Religion BTFO

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=IQUsK2eNkfc&t
youtube.com/watch?v=PYSmV2FlHDw&t
youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_loop
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

bumpin'

Me. Ask me anything

The titans you dumb fuck

if nothing can be created out of nothing, what created the universe?
atheism btfo

lol, atheism is the dumbest religion ever.

Who created you?

Lol not playing sport is the dumbest sport

"OFF" is the dumbest TV channel ever.

Myself

The Universe is expanding.

>if the universe originates from the big bang, where does the infinitesimal point of mass it originates from come from.

No one "created" god, since he isn't constrained to the concept of "time".

For once the atheist is right.

You can apply the same thing to the theory of the big bang though.

In the end, all both sides have is theories.

CHECKMATE EVERYONE!

See, you'd have a point if atheists didn't actually watch 'OFF' but since they do, yeah it's the dumbest 'channel' ever.

It was an accident. Lots of energy is weird, yo.
The collective conscious doesn't give a fugg, never forget faggots.

If God is a jewish creation how come Sup Forums goes in religious mode?

Sup Forums btfo. The absolute state!

God is a kid with an ant farm. Who's kid tho?

Oops, missed the strayan. Similar to your Lithuanian friend you'd have a point if atheists didn't form 'not playing sport' teams and 'not playing sport' leagues and want people to come to all their 'not playing sport' events.

Looks like the atheist bots are out today.

This is what, the 5th anti-Christ post on page 1?

Super God.

Alpha and the Omega user, god created the Universe and thus created man. Man will grow and evolve to the point where they create god.

Rinse and Repeat

>God is a magic floating space being
>Not a collective term for the invisible forces beyond our understanding, such as time
>Not a term for a being that lives beyond these forces, associating with us akin to a 3D object in a flatworld.

youtube.com/watch?v=IQUsK2eNkfc&t

youtube.com/watch?v=PYSmV2FlHDw&t

Kind of a DUDE ATHEISM LMAO image but the point holds. You say the problem is the universe can't come from nothing, so it must have been created. Yet the common answer to this problem is to create an abstract concept called "God" and push the burden of creation onto that concept. But this doesn't actually solve the problem. You're just pushing the "created from nothing" problem onto something less tangible and more palatable. If you were to follow the logic diligently, you would have to ask what created God, going down the line infinitely. Religion then comes up with a bunch of contrivances to avoid this.

Really the problem is religion doesn't deal in falsifiable claims, so any attempt at discussing them will inevitably boil down to "what I believe is right and what you believe is wrong", without actually answering any of the fundamental questions.

god

No because naturalism requires a natural cause

>This image shows the position of the most distant galaxy discovered so far within a deep sky Hubble Space Telescope survey called GOODS North (Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey North). The survey field contains tens of thousands of galaxies stretching far back into time.The remote galaxy GN-z11, shown in the inset, existed only 400 million years after the Big Bang, when the Universe was only 3 percent of its current age. It belongs to the first generation of galaxies in the Universe and its discovery provides new insights into the very early Universe. This is the first time that the distance of an object so far away has been measured from its spectrum, which makes the measurement extremely reliable.GN-z11 is actually ablaze with bright, young, blue stars but these look red in this image because its light was stretched to longer, redder, wavelengths by the expansion of the Universe. Credit: NASA, ESA, and P. Oesch (Yale University)

Perhaps God resides here

>izquotes
Normie detected

>"God" and push the burden of creation onto that concept.
God is a humanized concept so that you can have a relationship with him.
> follow the logic diligently, you would have to ask what created God
God created human logic, and you would like to disprove God with this same logic. If you were actually diligent, you would be able to specify which logic you are using, as there are many formal logic systems. Even then you would need to justify your assumptions, and those of the propositional logic. You are shooting down libraries full of religious texts with "muh logic". I'm not even exaggerating - that's your argument.
What you're looking for is a scientific proof of the existence of God. However, scientific methods cannot prove anything in an absolute sense. That is the domain of religion, its primary dealings being in the domain of the soul. These are things that must be experiences personally (subjectively). Science aims to be objective. You're attempting to act in one domain on the dealings of another - you would first need to create a mapping between the two. A noble goal, but saying that you have solved it with such a statement is laughable.

