Even the smartest man in the world could use a Master

In my opinion, you're doing nothing more than projecting human logic onto the cosmos, which is and will always remain something humanity is clueless about. I see no reason to tolerate make believe. Uncertainty is the only entity here, and therefore scrutiny is our only road to wisdom. No evidence of God, no belief. It should and can be that simple.

So if there are more than one Platonic object without a source from which all things proceeded from, were the respective products of each Platonic object separate in substance and essence from those of each other Platonic object? or were they consubstantial and of a similar kind? If Platonic objects collaborated and coordinated in their products, are they not part of an object of a single greater whole?

Buy scrutiny we have constructed the cosmogony of the Big Bang, a theory which necessitates a temporal and spatial beginning. Nothing existed and then something existed. This is undeniable. We noice that there aren't constant Big Bangs happening at every point in space for all of time, so by the structure and logic of the universe the event isn't continually spontaneous. What were the conditions that caused nothing to become something? We don't know for certain, other than something extraordinary, and something within the realm of metaphysics by definition.

The monotheistic God, "He who is," shares many characteristics of a logically constructed single source of existence. This position requires a leap of faith to advance to, though it's really more of a short hop.

Though I will admit the notion of atemporal causality is beyond the bounds of human understanding and conceptialization, the idea may not necessarily violate the logical rules of causality that have been established

>God literally came in the flesh 2,000 years ago and we have documentation in the form of the best preserved pieces of ancient writing in existence to attest to what He said and did
>LE HURR DURR WERE IS HE? CHECKM8 CHRISRCUXKS

The Big Bang as a theory is under constant and utter scrutiny by every decent physicist alive. No decent scientist will ever claim they have an idea of what made the universe.

>What were the conditions that caused nothing to become something?

We don't know and very likely never will. That's the only answer you'll get, the only true one anyhow.

>we have documentation

You do not.

Just sitting on your ass and thinking about it and you can come to the revelation of God's being, as scripture purports. Why is there anything at all? Why is there something instead of nothing? You have to appeal to infinite multiverse proportionality and statistical frequency of coincidences to answer the question nontheistically, which is foolish because the notion assumes the existence of an eternal superstructure of reality, when you may as well just assume the metaphysically equivalent likelihood of God

The big divider here is that you assume facts while smart people won't go any further than assuming possibilities.

To not consider God as a likely possibility, you must actively be biased against the notion of a God, and be personally uncomfortable with it, because with God comes objective morals, which may cause discomfort to a more emotional thinker.

What facts am I assuming? That the universe has a beginning? That has been shown mathematically, separate from the Big Bang. I guess you could say I assume God is real, because for one it's just likely as the next explanation, and is simpler.

You win this argument because you called me dumb

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.…

biblehub.com/romans/1-19.htm

Feel inside you. He exists. Even as you read this you may have felt such a presence, on the crown of your skull, or in your stomach. Follow where it leads. We too were once dazed and confused, and we only want the best for you here, as you are our brother. Simply look into yourself, and all your issues with the outside world will be in order.

Attached: E94B89BC-FF98-4C7D-8E41-432DA3C9A0D5.jpg (480x480, 51K)

It's nice to say. but acting like it's fact without proving it is kind of moot

As I stated above, God as a metaphysical cause of existence is just as likely as the next explanation, and is simpler. The other explanation is that there is an eternal superstructure of reality that existence spontaneously springs out of, which is barely notionally different from a God

I don't believe something just because it's "just as likely". I believe something when it's "most likely"

What is Occam's razor

chaosbook.org/library/Penr04.pdf Read this, meditate often and strive for the balance of justice and mercy in your life. Exclaim in your soul, “I want to know.” You will find this proof you need, but it’s pretty hard to convey.

Attached: D0C5FF14-F3AE-4275-B2F0-7716A17E0028.gif (451x301, 3.96M)

Occam's razor is not a substitute for a reason, and if Occam's razor is the only thing you have to support a god then why are you using the lowest common denominator, literally the most inconsequential argument possible to convince me?

They must see the beauty, brother. Show them how to see the beauty.

It's hard to reconcile the existence of God after you've read the Epicurus Dilemma.

You are, sort of, god himself sir. Sometimes it’s fine to get carried away with your hide and seek, but for now, we need to remember.

I believe god exists. I also believe he is a terrible, terrible entity, making depictions of the rulers of hell look like children comparatively. I believe that it is impossible to deny that some form of directed, concentrated will is actively forcing our world into an eternal cycle of living hell simple for it's own amusement, going so far as to create all of it's pawns with flaws that are impossible to overcome, then tossing some more fuel onto the fire whenever things become peaceful and it grows bored. I believe that this same scenario is likely being played out on countless other worlds right this very moment, and a near infinite number of civilizations and worlds have died under the heel of this creature. I believe that we likely have no chance against it, because it will never let us reach a point of having a chance against it.

