How is the idea of free will and God knowing all such a hard idea for so.e people to wrap their heads around?
I mean, if God is omniscient, then he would know every possible outcome of every possible thing we do, how does that limit our free will in anyway? Why does this seem like such a hard idea for people to understand?
>>29462233
He would also know which thing specifically we do
>>29462266
And therein lays the flaw for, if God knew everything we did before we did it from birth and still punished us for our misdeeds, he setting us all up for failure. There is no freewill and I doubt God is the benevolent being Christianity makes him out to be.
>>29462233
>>29462266
Therefore he either
-can prevent evil and chooses not tonot all-good
-cannot prevent evilnot all-powerful
>trust God's plan dispite our purported inability to fathom it
If alowing evil is neccesary to advance God's all-good plan, why not aknowledge the importance of evil?
>>29462597
The problem of evil isn't even necessary, just the idea of omniscience and free will is enough for a contradiction
just because you know that Stacy whore is going to fuck at least 3 dudes this weekend doesn't mean you're responsible for her actions
The way I perceive a concept of "God" is that it's possible an intelligent entity intentionally set off the creation of the universe in the big bang or some other similar event if the big bang is bullshit, and in that instantaneous moment of creation set a framework in which the universe should develop. Going from forward there, I think it could follow that the God is conscious of every guideline they created, but they aren't at all actively involved in the universe, but at the same time, I think it's possible we could perceive parts of that framework as active intervention because of how we perceive time. I don't know how to explain my thoughts on this as well as I wish I could.
If God prevented evil there would be no free will. Some people choose to be evil, even if they do it without fully understanding the consequences.
"Evil" is usually committed by people who don't know the truth though. They're not really "evil" so much as they are lost and confused, misguided, thinking they're doing the right thing.
>>29462597
> can prevent evil and chooses not to. not all-good
Is it better to prevent evil or to grant humans free will for the price of suffering? Would faith not also seem pointless if God were constantly preventing evil, and thereby making his existence indisputable? What kind of relationship would humanity have with God then?
>>29462548
This wouldn't be a problem if God existed outside of time. God would know every action you will make because to him, you have already made them.
> I doubt God is the benevolent being Christianity makes him out to be.
Benevolence is a predicate of God in Christianity. He wouldn't be the Christian God if he wasn't benevolent
>>29462548
>I doubt God is the benevolent being Christianity makes him out to be.
>>29462233
this god person is fucking lazy
hes like that twat in your office you know the one
joined the same day as you fast tracked to a middle management post does sweet fuck all every day
when ever there is a large project on he fucks off for most of the week come to think of it that little red head number you want to fuck in the supply closet is all so missing
any ways come the deadline you make the final push and finish ahead of every other team in the company then that lazy fuck turns up and takes all the fucking credit for it
you know what they say
"god helps those who help them selves"
>>29462233
>how does that limit our free will
Because the fact that he knew what would happen means that is was predetermined. Fucking idiot.
>>29462815
> Because the fact that he knew what would happen means that is was predetermined
He knew the choice you would make freely. Don't assume that God exists linearly in time like you do. See >>29462726
>>29462726
Living is pointless anyways. And we don't have free will. What's your point?
>>29462834
>you would make "freely"
>freely
It's still not a free choice. You don't understand the concept of free. It doesn't matter whether or not he is "linear". If he knows, then it is not free.
Also, stop acting as if god is real you damn manchild.
>god is all loving but he lets children get raped to death
sure thing christcuck, dont forget to turn the other cheek too
>>29462233
It's just an excuse for people who want to believe their actions have no consequences and they can do whatever they want, or a reaction to them being told that if they make mistakes and/or don't accept Jesus they'll literally be tortured for eternity.
>>29462548
If you read the book of Job, God and Satan seem to be on excellent terms, and Satan only acts with God's approval.
>>29462865
>Also, stop acting as if god is real you damn manchild.
>calling people names is the height of maturity
>the universe just came from like nowhere lol
>>29462726
>Is it better to prevent evil or to grant humans free will for the price of suffering?
Prevent evil. What kind of retarded question is this? Good had (by its definition) intrinsic worth, and free will does not.