>never read the Summa

Feel shame, OP, your ignorance is showing.

God beez eternal n sheiiitt

Hail Aquinas!

Q predicted this

christian server bkXHBgq

But the Gods that were born by the Titans did not create the Universe

KEK created GOD

No one. God is necessary: he is eternal and uncreated.

Please study basic logic

See if people only had half of cells braincells we wouldn't be in this predicament.

Nothing is eternal cheddarnigger,now stop worshipping yahweh.

Top post.

Also the question people who want a sensible discussion should start off with is why. Not what. Why is there anything, when there could be just nothing instead. Now that is the beginning of an interesting discussion.

The universe

That question is fucking retardation incarnate. Things that begin to exist have causes. God doesn’t begin to exist. Thus, to say that God has a cause is nonsense. Put another way: God is fully actual, having no potentiality. Only that which is less than fully actual has a cause. Thus God has no cause. Go read read you some Aristotle and Aquinas.

God, as the First Source and Center, is primal in relation to total reality—unqualifiedly. The First Source and Center is infinite as well as eternal and is therefore limited or conditioned only by volition.
God—the Universal Father—is the personality of the First Source and Center and as such maintains personal relations of infinite control over all co-ordinate and subordinate sources and centers. Such control is personal and infinite in potential, even though it may never actually function owing to the perfection of the function of such co-ordinate and subordinate sources and centers and personalities.
The First Source and Center is, therefore, primal in all domains: deified or undeified, personal or impersonal, actual or potential, finite or infinite. No thing or being, no relativity or finality, exists except in direct or indirect relation to, and dependence on, the primacy of the First Source and Center.

Mega-God

I might want to watch the "OFF" channel. Your not my mother.

...

prove you where created
science btfo

He's always been

youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ

You're welcome

...

...

The universe exists contingently, meaning that logic doesn’t forbid it from being something else or not existing at all. Hence, it needs a cause. God exists necessarily, in the same way as e.g. laws of logic exist, so it needs no cause. It’s philosophy 101...

God created God. Paradox lies at the center and foundation of existence.

Infinity equals one.

>God exists if I throw logic out the window.

God created God. He's God, he manifested himself from the void.

God was never created, he is infinte and eternal.

Creation requires a beginning, there is no beginning of God. The Creation begins with the Christ. Before the Christ, there is no creation, no material, no time.

Events happening before the Christ would not follow human logic for sequence of events. Entities prior to time can be realized, or eventuated.

That doesn't happen anywhere outside of the US, though, and only because you're halfway to a theocracy where it becomes a legitimate political protest to "be atheist".

In other countries it's just "Do you believe in God?" "I dunno man" "K". In the US you've shoehorned "UNDER GOD" and "GOD BLESS AMERICA" into everything, so that's a bit different.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_loop

God creates the universe, the universe goes on to create god so he can create the universe, this repeats for infinity.

If the singularity created the universe, where did the singularity come from?

I think you missed the point.

Nothing can create god because god is creation itself. BTFO.

chaos

In the way the universe arose about itself, so should a god

I'd wager that our concept of God delineates from a man who ascended in power that of our own, but merely after the creation of the universe. In a stroke of revisionism, just as all kings have at one point, take for example Kim Jong un, claimed himself god and having made the universe, and sent down his messenger. Or it's possible that none of this is true that creationism is a farce, and we live in a universe which sustained itself. In fact, it's entirely possible we don't even exist, and that nothing of this is real. We could be a thought in the mind of a more complex creature, from a 5 dimensional world we couldn't even believe of comprehending in the slightest lest our skull burst from the thought. Wouldn't know either way

Nu-uh.
>You're attempting to act in one domain on the dealings of another - you would first need to create a mapping between the two.
user says you can't understand god iwth science logic, so you should use godly logic. Which isn't the right way of thinking about it imo.
;
Also, show your flag

our father attained sufficient understanding after evolving the ability to dream such that he was able to construct the framework of the world and then project it outward placing him and all his children in that world. at that time, he had created the world as well as his self within it by illuminating the unknown. he then shared most of his knowlege with adam and his tribe excluding the knowlege of good and evil (which adam and eve discovered anyway).

so the answer is that God, The Father created the world and also created himself within it. things that are not in the world need not be created because they are without form and void.

