from ignorance ("Well, tell me why not, and then I might change my mind")
You need to be right in your claims, not another person to be proving you wrong
If you are to strictly follow reason that is
>>79317073
okay.
just remember you can't say this anymore:
>I've listened to just about every possible argument for theism and found them to be illogical and full of fallacies
you weren't able to point out one fallacy in the logic i put forth, but still refused to accept the reasoning.
>>79317107
>I'd go to the people/articles that say the earth was flat to talk about why they think that, not read round earth theory constantly, dip my toe into one or two writeups on flat earth that I demonstrably don't understand, and act like an expert in flat earth.
All these hilarious assumptions. Now you're just making up scenarios to fit whatever little narrative you want to push and spouting off buzzwords you don't understand. Take your head out of your ass.
>>79317299
>TELL ME WHY THINGS MAKE SENSE AND WHY MAKING SENSE IS RIGHT
Mkay. You can go in that insane vortex of illogical absurdity but I'm not going to waste my time.
>>79317779
>being this intellectually dishonest
The rational intelligibility of the universe has been on of the forefront mysteries to physicists and philosophers alike, and has never received an adequate explanation, though some theists believe it is God's rational mind that lets the universe be rationally intelligible. Why the universe could be understood rationally is a very fair question, and you seemingly take the universe's rational intelligibility for granted, without questioning why. But sure, continue to wallow in your ignorance, and ignore centuries of philosophy and science to validate your flawed ideology.
>>79317779
You've made your ignorance pretty clear... Got a feeling you don't study anything from religion on a regular basis at all. This is based on your replies, which are laughably ignorant. You're like a kid with cancer, asking a doctor why they don't just inject you with shark blood to cure your cancer, since sharks rarely get cancer. All the doctor can do is shake his head and laugh at the ignorance of this dying child.
>>79317350
>You're trying to apply an argument from ignorance
More buzzwords you don't understand.
>>79317603
>just remember you can't say this anymore:
>>I've listened to just about every possible argument for theism and found them to be illogical and full of fallacies
>you weren't able to point out one fallacy in the logic i put forth, but still refused to accept the reasoning.
First of all, I can say whatever the fuck I want.
Second, I addressed the pros and cons of your premise. Then you practically ignored it and just insisted I agree with you. Then, when I point when you seem to be more concerned with me agreeing than said premise actually being true, you go off on some "YOU CAN'T USE THIS ANYMORE" tangent.
Someone not addressing or accepting an argument doesn't automatically mean you're correct or that the person is incorrect.
>>79318107
>Why the universe could be understood rationally is a very fair question
You have fun with that then.
>>79318339
Not an argument.
>>79318482
you clearly are not an honest skeptic. You run into a difficult question and you ignore it.
you're just a typical fedoralord with no curiosity for why the universe is the way it is.
>>79318482
Point exactly where I'm wrong and why
>>79318482
>I can say whatever the fuck I want
whoa! please calm down.
of course, i meant you can't say it honestly.
but i know you atheists have no reason to be moral or honest.
>Second, I addressed the pros and cons of your premise.
where?
only substantive thing i saw was the 'universe is big' meme.
>Then, when I point when you seem to be more concerned with me agreeing than said premise actually being true
i don't care what you think about my tone.
>>79318892
>>79318955
lmao
like>>79318482
>>79317779
>>79317073
these are arguments.
have another fedora, my intellectually dishonest anon
>>79318915
Because your reply was literally just "NO U."
>>79318937
>of course, i meant you can't say it honestly.
The Rato tier vermin lecturing someone about honesty. How equally adorable and despicable.
>but i know you atheists have no reason to be moral or honest.
Neither do you.
>where?
>only substantive thing i saw was the 'universe is big' meme.
I said that there is the question of where the universe came from and what came before it. This is a question science struggles with because we don't know. The cons of it is that if the implied position is a conscience creator (IE: God of the Bible) then it brings up several questions. One of them being "universe is big/chaotic/etc".
>i don't care what you think about my tone.
Sure seems like it. Almost like...you're saying "I'm right and I can't be wrong so just agree with me."
>>79319154
>these are arguments.
Quality of argument doesn't negate argument itself. Your post is equivalent to leftist "RACIST XENOPHOBIC SEXIST HATE SPEECH" rhetoric.
How accurate do you think the portrayal of Christianity was in the last episode of Game of Thrones season 6?