>Would faith not also seem pointless if God were constantly preventing evil, and thereby making his existence indisputable?
Burden of proof for faith having a point is on you, for one, and this is completely inconsequential from a moral perspective, for another.
>What kind of relationship would humanity have with God then?
One in which nobody really pays him any mind; praising him would be a waste of time from his perspective anyway.
>This wouldn't be a problem if God existed outside of time. God would know every action you will make because to him, you have already made them.
>exists outside of time
>knows about things that happen inside of it
In what way would he be existing outside of time?
>Benevolence is a predicate of God in Christianity. He wouldn't be the Christian God if he wasn't benevolent
So Christianity contradicts itself, then.
>>29462723
>If God prevented evil there would be no free will
I don't believe this. God is Omnipotent ie. capable of anything. He could make a square circle if he wanted to. A world with free will and still perfect should not be beyond Him.
because how could he know what I was about to do if I haven't chosen to do it yet, unless everything's predestined?
>>29462840
Good argument
>>29462865
> If he knows, then it is not free.
You think back to yesterday and remember you had pasta for dinner. The fact that you know this information today doesn't limit the free will you had yesterday.
> It doesn't matter whether or not he is "linear"
It actually matters hugely. If God superseded linear time then the problem of omniscience would evaporate
> Also, stop acting as if god is real you damn manchild.
*teleports behind you*
>>29462887
>god just always existed lol
>to assume that the universe just always existed is preposterous
What is your IQ?
>>29462870
> Being this naive about the philosophy of religion
>>29462233
Anyone who believes 'free will' is a meaningful concept is dumb and wrong tbqph.
>>29462910
>to assume that the universe just always existed is preposterous
Most people used to believe that but it was debunked when people found out about this thing called time.
>What is your IQ?
Irrelevant, but higher than yours m80
>>29462905
But if I ALWAYS had the knowledge that I would have pasta for dinner that night, and I did in fact have pasta for dinner, then it was predetermined by definition. Even if I was some time traveling god who existed outside of "linear time".
*tips bible*
>>29462726
What kind of benevolent God creates a being predestined for hell, yet gives the illusion of anything else?
God created satan knowing full well what would happen, and then let it happen.
God gave up free will knowing it would cause more suffering than good, because he wanted something to watch for funsies
If god is real he sure is a dick.
>>29462726
But then he punishes people eternally for making the wrong choices, which he knows they will in advance. Is that all-forgiving?
The whole "outside of time" idea always struck me as a pretty stupid defense. It doesn't matter WHERE god resides in the timeline. The idea that, to God, I would've already made all my choices does not imply that I had free will. If I look back at someone and see that they already made a choice, that does NOT imply that they had free will to make another choice. It doesn't imply they DIDN'T, but it doesn't imply they did. But if I was capable of making another choice, wouldn't there have to be a hypothetical world in which I made that choice? Otherwise it would be impossible for me to have made that choice. You could argue that the timeline splits any time anybody makes a choice, I guess, and a God of each universe knowing which choices were made in that universe, but I think we're really starting to stretch Christian cosmology here.please don't start talking about the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics
>>29462905
>You think back to yesterday and remember you had pasta for dinner. The fact that you know this information today doesn't limit the free will you had yesterday.
Isn't the determinism of the past actually an argument against free will? Your past self can't change its mind
>>29462887
This damage control is amusingly obvious
>doesn't address point
>returns accusation of immaturity
>tosses out a strawman that was never brought up or even mentioned
>>29462928
Are you fucking retarded?
>it makes sense to assune this ine thing always existed
>But this other thing has been debunked despite being the same shit
No.
>Irrelevant
>using the word m80
So below average.
>>29462940
Hell isn't an eternal torture chamber, it's more like a temporary place you go to cleanse yourself so you can find the truth. Nobody will be tortured for eternity, not even the worst person you can think of because they most likely didn't fully understand everything they did.
>>29462893
>Prevent evil. What kind of retarded question is this? Good had (by its definition) intrinsic worth, and free will does not.
Most philosophers would disagree, suggesting that free will is generally more valuable than ubiquitous moral goodness. But your opinion is your opinion. To me, humanity would seem more like robots than conscious beings in such a world
> Burden of proof for faith having a point is on you, for one
An atheist sound bite, this is irrelevant to the debate
> One in which nobody really pays him any mind; praising him would be a waste of time from his perspective anyway.
