Can anyone disprove the proof in pic related? It follows the laws of reason

Can anyone disprove the proof in pic related? It follows the laws of reason

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Argument_from_contingency
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

This doesn’t really take into account God’s character, nature, or essence

>It follows the laws of reason
It is literally a contradiction. "All is temporal and has a beginning, therefore not all is temporal and some does not have a beginning"
All this serves to do is prove that at least one of its premises is false.

So either
>not all is temporal
>not all that is temporal must have a beginning
or
>it is possible for being to arrive from non-being

the writer makes a jump here and just pulls out of his ass the claim that the answer "must be" #1 and above, that not all is temporal.
then he makes another jump and pulls out of his ass the claim that "if something exists which is eternal, that something must be god" which needs a whole other argument of its own

>If all is temporal

That is not true.

the traditional christian response to this is just "you don't understand god's definition of evil"
but then, if "good and evil" for god mean totally different things than good and evil mean to us, how can we truly say that god is good and not evil? all this ends up is "god says god is good", in the same way that the DPRK government says it is a Democratic People's Republic
if the only proof that an authority is just is that authority's own word, you can and should immediately doubt it

How is it not true? Temporal in this sense means relative to worldly rather than spiritual affairs

Read it again I think you either have a faulty understanding or are not explaining your point very clearly...

Just because something is secular does not mean it has to have begun somewhere. The point of the universe, and of existence, is that it was always omnipresent. Existence simply is, and always was, it doesn't have a genesis.

For example: the big bang. The universe didn't "begin" with it, it just transformed the universe from an entity that is infinitely big and infinitely dense to an entity that is STILL infinitely big but now slightly less dense.

A logical proof/argument consists of the following elements
>1. a list of premises, aka claims taken as true without argument
these can be simple things like "the sun is hot" and even basic rules of logic such as "if A or B is true, and A is false, then B must be true" (these are usually not mentioned explicitly), but they can also be more complex claims.
>2. arguments from the premises, using principles of logic
but note that if an "argument" introduces more information or another claim that's not based on already-stated claims, it's actually another premise
>3. a conclusion
the result of the argument

All an argument serves to do is prove that "IF you accept all these premises are true, THEN the conclusion must be true as well".

This argument has the following premises, aka claims the reader must accept before accepting the argument or conclusion:
>all (except god?) is temporal
>that which is temporal has a beginning
>it is not possible for being to arise from non-being
>if something eternal predates something temporal, the former must necessarily have created the latter
>if something eternal created something temporal, that eternal thing must be god

Then, based on this list of "assumed to be true" statements, it makes a series of logical arguments and arrives at the conclusion that god exists. Like any logical argument, this "proves" the conclusion, but ONLY if the reader accepts every premise as true.
To formulate a stronger argument, one must prove those premises from first principles or from more generally-accepted facts about reality.

No it isn’t god created us with free will to choose to follow him and his teachings or not
It’s really not a simple concept, maybe your fedora is on too tight

not a single line is logically sound
the very first sentence builds on an flawed premise

This proves that some things are eternal, not that god exists, unless you interpret god as nothing but a phenomenon/law in physics.

regarding the very first, flawed, premise:
there's still no verdict on whether time is an intrinsic property of our universe or simply a phenomenon of our perception.

ah yes
famines that kill and tsunamis that kill innocent sinless children are of course a product of human free will
if those damn babies weren't inherently guilty of sin because their retard great-grandparents ate a cursed fig, maybe their pregnant mother wouldn't have decided to live somewhere that would get hit by a natural disaster in 9 months

>all is temporal
>some is eternal

Well which is it, user?

>It follows the laws of reason
>the laws of reason
>laws
>reason
top kek m8

How do you know it's only one God? There could be thousands, millions etc. Or what if a super intelligent alien race created the universe?