>>79319731
lad, I asked you why the universe is rationally intelligible
you basically turned off your brain and said BECAUSE IT IS and then dismissed the question
you cannot post this
>Your post is equivalent to leftist "RACIST XENOPHOBIC SEXIST HATE SPEECH" rhetoric
without coming off as a huge hypocrite
>>79319583
>I said that there is the question of where the universe came from and what came before it.
yes that's what the argument seeks to answer.
>This is a question science struggles with because we don't know.
no, science struggles with it because it's beyond the scope of science, science is methodological naturalism (nature = universe.)
it has nothing to say with things above (super) the universe (nature)
>The cons of it is that if the implied position is a conscience creator (IE: God of the Bible) then it brings up several questions.
ok
>One of them being "universe is big/chaotic/etc".
so this really WAS your only argument against it, and i murdered it, violently.
it is not a logical contradiction.
>Neither do you.
i am a moral agent, it is my duty, my obligation.
i will be held accountable.
there is an objective morality in the christian worldview.
>>79319583
Nope, your reply was basically "NO U"
I just told you where the burden of proof lies
>>79319981
>I asked you why the universe is rationally intelligible
I don't even get what you mean at this point.
>>79320080
>no, science struggles with it because it's beyond the scope of science
I don't see why it would be on a physical plane.
>it has nothing to say with things above (super) the universe (nature)
Because we don't know if there is.
>so this really WAS your only argument against it
It was one. And I just said it was an example.
>and i murdered it, violently.
Laughable.
>i am a moral agent, it is my duty, my obligation.
You're an average human being with an inflated ego who thinks the world and universe was made just for him.
>there is an objective morality in the christian worldview.
Which I'm sure you totally obey.
>>79320619
just stop posting, you're embarrassing yourself.
>Which I'm sure you totally obey.
i never said i was good, just that i have an objective reason to be good. i am a worm.
>>79320619
>why the universe is rationally intelligible
what do you not understand about this?
>>79321110
Not an argument.
>>79321196
>why does anything make sense and why is that right
This is what you're asking.
>>79321408
I am asking why can the universe be described in mathematics? Why can the universe be understood with the laws of physics, when the universe is a spontaneous reaction of energy?
But we can go to your question too then?
Why does anything make sense?
>why is that right?
that is irrelevant to this discussion
>>79321855
>I am asking why can the universe be described in mathematics?
>why
Serious question. Are you on acid?
>>79322105
why can we make sense of the universe?
please answer this as honest as possible. Philosophers and scientists have been trying to understand this for years. Let's see what you can come up with.
>>79322359
>why can we make sense of the universe?
>why
>not how
This is almost comical because of it's absurdity.
>WHY DOES ANYTHING EVER, YOU KNOW? I CAN'T EVEN. WHOA.
>>79322689
why are so fixated on ignoring the justification of the axioms of science?
Einstein said, "the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
Why not ask then, why is the universe comprehensible? It is not an absurd question, but a very real one.
Again, answer this honestly please. I'm getting rather of you dodging questions and not responding with your such cherished arguments.
>>79323039
Why are you so fixated on "why"?
>>79323212
Because it is rooted in the axioms of science. We are already making an effort on how, but we seem stuck on why?
Please respond to this >>79323039
and stop dodging the question. Give me a decent response or I'm out.
>>79323426
>We are already making an effort on how, but we seem stuck on why?
I've never seen anyone inquiry on why. Because it's utterly pointless and absurd.
>Give me a decent response or I'm out.
Oh no anon. Don't go. I cherish your mentally insane view and shitposting so much.
>>79323973
just gave you einstein. Would you like me to list a thousand more?
Also, no response to my question, as expected. You are a very open minded person. You must be very well read and extremely knowledgeable.
>>79324373
>just gave you einstein
With no added point.
>Also, no response to my question, as expected.
Because it's fucking absurd and entirely pointless.
>DUDE. LIKE, WHY, Y'KNOW? JUST WHY, MAAAAN. WHOA.
>You are a very open minded person. You must be very well read and extremely knowledgeable.
Yeah. I don't even know why I bother moving. Because I just don't know why. WHY ANYTHING.
I'm starting to question if you're either insane or just a typical pseudo intellectual.
>>79303929
he is probably not sure how
>>79324969
Read post directly below that.
>>79324790
Einstein wondered why the universe in comprehensible. He thought the idea that the universe is comprehensible is incomprehensible. You said that no one ever inquired this.
"You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowedge expands.