Why would the architect of the universe want this? Why would he create humanity only for it to ignore him? It would seem as though epistemic distance would be more valuable to both humans and God.
> In what way would he be existing outside of time?
He wouldn't progress linearly through time as you and I do. He wouldn't "forsee" anything, instead he would see all time at once as a singular item. I'm still fairly ambivalent towards this argument though, there are other ones to combat the problem of omniscience
>>29462972
But it IS irrelevant. Shitflinging about IQ is a textbook example of ad hominem, which is a class of nonsequitor, which is by definition irrelevant
Don't get me wrong though; this guy is pretty dumb
>>29462915
Philosophy in general is a waste of academic minds. Same as religion.
>>29462994
I thought that was purgatory. What are you going on about?
>>29462972
>despite being the same shit
It's not the same thing, at all.
>So below average.
Nice ad hominem m80
>>29462885
Most religions in general worship Satan. It's funny, but if you research it, almost every religion holds the planet Saturn as their God of God's.
I think that while we do have choice to commit good or evil, which we will choose is already predetermined. God set us forth into existence in one huge, chain, chemical reaction....a never-ending Rube-Goldberg machine which, we being parts of, we think we have free will, but we do not. We are all one piece in this massive Rube-Goldberg machine of humans clashing, killing, reproducing, and loving. We die and give birth, in a beautiful symphony, meticulously composed and planned out.
But Rube Goldberg machines that humans make are composed of cold, dead things...steel balls, plumbing tubes, swinging things on strings. The Rube Goldberg machine that is life is much more complex and warm, being made of living things....though our life is planned out, we are given a slight freedom---the freedom of realizing the beauty of our existence, and that this beauty could only be created by the Great Architect.
Surely, God finds some parts of this Rube Goldberg machine to be more interesting than others, and if a part of the Rube Goldberg machine becomes aware of its Master, then its Master will intervene in the Rube Goldberg machine, and set the Rewarded One onto a better path, to roll down a smoother hill that will be much more enjoyable compared to the bumpy road that others will follow.
>"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14)
Peace be with you all.
>>29463033
Nice job reading >>29463016 's post
If it isn't the same thing, explain why. Why is this one entity bound to different laws?
>>29463041
>almost every religion holds the planet Saturn as their God of God's.
Isn't that just because they thought Saturn was the thing farthest from Earth?
>>29463018
I incline my trilby ever slightly in your general direction.
>>29462865
>stop acting as if god is real
It's just thought experiment
there's no need to be upset.
>>29462939
>Even if I was some time traveling god who existed outside of "linear time".
If you existed outside of linear time, your knowledge that someone is eating pasta wouldn't limit their freewill. God cannot know what you're about to do; he sees time as a singular object in which everything you have ever done is laid out before him. There is no "forseeing"
Imagine God existing as an all-knowing being at the end of time (essentially what he is, although he is also imminent). He has all knowledge, but he doesn't effect your ability to make choices
>>29463012
>Most philosophers would disagree, suggesting that free will is generally more valuable than ubiquitous moral goodness. But your opinion is your opinion. To me, humanity would seem more like robots than conscious beings in such a world
I suppose you're right that it's an opinion, but tell me: Would you really prefer to be an unhappy person instead of a happy robot? Keep in mind that, as a robot you'd have no existential crisis about being pointless, and would not be bothered by being a robot, et cetera. From your perspective, the only difference is that you're happy.
>this is irrelevant to the debate
Why did you bring it up, then?
>Why would he create humanity only for it to ignore him?
You seem to be assuming that god created the universe as an ego-stroking mechanism. If he's god, why would he simply alter his ego to feel stroked? Why would he choose such a roundabout method of accomplishing such a goal?
>He wouldn't progress linearly through time as you and I do. He wouldn't "forsee" anything, instead he would see all time at once as a singular item. I'm still fairly ambivalent towards this argument though, there are other ones to combat the problem of omniscience
In what way, other than rhetoric, is this different from being infinitely far into the future?
>>29463060
>Why is this one entity bound to different laws?