Then I'll use a different argument.
The question under consideration here will: "Why is the anything at all, or why does existence happen as a phenomenon?"
The notion of an eternal superstructure of reality that existence spontaneously springs from offers no explanation to this question. It still leaves us to ponder why this structure is present as a fundamental quality. The notion has no explanatory power here.
The explanation that God created existence does because A quality of God is agency. The agency of God answers the question of why anything exists.
Now, one might ask why either of these entities might be around in the first place, but it is assumed in both of those notion that either of these entities are wholly alien to all other beings, with all other beings being contingent upon them.
Either existence sprang from agency or from non agency, but if it spring from nonagency, what is the tipping point whereupon existence occurs? Are there Platonic objects interacting with each other like clockwork?

You're assuming the universe has a daddy. I assert the very high possibility that the world were a better place if you went to fuck yourself.

Attached: facepalm.gif (512x384, 1.7M)

This is where you lose me. Religion is overall good. Most people have no responsibility and thus will be net negatives upon the world without guidance. There is no mistake that Jesus is referred to as a shepherd, he must lead his flock. However, where you end up losing people is through Christian mysticism that was derived long ago which worked to help people believe. Obviously God needs believers or his commandments and Jesus's life mean nothing. But the bible written then is based on language and understandings applicable at those times. The world has changed greatly, and sciences and discoveries not available to the various contributors of the bible have punctured holes in the mysticism that we once took for granted.

We MUST believe in God, but we must have a reason or else belief in God will beget pretenders and usurpers. If Occam's razor is the best you can tell me then you must study far more before you attempt to convince others, lest you further convince atheists of their own righteousness.

So you just hate God then? Why didn't you just say that upfront?

What has made you hate yourself so much? How can you possibly hold such a view and not understand it’s a complete reflection of your internal state? If it makes it better, even in the void I’ll find you and show you how to love yourself.

>You're assuming the universe has a daddy.
You're assuming it doesn't.

Did you just take psych-101 or something, because that's exactly what that comment sounds like. By virtue of even being on this site, you hate yourself, otherwise you would never have even found it in the first place.

>So you just hate God then?

No. If he exists, all power to him. But as of right now, nothing that I consider truth points at a universal creator.

I'm assuming the possibility that it doesn't. I can do so because believers in God fail to provide evidence.

How could existence come about by nonagency?
Do you have a potential candidate answer besides it is beyond human understand? How would that causally work? How do you start a chain of causality without agency?

It’s not mysticism, show me an atheist mathematician and I’ll show you a filthy liar. Look in my posts, I give you explicit instructions for how to find your proof, and they are long and arguous, but you have the will so you will find the way, ironically enough. Even if you dont* believe, you do*, and that will cause an itching seed in your head to keep growing. When I write like this and it sounds like bs, it’s because when you understand, you see many things are counterintuitive. My words have more power when they are heard by your “soul”. Notice I’m also not being dogmatic about anything, it’s all your choice what you find and what vocab you use to describe it. But when it hits you in the face, it will be stunning

That is misguided, or you may be a shill. The vast majority of people on this site are incredibly successful. As for my comment, it is not psyche 101. Take it literally. I am trying to tell you something.

>1 post by this ID.

>"yes goy, everything is fine in this world, it's you who is the problem!"
ironic that the new most used tactic of shills is to call others shills because they've seen how effective it is.

>How could existence come about by nonagency?

I have no idea.

>Do you have a potential candidate answer besides it is beyond human understand?

Fuck no. If people twice as smart and resourceful as me can't figure this out, what kind of ignorant shitdick would I have to be to pretend I can?

>How do you start a chain of causality without agency?

Once more you're assuming a fact, that existence has a starting point and is finite. The experts believe the opposite.

> Even the smartest man in the world could use a Master

This reminds me of the Roman philosopher Epictetus who called all of his students slaves, because until they learned to master their desires and govern themselves they would never be free.

There is no indication anything at all existed before the Big Bang, why are experts assuming it?

He's coast to coast. Brak is his prophet

It is a blessed thread, many people have come and gone through it and have learned a lot from what you’ve contributed.

I’m outie fuck bitches. Love you all

Attached: 7ACC903C-A409-49F8-85B9-B9672611E1AA.png (960x1024, 1.72M)

Blah blah, your argument boils down to there being a prime mover, because you don't think the universe could have just been there and its matter coalesced leading to the Big Bang, etc, as our atheist friend says is the more likely answer.