>It follows the laws of reason

Are you serious? That's like someone's saying "There is lightning, but I don't know why there is lightning, but it has to come from somewhere, so someone must have created it, so there is a god", just more elaborate. It's still bullshit because of several premises regarding the concepts of existence and time that are more than unscientific.

This is just going right over your no doubt balding head and you’re missing what gods role is supposed to be. He’s not supposed to fit your weird superhero mold but I doubt I’m going to change your bitter mlp obsessed poisoned mind on a 4 Chan board dedicated to interracial homosexual cuck feet worshippers

That's pretty much what the Greeks did

ah yes, actually killing children is morally cool and good (but only when god does it!) and atheists just can't understand because they're too stupid

I wish that I was born 600 years later, I hope that it is enough to finally get rid of those delusions about god

also guys, easy money for you - go to the nearest dentist and tell him that you will buy every torned out tooth for 50 cents. Then you come back home, put all those teeth under your pillow for the tooth fairy and when you wake up, you have 1 dollar for each!

Lmfao ah yes,
Ah yes,
Ah yes, please ah yes, post your picture ah yes,

>God is omniscient
Meaning he knows all
>God constantly "tests" humans
Meaning he's either not omniscient or he's malevolent and just likes to fuck with people
Take Job for instance
Job worshipped good faithfully and lived a happy life with a wife and children
Then to prove a point to Satan he ripped all of those things away from Job, not quickly either he drew it out as long as possible
The entire time Job's faith did not falter he prayed for this hell to end and god was basically like "lol no"
Why the fuck would god have to prove anything to anyone?
If he already knows all and everyone knows he knows all simply his word alone would be enough

>board dedicated to interracial homosexual cuck feet worshippers
that's actually quite precise description

Exactly. If god is real, fuck god because god is a dickhead.

I forget which movie it was, I think Constantine, where the guy said "god is a kid with an ant farm".

If a god exists that's probably the best explanation for how it is as a being. There's probably a whole race of enteral beings.

That's not the argument in OP's pic though. We're discussing the existence of god, not a NICE god.

So what you're telling me is big bang was a NASA hoax? Fuckin knew it

>There's probably a whole race of enteral beings.
too much d&d mate

Lol that was Bruce Almighty
Constantine might have said something similar but I'm not as familiar with it

And nothing giant and sentient can possibly be out there right?

Point 5 contradicts point 1

constantine was both shitty and awesome movie

It actually makes more sense that a hyper advanced race of beings we couldn't comprehend even while looking directly at them created everything we know than some bearded sky daddy did

Yeah I've seen it
It's just I've seen Bruce Almighty a million times because Jim Carrey is the best

But for real though, why lightning gotta look like that? It's whatever "writes" the laws of physics that interests me.

of course it would make more sense, but both theories are still fuckin stupid, it's like saying that unicorns are better than gremlins

both things dont exist

Did you ever consider that we're all disposable but still loved? Like a Gardner tending to flowers, they know when to prune to keep the whole plant alive.

Through science not worship will you find the answers to those questions
>You can play the why game with literally anything and eventually break down every argument about anything
We don't know everything user
But we're damn sure trying to figure it out

Time is an illusion.
"Eternity" is a fictional concept.
Nothing is eternal.

that which is eternal is the universe
>but the big bang
it only changed its nature from singularity to space-time. big deal.

>We don't know everything user
>But we're damn sure trying to figure it out

wait, are those signs of intelligent mind on Sup Forums? Is there actually a person that doesn't jerk off to gods and flat earth?

>Gardner's don't sit back and watch as the neighboring plants rape their beloved roses to death

>Time is an illusion.
sigh....

In my analogy, the earth is the garden. So I immediately imagined aliens buttfucking a bunch of rose people

The existence of God in the first place creates a problem even more complex than temporal creation. The solution to a problem cannot be more impossible than the problem itself. Done

why would you buttfuck a rose

Major flaws in 4

I usually come here to shitpost and act like a retard
Which is what I believe most Sup Forumstards are here for
>Or at least used to be

i lost faith in that, i honestly believe that at least 40% of tards here are genuine tards

Because it looks like a pussy you idiot. Also soft.