>Why isn't an architect the same as the structure he builds?
I don't even understand why people act as though the only possible god is the Christian one anyways. They all have the same amount of evidence, which is to say, nothing at all. Really, even if you did know there was a god, how could you be sure this is the correct and only one?
>>29462910
>God gives me a low IQ
>Is mad that I'm a criminal
>God gives me no conscious
>sends me to hell because I could not discern right from wrong
See how this works? God creates all and God knows all, therefore God made everyone who's in hell go to hell. There are people burning in hell for all eternity because God made them. He stared down at them and said, "you're going to hell". Doesn't that seem fucked to you? And why, if he's such a powerful God, does he send people to hell for not believing in him? What's so important about believing? And why does it Warren either a trip to paradise or nightmarish Hell?
>>29463018
>Philosophy in general is a waste of academic minds. Same as religion.
Here's a surprise fact for you. All subjects are philosophy. The sciences are, especially. Any academic study which doesn't involve bias is automatically characterized as philosophy.
> Same as religion.
Might as well stop studying history as well I guess, all that boring stuff just happened in the past, bro xD
>>29462865
I've considered myself an atheist for a long time, but how exactly can you disprove the possibility that the universe and all it's intrinsic properties were created by some entity which if you wish you could label God? Obviously there isn't some psuedo-human in billowing white robes, but I feel like it's not as simple as you're treating it.
>>29463139
>MUH HISTORY
It's only useful as a sociological looking glass, but it comes with so many informational holes that it's not very useful as such.
inb4 intrinsic value
>>29463123
I didn't say they're the same. But they are bound to the same laws. Both will decay with with time. Both will have had a start and an end.
Anyways, do you have an argument, or just a shitty analogy?
>>29462994
That's not how hell works in christianity, you're thinking of buddhism
>>29463018Dear reader, the photograph included with this posting is a depiction of you.
>>29463124
It's mainly because most modern religious philosophy stems from Christian philosophy/theology (eg. Aquinas, Augustine).
In most philosophical circles however, the term generally used is "Abrahamic God" rather than "Christian God"
>>29462994
You mean GEINHOM (or whatever the Jewish word is) is a place of cleansing? I'm not exactly sure, but Christianity makes no mention of a Geinhom neither does Islam. Plus, Jews worship Saturn. They rest on the sixth day, their star symbolizes 666 and they purposely forgot the name of their God.
1. If God knows everything, then God knows what I will do tomorrow.
2. If God knows what I will do tomorrow, then God knows that I will do X tomorrow (where X is some specific activity).
3. If God knows that I will do X tomorrow, then I will do X tomorrow (knowledge implies truth).
4. If I have free will, then today I can choose to do either X or Y tomorrow.
5. Suppose God knows everything.
6. So, God knows that I will do X tomorrow. (from 1, 2 and 5 by modus ponens).
7. So, I will do X tomorrow (from 3 and 6).
8. Suppose that I am free.
9. So, I can choose to do Y, and not X, tomorrow. (from 4 and 8)
10. So, tomorrow I do both X and Y (that is, not X) (from 7 and 9).
11. 10 cannot be true (it is a contradiction), so our suppositions (5 and 8) are incompatible.
qed
>>29463095
>your knowledge that someone is eating pasta wouldn't limit their freewill.
Yes it would. The very fact that I am able to know means that it is predetermined, what do you not understand about this?
If he sees time as a singular object, then all of time would be interconnected and predetermined. There is no choice. Also, please stop with the shitty pictures. It's annoying
>>29463190
But they aren't refering to the Abrahamic god. Technically that could mean the Jewish and Muslim god as well, both of which differ greatly from the Christian god
>>29463062
Not sure, but even Abrahamic religions worship Saturn.
>t. Hypercube
>t. Babylonian mysteries
>>29462548
>Atheists say that everything is pre-determined because of immutable scientific laws
>Atheists still want to have laws and prisons
>>29463163
If old-testament God's "eye for an eye" paradigms are invalid under the new covenant, then why is hell a neccesary cosmic institution?
Anyone ever notice the moment you attack religion, people come out of the woodworks seeking to call you a fedora tipper?