A common misconception.
Energy conservation only applies to our system.

Haha okie dokie internet friend!

Infinity equals one.

Atheists lack the ability to conceive of grand concepts such as eternity. This is what leads them to constantly embarrass themselves like OP has.

God is an omnipotent and omniscient concept. God exists outside of time and is eternal. God has no beginning and no end. God was not created.

>We've defined God as something that always existed, therefore he always existed
Makes perfect sense.

Also, at one point all of the energy of the universe was contained in an extremely small particle, before it expanded. Quantum particles can appear and dissapear at random, into (seemingly) thin air. So the universe has a known mechanic of physics that could've made it appear out of nowhere. Just from that sentence alone, it would seem far more likely than a god.

The idea here here is: In our universe, things follow logic. Since God by definition isn't part of it, we can just make shit up.

>God is an omnipotent and omniscient concept. God exists outside of time and is eternal. God has no beginning and no end. God was not created.
That's just a statement of what you believe to be true. How do you know that it is?

>Quantum particles can appear and dissapear at random, into (seemingly) thin air. So the universe has a known mechanic of physics that could've made it appear out of nowhere
This is incorrect and Krauss has gotten absolutely buttblasted over it in the scientific community for pushing it. You need an underlying something for quantum particles to appear from, that isn't nothing. What you mean is the universe has a known mechanic that could've made it appear out of SOMETHING that might have existed before the universe. Not nothing, not nowhere.

>who created god
Man did. Animals have no concept of god

We are, all is.
>doesn't even know the hermetic principals

>God is an omnipotent and omniscient concept. God exists outside of time and is eternal. God has no beginning and no end. God was not created.
The when did god wait a literal eternity before creating?

>How do you know that it is
Because that's the definition of God. It seems you're getting upset because people aren't letting you arbitrarily dictate what the characteristics of the Christian God are when it's been known and accepted what those characteristics are for thousands of years.

God fits every definition of a meme. The concept has overpowered the object. Most religions are strongly idolatrous, even Islam which rejects it.

There are two big issues with this "argument".

The first is that it doesn't understand the argument of the 'unmoved mover'. It is the invocation of an uncaused actor as a logical beginning point, otherwise we're stuck with the logically impossible scenario of infinite regression: a past with an infinite number of historical events. We know that this is impossible both philosophically (Hilbert's Hotel) and scientifically (Lemaître showing the universe is historically finite, confirmed by Vilenkin quite recently). Therefore Sagan's meme response of "but if we say God is eternal, why can't we say the universe is eternal?" falls flat on its ass both scientifically and philosophically.

Secondly, let's say for the sake of argument that there was a god-creator. Who created God? Well... God! Going by the Ontological argument, the very definition of "God" is the highest possible being. So if there's a higher being above "God", then "God" isn't God, but the creator of "God" is instead God. However, this only introduces a useless middle man for whom there is neither proof, nor has a necessary role in this chain of events. Therefore with Ockham's razor we can cut this sub-god out of the equation.

>You can apply the same thing to the theory of the big bang though.
Not really, as the Big Bang theory proves a historically finite universe. That's why it was so heavily criticized at the time: many atheists believed in a historically infinite universe that would not require a beginning nor a creator. Some still try to do this with the retarded shit called the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics. Why this is even considered equal to the Copenhagen interpretation is beyond me, considering it once again introduces needless premises that explain nothing.