At any rate, as an outside observer, why does this prime mover have to be a Jewish war god whom they started to think of as their only tribal god and later as the only god in the world who sent his son to die and create a new religion etc etc etc? Why is this specific one the prime mover?

hi

I'm a Christian, but I'm not advocating for Christianity here. Even Aquinas noticed that he could logically establish God without faith but couldn't do the same for the Christianity. You need faith to be a Christian, and hope you find it. Either way, seek God with all your heart.

Yes, I’m continuing posting on this single, would-be slide thread spreading positivity and spiritual wakefulness with fully original written content, so as to, in fact, hide reality from you.

Oh, but there is. Look for Hawking's thoughts on the Eridanus supervoid.

The prevailing theory of the day is that the universe had a finite starting point. In fact the experts say exactly the opposite that you do.

How does it change your life, really, to admit that God might be real? You can't say one way or another. The idea of an intelligent being having created the universe is so anthropomorphic that it shouldn't be true, but this doesn't mean that we have a definite idea of precisely what happened several milliseconds before and several milliseconds after the Big Bang. We have no definite idea of what caused it, or how we could go about creating a new one.

Well, at least you are willing to admit that what you are saying is not consistent with reality, so there's that.

I'm of the opposite camp. I want to believe from the understanding that God is an end worth pursuing. But I also understand why I do not believe and what would allow people such as myself to believe.

Studying history leads me to understand that first and foremost, God is probably our own invention. A necessary one, but one that did not come on its own. We need God because it is paramount to our ability to abstract. Essentially, God is the most concentrated form of abstraction allowing us to create the greatest of works and the strongest of societies. However, our abstractions only last as long as they make sense. In God's case, God's effect can only work if we believe in Him. Why would we believe in Him? Because we would be rewarded, immeasurably. If we defied him we would be punished immeasurably. These two factors create the Moral Imperative by which we are able to construct working and effective societies; without which, such construction is left up to complete chance by way of social upbringing, and even then, a society built upon that would likely rot after the first couple generations.

This is what we are experiencing now, after the Greatest Generation and the Boomers who have fundamentally disregarded religious and philosophical study in favor of assuaging guilt and other tropes that come with unwarranted success. No longer do the parables create relatable events. Less than a tenth of our population actually engages in farming or hunting their own food. Ours is a world of gadgets and electricity and technology. The Bible was rife with social orders that no longer have any context to our societies, but were specific to the formation of Christian communities before any existed.

But this doesn't have to be the end of God. We created God once, and we can recreate him before the atheists utterly erase Christianity from our society.

I just did, and that seems like a fanciful possible explanation for existence before the Big Bang but by no means evidence for such a thing

Meant to link this

>tfw people spend their whole lives trying to prove God exists when God has the power to come down himself and prove he exists to all the atheists and disbelievers.
Why does God troll his own christians?

assuming that reality exists is necessary for doing literally anything. Its not even remotely equivalent to assuming that god exists.

God has said audible words to me and answers my prayers on the reg with ridiculous specificity. He's not trolling me at all

I am assuming the existence is the ground for all action and is the substrate through which potential becomes actual, yes I will admit that. Though I'm not sure that's assumption so much as it is just my definition of existence, though I will acknowledge I am conflating it with the spacetime substrate that accompanied the big bang

*that is an assumption

Please read the Penrose booki recommend or pursue study of algebraic geometry to understand why such patterns occur. I’m on a tablet, hard to type. But as for your history comment, consider that we do not know the truth of events that unfolded even this week. Go back through history and you may find your concept of what occurred needed to be filled with imagination to make up for a lack of any sense of what occurred. Secondly, consider the movement of a concept from ideation to reality pic related () and try to pinpoint where exactly that boundary occurs. What does that imply about how our world may work? I’ve enjoyed this conversation but sadly I must leave the thread. I hope I got you thinking, your comments got me thinking as well and it wasn’t long ago that I had similar views.

Attached: 0ADA2EDD-6B85-4F35-8016-B57BDC9012A0.png (2642x1822, 2.55M)

Ultimately the question of having faith in God is one of obedience. You cannot expect others to obey if you yourself do not. So the benefits of a faithful society rooted in common Christian values is not one that you have an automatic right towards. It, like all things, comes from people taking part in it. It comes from sincere belief, and since you are incapable of belief it comes from the belief of others.

I myself was born outside of a community of believers. My parents were atheists and raised me that way. I did not come to reject God because I'm unable to govern my own desires. In all too many atheists this seems to be the case and it's completely the wrong reason to resist religion.