Besides, I've read the bible, id rather not waste my time, because the bible indicates that I wont actually burn for eternity. I will simple die a 2nd death in the fiery pits of hell then stop existing. So it's pretty much the same as what I believe now.
Burning alive might suck, but if the christian god is real, then I wont even care about it once I stop existing.
>>29463153
You can't prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars either
you can make all sorts of speculative statements that can never be proven or disproven but in the end do any of those statements have any meaning?
Christianity makes SPECIFIC claims about god, and those specific claims can be argued against. Some Christian apologists love to back down to "well you can't prove or disprove the existence of a God," and then pretend they proved the specific points about Christian theology that are problematic. I know you're not doing that, but it still pisses me off.
>>29462910
>there are uncaused effects
kek
>>29463246
Because they are either:
A) Trolling
B) Upset that someone is bringing them from the delusion that their life is "meaningful"
>>29463248
I'm not arguing in favor of Christianity at all. I just don't see how we can have any perspective about the likelihood of whether the instant which created the universe was set off by some simple physical or chemical process, or by some kind of entity which we don't know the nature of at all. We're talking about something entirely outside of our concept of the universe, so I don't think you can reject it as easily as you're saying. The basic logic which rejects your teapot example can't fairly be used against a situation in which our universes logic doesn't apply.
God gave us freedom, and with freedom comes the ability to do evil.
But He taught us to not do evil. If He makes us unable to do evil then we would not have freedom as we cant do certain things (evil), so He told us not to do it, and if we disobey there are consequences, this is a universal rule as even non-religious people know that what you do has consequences. So there is no excuse.
God gave us creativity, and with creativity comes the power to create good things and bad things, its our choice.but there are consequences
Just remember, if God stopped every evil thing done then we wouldnt have freedom, we would live in the same "Safe Space" "Dont offend me"
SJW world people in this website hate so much.dont say this! its objectively offensive! yes, you do have freedom of speech, but not to say these offensive things<---its the same principle
Youre not stopping evil by silencing it, you can only stop it by teaching people not to do it.
>>29463244
You tell me. But for any Christian sect that takes the Book of Revelation as canon (which is most of them), it specifically states that those not deemed worthy to enter Heaven will be "cast into the lake of fire" and die a second time, this time never coming back. I guess it's not eternal torture, but it's still a punishment that lasts forever.
>>29463248
Good job referencing darwin XDDDD
>>29463153
Basically what >>29463248 said.
It's tantamount to having an imaginary friend that only you can see. Sure, you can't disprove my imaginary friend, but there's no evidence for you to believe it.
>>29463127
>Doesn't that seem fucked to you?
Yes, and you're right for feeling this way. Why would someone create you, only to let you eventually suffer forever?
But this isn't what happens, and that's not what hell is. Hell is when you become addicted to drugs, or sex, or video games, and you feel a longing for something more but don't understand what. You put your faith in material goods and eventually you feel terrible, you might even want to kill yourself. But you can eventually become clean.
>>29463159
If you're the same poster, you literally said "despite being the same shit" so you did say they were the same.
They'll only decay without human intervention. It's like turning wild land into a farm. Eventually the wilderness will reclaim it, unless people stick around to keep it at bay.
Technology can eventually stop the universe from dying too, if humans work together. This is basically what transhumanists believe.
>>29463244
The Old Testament has the credibility of an entire nation (the 3 million Jews that heard God speak and call Moses to Mt. Sinai), Christianity has the credibility of 1 fucking person and the guy didn't even witness the shit happen Christianity is objectively LESS credible than any other Abrahamic religion. It's less credible than even Islam since they actually heard their holy prophet first person.
>>29463298
No basic logic can reject the teapot. You could say that it can't be detected with telescopes because it's always somewhere other than where we're looking. You could make other claims to invalidate other ways of proving its existence or not. But in that case, the absence of any possible statement on this teapot or effects from this teapot means that its existence is ultimately a meaningless question, right?
>>29463311
My apologies. I didn't mean the same thing themselves, I meant the same kind of situation, which it is.
>They'll only decay without human intervention. It's like turning wild land into a farm. Eventually the wilderness will reclaim it, unless people stick around to keep it at bay.