There's a very good reason why philosophically minded atheists don't use the "WHO CREATED GAWD CHECKMATE XIANS" argument.

>That's why it was so heavily criticized at the time: many atheists believed in a historically infinite universe that would not require a beginning nor a creator.
It's funny how they forget this. The person who originally proposed the Big Bang Theory (He called it the "Cosmic Egg Theory") was a Catholic priest and he was largely ignored by the scientific community because they called it "creationism in disguise". Now all of them champion a theory that was originally rejected for being too close to creationism as proof of why creationism is wrong. Hilarious.

We could argue that they're "necessary", and thus we can skip any logical objections you might have. Why are you applying logic to pre-universe nothingness?

I'm interested in why you think this specific thing is true. I'm willing to listen, but I can't accept what's essentially 'it's this way because it's this way'.

>>It is the invocation of an uncaused actor as a logical beginning point, otherwise we're stuck with the logically impossible scenario of infinite regression: a past with an infinite number of historical events.
>"Infinite regression doesn't make sense, so we'll make shit up"
Two wrongs don't make a right. (Or in this case: Two "This doesn't make sense"'s doesn't make it make sense)

>1 post by this id
just shut it down already

How are these two illogical premises? The argument is simply "regress to the infinite is logically impossible, therefore this regress has to stop at some point".

Or do you think the very idea of something that's uncaused but can cause other things is somehow illogical? If so:
1. Explain why this is illogical.
2. This forces you into the position where you have to accept something that's both logically and scientifically wrong: the historically infinite universe.

By claiming that the solution to a logical problem is illogical, you're forcing yourself to accept the illogical. Are you perhaps calling both scenario's illogical so you have to avoid the logical?

Even a shitposted thread can be made into something interesting if we try. Trust me, I'm from /tg/.

When you realize that there exists on the planet revealed knowledge from God, perhaps you'll put away your microscope and start believing things you cannot see.

Do you play FFXI?

>Where did the material in the universe came from?

SCIENTISTS BTFO

Apatheism is having the TV off. Atheism is shooting a hole in the screen.

>I'm interested in why you think this specific thing is true
The God is omnipotent and exists outside time and space? That's part of his definition. It's like asking why I believe a triangle must have 3 sides. Any 3 sided 2D shape by definition is a triangle.

Wasnt Sweden an Actual Theocracy with an official state church until only recently?

no you can not

That's part of this whole spontaneous generation abiogenesis evolution nonsense that they never face.

How did the head of a pin contain everything that is in the universe today? What caused it to "explode"? How did it escape its own infinite gravity well?

Where did this head of a pin come from?

>Is it not obvious that it was made up to cause you to believe that it might happen, if the singularity were small enough? That a very small singularity (but containing the entire universe) is more acceptable to your imagination than a singularity the size of 17 trillion suns, coming into being from nothing?

He created Himself, or Itself. God is not something organic or natural like humans, He is beyond that

God created us in his image, which means that God is or was a human, too. Ergo, "our" God came from the universe before this one.

He revealed himself as I Am, an eternal spirit being who lives in unapproachable light.

If he did not reveal himself, we would be free to use our own imaginations to shape him for ourselves.

That's not what the phrase means.

When God breathed his breath of life into the clay statue of Adam, Adam became a living being. It is that breath of life, the Ruach Elohim, that is God's image in us.

In other words, when God looked at Adam before the fall of man, God could see himself, his own image, in Adam.

And when a person becomes a born again Christian, that person regains the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit of God that Adam and Eve lost.

God is an eternal being who manifested himself as a human being on earth a few thousand years ago.

He does not come from a different universe. This is it.

The Father created the Son and the Son built the Universe that we live in.
So the answer to OP is the Father

>''If the Universe created the Uni-
Wait. That's impossible.

...

>eternal
If time is no object then the probability that all energy and matter will spontaneously tunnel to the exact same location by accident eventually is 1.

>"Uhh user dont you know that time didnt exist before the big bang?"
>"So stop asking these kind of questions."