As I said
>Used to be

If.

Lol good shit

Not the person you're replying to, but it sure looks like you are the one with faulty understanding, or more likely simply baiting. "Premise" 5 specifically nullifies "Premise" 1.

Or, in other words, if "Premise" 5 is true, then "Premise" 1 can not be assumed, in fact the opposite would have to be true.

But you probably already knew that are baiting or shilling your scrambled "arguments" with full knowledge of the level of bullshit contained therein.

Tl/dr -- OP is a fag and sage all fields

If anyone actually paused for a moment and really considered that the universe exists; really used your mental capacity to open to the meaning of that statement, then the existence of god becomes self-evident.

It is only people with lesser mental faculties who could think otherwise. Oh sure, some of you may even be intellectuals with high IQ's, but consider what I said. Ponder on the fact of existence. Allow your mind to work without the low-level rationalising and intellectual masturbation which passes for thought in our society. Consider that everything_fucking_exists.

Also, as a separate but related exercise, you could also consider that all human ideas about god are wrong. We're like ants trying to understand a skyscraper. Consider that all we can really conceptualise about god is that it caused the universe to come into being. And leave it at that.

Disappointing, having read Constantine since he first appeared in Swamp Thing. But yeah, somehow still awesome.

This

>1. If all is temporal then all has a beginning
Non-sequitor. Infinite time as a concept is entirely possible.

>4. It is not possible for being to arise from non-being (...)
Begging the question. There is no inherent logical contradiction in something coming into existance from nothing from one time to another, and nor is there a contridiction in something being there from the beginning of time.

>6. That which is eternal brought into existence that which is temporal
Non-sequitor. Even overlooking the errors to this point, nowhere does it follow that the eternal created other stuff.

Why do religious people spend so much time trying to conclude God with rhetoric, and so little time trying to demonstrate him with observations?

>and so little time trying to demonstrate him with observations?
it's difficult to provide proof for total bullshit you made up

I'm not saying I haven't thought a time or two that some kind of higher power exists which is why I'm mostly agnostic about the whole situation
But time and time again throughout human civilisation gods have always been present be they tribal clans or advanced cities
Take the Greeks for example they had what was considered the best advancements at the time
Yet their gods consisted of a bunch of inbred children with powers we couldn't dream of

I like the cut of your jib. Specifically, I think you're one of the few humans on earth who actually understands begging the question,

you launch an arrow and before it can hit its target it has to make a stop at a half way point and before it can make it to that half way point it has to do another.
logic says that the arrow could never reach its target because of an infinite number of halfway points

logic is wrong

>I'm not saying I haven't thought a time or two that some kind of higher power exists
Stop there. Quit while you're ahead. The rest is just stuff your mind made up.

...

Dafuq? Whatever passes for thought in your head is rotting your brain.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise
uneducated pleb

Man, 2009. Script kiddies and mods having fun.

Achilles and the Tortoise

I'm quite familiar with the idea. But you posting it as a serious comment on the existence of god is retarded.

it wasn't me

and you were oblivious to the idea, you liar

>Your mind made up
Wat
Open a history book user every civilisation has had it's own god(s)
But the more they advance the more they disprove them
I even stated I was agnostic meaning I'm unsure
But I'm definitely leaving more towards no