Are you so sure that the original structure is still there?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
>>29463303
pretty good shitpostfor anyone interested that's not darwin
>>29463319
>who is Paul
>what is the gospel of John
>>29463304
But there's no evidence to believe in anything else which could have potentially set off the spark which started this universe. It is complete conjecture, there's no real factual basis for what I'm saying, and I hope I didn't imply that. I just think that some kind of conscious entity could have set off our universe just as easily as some other process could. And I'm not at all arguing about a traditional god. If something like what I was conjecturing about did or had existed, it would probably be of an indescribable and incomprehensible nature. It would not be an authority though, it would simply be a creator. I'm not arguing in favor of anything which actively effects our universe, I'm simply saying I feel there's a possibility something created a framework with which our universe could develop.
>>29463120
>Keep in mind that, as a robot you'd have no existential crisis about being pointless, and would not be bothered by being a robot, et cetera. From your perspective, the only difference is that you're happy.
This is a difficult question. In my current state of (perceived) free will, I would say that sounds like shit. For the same reason that Neo wished to escape the matrix, I wouldn't want to be free of mind. My main problem with this idea is that for God, such an endeavor would seem utterly pointless. Why create a race of mindless drones who only ever experience happiness?
> Why did you bring it up, then?
I didn't, I'm just acknowledging that faith is important from a Christian point of view. For that reason, a God that obviously existed wouldn't make sense
> If he's god, why would he simply alter his ego to feel stroked?
It would be more accurate to say that he is interested in developing a relationship with a sentient race. Why would he choose such a roundabout method of accomplishing such a goal? In order to develop a genuine relationship, the most effective backdrop would be a world in which God seemingly does not exist (one in which there exists epistemic distance). If God's existence were obvious, then the concepts of morality and judgement would become essentially meaningless.
Hence why evil is permitted, despite the existence of a benevolent God
> In what way, other than rhetoric, is this different from being infinitely far into the future?
I made this comparison here >>29463095
>>29463337
The teapot is a meaningless question, but that's because no one gives a shit about a teapot. If you don't find discussion on the nature of god or the lack of gods existence worthwhile, what are you doing in this thread?
>>29463246
> people come out of the woodworks seeking to call you a fedora tipper?
Has this happened once in this thread?
> Burning alive might suck, but if the christian god is real, then I wont even care about it once I stop existing.
A good example of the epistemic distance I was talking about earlier >>29463391
For anyone wondering
>>29463300
GOD DIDN'T TEACH US (meaning anyone alive today) SHIT! He never came down to Earth and told all of us anything. We can't even be sure he exists or who he is because there are so many different Gods and religions! He needs to come down periodically if he wants us to believe. Otherwise, he's just setting us up for failure.
Furthermore, I'm FINE with living in a safe space. Give everyone equality (not equal shit, btw) and take out any bad feelings from this world, set our brains up to worship you 5 times a day and we're literally golden. Nirvana.!
>>29462548
Think it through. Let's pretend that you had the ability to see into the future. So, you use your newfound ability and see that person "X" is going to attack you. Now, does the fact that you knew what this person was about to do make them any less guilty? No, it does not.
>>29463378
Sure theres a possiblity, but making this random strong assumption makes a lot less sense than to assume nothing happened. The idea that there is no god is the only option with a shred of evidence. Not to say that it's true, but there is no other evidence for any god, which serves as evidence against the existence of a god.
>>29463365
anyone can google teapot and find dawkins.
>>29463370
Paul was actually replaced with William Campbell in the First Council of Nicea
Not many people know that, the Church tries to keep people from knowing because worshippers would be upset if they knew
>>29462233
>all knowing God knows the outcome of the future events
>all knowing God knows the outcome of your life
>your life already has a set outcome
What free will? Every choice you've made is already predetermined.
Also
>Implying an all knowing God exists
>>29463456
It originally came from Bertrand Russel though
>>29463399
Discussion on whether specific points of Christian theology are worthwhile, because they can be argued for or against. If you take away those points, and leave yourself with this unknowable God, it is worthwhile to discuss whether the question of existence of such a god has any meaning. I'm simply arguing it does not.