The ancients lived in a world where God and country were the same thing, where people lived without gods but still gave homage to them, still maintained the social order. The materialists of old still had ethical systems that guided them and they still read and learned. They reflected upon themselves and their actions and examined the world around them. We've stopped doing that. Maybe we should consider starting again.

nigga wat the fuck are you saying?

God's cool, and I thank all of the atheist bros here that argued in good faith. Without critics some thoughts would never be thought, some depths of God would go uninvestigated.

nice

So do the hindus, muslims, pagans of all sorts, norse mythology or even zotoastrianism. What makes their documentation have less value? # of pages? Kalevala is my religion, it's as thoroughly documented as anything from multiple sources even.

I genuinely fear for what will happen if sincere Christians disappear. We need them or else all of us are lost. I mean that the Muslims will literally cut off our heads.

Let me rephrase and correct errors:
I am assuming that existence is the ground for all action and is the substratum through which potential becomes actual, yes I will admit that. Though I'm not sure that is an assumption so much as it is just my operant definition for existence. I will acknowledge that I am conflating existence with the spacetime substratum that began with the Big Bang.

Thats entirely unrelated to the point I made that assuming that reality exists is not equivalent to assuming that god exists. One necessary assumption does not imply open season making you free to assume anything you want.

>You cannot expect others to obey if you yourself do not.

This is my biggest problem. Should we not be the leaders for others? Shouldn't we suppress our own feelings about this knowing that the net benefit of our societies and people is worth our own discomfort? I imagine the men before us who created the various belief systems that enabled us to distill social values into an easily parsed doctrine must have had the same thoughts. As I said, I believe that God is our ability of abstraction. It's our ability to foresee the future and think long term and apply solutions to problems we haven't even encountered yet. God is the creation of ours which allows us to rise above the short term needs and instant gratification in order to truly achieve delayed gratification through the betterment of our peoples.

Do we really have the luxury of belief, as people who may understand this? The more I think about it, the more I understand what a grave mistake we've made by allowing the obfuscation of our values and concentrating on the mysticism and nonsense that once was a very compelling part of Christianity specifically.

I'm not a philosopher, I am not going step by step through the logical points that greater men than I have enumerated many times before, I'm just putting the arguments into digestible form for those interested in reading.

its still not equivalent. "Assume God exists" and "Assume reality exists" are in fact entirely different statements with different means as God=/=reality. So you would have to show that assuming reality exists is in fact equivalent to assuming god exists. I cant see a way for you to do that.

A better reason for why we should believe in God is out of love of goodness and truth, since it is in our nature to do what is good for us and others, and that's just what virtue is in fact. Love of God should be out of deep gratitude, however, but even in its most basic form it manifest as a requisite duty, like our loyalty to our family, only more important because it is much more essential than that.

It doesn't seem like your assessing my specific points or that you understand what my arguments are

God-haters would consider this faggy

>Why is there anything at all? Why is there something instead of nothing? You have to appeal to infinite multiverse proportionality and statistical frequency of coincidences to answer the question nontheistically, which is foolish because the notion assumes the existence of an eternal superstructure of reality, when you may as well just assume the metaphysically equivalent likelihood of God

>which is foolish because the notion assumes the existence of an eternal superstructure of reality, when you may as well just assume the metaphysically equivalent likelihood of God
It seems like you just equated assuming reality exists to assuming that god exists

It is in our nature to do nothing. Our natural state is one of utter survival or inaction. If we must survive, we will do anything. If we do not have to do anything to survive, we will do nothing. Our nature is infact the thing we seek to suppress through abstraction. Through Abstraction we can see past the jungle into cities with electricity, rockets, fuel, and the internet. And through God we obtain our strongest Abstraction - by ignoring our urges and strengthening our resolve to better ourselves and those around us, we can create a world that is best for everyone. Goodness and truth mean nothing if we are rubbing sticks in a jungle. Survival always has been the final goal of humanity, and Utter Survival will eventually mean Heaven for humanity.

It is our perogative to create Heaven through our works and our deeds.

He's in another dimension along with your soul, use yojr soul to contact him

No here I'm just saying you must either assume that existence has a source that does or does not have agency. Then I later stated that to say that the source of existence has no agency has further complications in that you have to explain how existence came to be by a mechanism of generation that starts a causal chain ie that is acausal

God isn't in another dimension
Consider the idea that spacetime is constituted by fundamental particles. Where would these particle be located? Everywhere and nowhere. They would be everywhere spacetime is located, but no level of investigation would reveal a single location of their inhabitance

So its just the standard prime mover argument. Not particularly interesting, we dont know why the big bang happened, but that will be a question asked when we have smoothed out some of the kinks that come with any model of cosmogony. Potential ideas could include that the universe is just one of many universes in a larger multiverse system.