Rosefucker user supports this man

>all things are temporal and have a beginning (1,2,3)
gavin wince does a good job of providing a well rounded theory of multidimensional time. in his theory all that needs to be provided for a beginning to not be what we think it is is for the sole evidence of inflation (doppler redshift) to have an alternative explanation, which he then provides. while he is a boring speaker and the physics involved is quite high brow, the idea that the universe functions the way we expect it to even after our discoveries of quantum phenomena showed it didn't is kind of stupid. applying linear logic to a system without enumerating all the factors involved in that system is not, in fact, logical.
>it is not possible to arise from non being
the spontaneous generation of particle antiparticle pairs in empty space is demonstrable and has a conservative observable force (casimir force) associated. that means space spontaneously creates the equation 0 = -1 + 1 around us.. that is, we can observe right now things arising from nonbeing into being
>therefore some is eternal
this is a logical leap requiring a bunch of convoluted and demonstrably questionable or even false apprehensions of the universe be carried forward in situ.
>that which is eternal brought into existence
to require eternal existence is questionable in the first place, however, for the things which exist eternally to by some act of will cause other existence is disproven by observables (4 above) in that existence of noneternals appears to have a baseline spontaneity
>eternal existence is the creator of noneternal existence
i think you're back on track here. if you were to say the information of the universe, or the background entangled system that makes up space or whatever else that could be considered eternal gives rise to the temporary, i'd be ok with that. but you forget that that which is eternal must have an apprehension of itself, that is, its actions must be nonrandom, for it to be a "creator"

>but muh last half

>Rosefucker user
now that's the authority that noone can undermine

>the more they advance the more they disprove them
There's the rub. Humans think they are smart, and the smarter they get, the more they think. Giving rise to more and more complicated ways of misunderstanding.

But what about a cosmic turtle?

>it is not possible for non-being to come from being
Then where did God come from?
Or, according to that "law of logic", do you admit that there is a being greater than God that created Him? If so, who created that being?

You cannot deny this paradox.

You must be really stupid to be able to spot that instantly.

>But what about a cosmic turtle?
it's quite obviously turtles all the way down, faggot

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Argument_from_contingency

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Argument_from_contingency

just google your shit boi... like 2nd year HS philosophy

If you sit really quietly, and let your body go soft, and your mind relax, and feel into the background of everything and the depth below your feet, you can feel the turtle slowly breathing.

I'm not saying that's not true I'm simply trying to point out the concept of a god was created by humans to make sense of things they couldn't explain and was removed or replaced when they finally came to understand them

...

But you have to consider humanity's development as a sentient creature. When we were early hominids with little more than animal intelligence, conceptualising the creator would not have happened. As we advanced and started asking those questions, we needed answers. As we came to realise our early answers were insufficient we discarded them, as you say. But what has also been almost discarded from modern humanity is an innate sense of the divine. In the face of our huge intellects and ability to make sense of the physical world we have forgotten our source in the non-physical. Anthropologist Joseph Campbell talks about this, humanity's early years and changing views of god in his Masks of God books.

None of that is provable user
We don't have proof that humans used to inherently "know" these things we just have proof that they worshipped sky people and many of the recorded "historical religious events" have been proven as simply rare natural phenomena that were extremely coincidental

You're still doing it. You're overthinking it.
>We don't have proof that humans used to inherently "know" these things
Used to, still do, is there a difference? I do, now. Many people do. If you really want answers, look out for those people. Keep your bullshit detector on, learn as much as you can about intellectual understandings of spirituality, and be willing then to allow that part of your mind to take a back seat while you sit in stillness and just observe without intellectualising. No-one is ever going to "prove" anything to you, except yourself.

Temporal in this sense is relative to what is worldly, as opposed to what is spiritual

Read some Aristotle. The laws of reason are axioms upon which we base all knowledge

"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away."

Good luck user, I'm out.

You’re thinking of temporal as relating to time. The eternal creator in this context is immaterial, meaning he is not temporal. As temporal in this sense is relative to what is worldly instead of to what is spiritual

Please elaborate

Once again, you are thinking about temporal in relation to TIME instead of in relation to what is material and what is immaterial

I just want to know why there is so much more matter than antimatter

You just used logic to make that statement tardo

>Implying using a flawed system can't work if done the right way

Again to reiterate, temporal in this context is relative to what is MATERIAL or worldly. The eternal creator in this context exists in the realm of the IMMATERIAL

no replies cause this guy is a fucking legend