>>29463451
So nothing happened and the universe started? Even if you ignore what I'm saying about an entity sparking it off, I think it seems more likely that something started things. And remember, I'm not arguing in favor of a real god, just something that could be described as godlike if you wanted to. The concrete defines of what I'm really arguing for are that I believe there's a possibility that some kind of entity intentionally played a role in the creation of our universe, in some kind of logical, scientific process which we lack the knowledge to understand.
>>29463370
>Who is James Applegate
>Who is Ti
Right, Why did Jesus only talk to these two? Why couldn't he make some giant message in the Sky and keep it there for all eternity? He could write something like, "I'm Jesus, worship me or burn in fire".
>>29463520
Why would it seem more likely? Again, there is no evidence to suggest this, so I'd like to hear why you think so. Because at this point we're simply arguing opinions.
>>29463510
Fair enough. I will admit that it doesn't have much all too much significance to it, but I personally am intrigued by that argument. So I guess we've basically been arguing about the utility of that conversation more than the actual points.
>>29463211
I postulate that the phenomenon we call "free will" requires only our own uncertainty of what will occur.
Given a universe that follows constant physical laws, is this requirement of a spacially/temporally unbounded observer not superfluous to debunking a loftier definition free will?
>>29463431
>he didnt teach us shit
ever heard of the bible?
>he needs to come down periodically for us to believe
really? Most people believe Julius Caesar existed, but last time I checked he didnt revive himself every 10 years to show us that hes real, no one currently living has ever seen him but they still believe he existed. People still believe in black holes, even though its impossible to take a picture of one or even be close to one. Why is that?
>Im fine with living in a safe space
SJW detected, the world doesnt care about your feelings, man up.
>set our brains up to pray 5 times a day
so youre fine with being a slave?
>>29463554
I never said more likely. I said there's a possibility. I think there's a possibility, and as a human being with a desire to desperately cling to what little semblance of understanding I can find, I prefer to have some kind of developed opinion on the issue. I'm not saying it's necessarily true, I'm saying that I know there's a possibility it's true, and I'll hold onto that. The alternative seems to be complete randomness, which always could also definitely be argued for. The entity concept is just my flavor of the week.
>>29463527
Jesus appeared to over 500 people after his death. he performed many miracles among the first believers, and continues to do so to this day. I listed those two as they are written by eye witnesses. Luke and Mark are informed by eyewitnesses, but not written directly by them.
>>29463584
gonna eat, so i wont reply for a bit, brb
>>29462233
>god
>existing
Top kek.
>God reals because muh bible
>muh Koran
>muh Torah
>muh bagava Gita
>>29463600
>I think it seems more likely that something started things.
>>29463600
Oh, I guess I did say more likely, about something other than what I was thinking of. I was wrong to say that, I'll give you that, the concept of everything just starting randomly on it's own is totally legitimate.
>>29463622
"I think it seems more likely that something started things" could easily include god, making it a much stronger theory.
>>29463622
I know, don't worry, I realized I'm a retard.
>>29463633
That's not really relevant to what he was pointing out, but that's essentially my argument, not that I'd call it strong. I don't think you can fairly call it a theory, I think it's more within the realm of a hypothesis.
>>29463391
>being happy sounds like shit
Christcucks, everyone
> for God, such an endeavor would seem utterly pointless
For god, any endeavor is pointless. If he's pursuing a feeling, he can simply give himself the feeling. If he has a want, he can simply alter himself not to want whatever it is.
>I didn't
see >>29462726
>Would faith not also seem pointless if God were constantly preventing evil, and thereby making his existence indisputable?
>in which God seemingly does not exist
Doesn't the existence of so many monotheistic religions pretty flatly contradict this? Also, see what I said above about god being able to sate all of his desires in a straightforward manner.
Additionally, would a perfect god have desires?Would a divine being be so profane as to have some specific itch they're trying to scratch? And lastly, what evidence do you have for him wanting this?
>I made this comparison here >>29463095
>If you existed outside of linear time, your knowledge that someone is eating pasta wouldn't limit their freewill.
It wouldn't limit their freewill, but it would indicate a lack of such will, because such choices must be impossible to predict with certainty to be free.
Just letting you all know that I'm lurking attentively.
>>29464277
Are you God? :1
