Eternally BTFO theists with this one weird trick

[Anonymous No.13441521]

>God is real.
Where did he come from?
>He created himself.
To be self-creating is a contradiction. For it, by definition, cannot be the case that something which does not exist performs an action that has consequences upon the world. Any object that performs an action which produces consequences must exist, else there is no object to produce those consequences. Otherwise we are willing to say that an object which does not exist can affect the existent world, which is absurd.

Theists would have us believe that God simultaneously exists and does not exist. As I have shown, for him to be created he must exist. But he does not exist - hence, he has to be created. But for something to create something - have an effect upon the existent world - it must exist.

God is a contradiction, and contradictions cannot be true. QED God is not real.

[Anonymous No.13441523]

so what

[Anonymous No.13441528]

God does not follow up the laws of the universe and can break them at will. God is a contradiction, can can exist

[Anonymous No.13441535]

>>13441528
To exist is, by definition, to be part of the universe, and therefore subject to its laws.

[Anonymous No.13441536]

>>13441521
>implying contradiction is not part of His system

[Anonymous No.13441538]

>>13441521
Well no, that gets into the whole debate over the nature of axiomatic systems and trying to define the ORIGIN of a system within terms that are descriptive WITHIN that system.

In this sense, to say that God "began" is not even the correct terminology. Causality and 'start/end' dynamics are axioms within OUR system, but there is no reason to expect that the axioms applicable to "God" would be limited in that manner. You'd just say that God has a quality of immanence which is superior to systems whose axioms include things like "origin" being a component of things-in-being.

[Anonymous No.13441539]

>>13441521
God is infinite, therefore to assign him an origin is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.13441541]

the logic of a 17 year old

[Anonymous No.13441544]

>>13441535
What part of “god is a contradiction that can break the laws of reality” did you not understand?

[Anonymous No.13441552]

>>13441544
Such a thing is impossible. God is therefore impossible.

[Anonymous No.13441564]

>>13441538
Such a simple, elegant explanation. Why did these famous atheists (Sam Harris, Hitchesn etc) never debated someone like you is saddening.
Instead they got off smacking down brainlets, the opposite equivalent being Thomas Aquinas vs a fedora tipper. (even though it's probably wrong to compare Aquinas to Hitchens)

[Anonymous No.13441572]

>>13441521
>describing the impossibility of the existence of the hypothetically impossible non-existent

Great

[Anonymous No.13441586]

>>13441521
>He created himself.
nope and that is the point, he is not created is just IS

[Anonymous No.13441588]

>>13441521
A lot of theologians accept that "god" is a contrdiction

[Anonymous No.13441603]

>>13441521
>Reality is real
Where did it come from?
>It created itself
To be self-creating is a contradiction. For it, by definition, cannot be the case that something which does not exist performs an action that has consequences upon the world.

Reality is a contradiction, and contradictions cannot be true. QED reality is not real.

[Anonymous No.13441613]

>>13441603
>>It created itself
Did it though?

[Anonymous No.13441614]

>>13441521
>He created himself.
No-one believes this, you're just making fedorism look worse.

[Anonymous No.13441615]

>>13441613
Yes.

[Anonymous No.13441622]

>>13441615
That is false. We can see this due to the following:
>reality is not real.
This is a contradiction. Therefore it is a logical necessity that reality is real.
However, "God is not real" is not a contradiction. It is not a logical necessity that God exists. His existence is therefore up for debate; it can be - and has been - refuted.

[Anonymous No.13441633]

>>13441622
God would logically have to be ultimate reality.

[Anonymous No.13441639]

>>13441633
God is not identical to reality. Otherwise atheism and theism would be the same thing.

[Anonymous No.13441660]

>>13441639
Maybe your specific strawman of God is not identical to reality, but where God is defined as "the greatest possible being" God is pretty synonymous with reality. Unless you have an argument to the contrary?

[Anonymous No.13441667]

>>13441521
>>God is real.
>Where did he come from?
God is infinite, always was, always will be.
>>He created himself.
Nobody argues this. Just as atheists are motivated by God they must disprove, Christians are motivated by God they must follow.

[Anonymous No.13441673]

>>13441521
In laymens terms, Gods existence is like saying the 'big bang' created the universe.

[Anonymous No.13441679]

>>13441521
The Law of Non-Contradiction is self-creating. Either it exists, or it doesn’t exist, in which case it does exist because it can both exist and not exist. But if it exists, then it cannot not exist, so the Law of Non-Contradiction is true. You cannot have a system totally absent from logic without imposing an outside logic to prevent the illogical creation of logic within the system. God is essentially that logic which allows all things, even the movement from nothing to something, for this movement is itself logical, because God allowed and caused it. God cannot non-exist or that would require a higher God to logically prevent his existence. God exists, and he must exist.

[Anonymous No.13441720]

>>13441552
I can't grasp an idea therefore it's false.
Gtfo brainlet

[Anonymous No.13441732]

>>13441660
As I said, this would make theism and atheism identical positions. We wouldn't be having this argument if your definition of God was correct. It's an empty tautology.

[Anonymous No.13441734]

>>13441521
>imagine not understanding basic theology
Honestly just read Kabbalah, all of the answers are there.

[Anonymous No.13441735]

>>13441720
Contradictions are, by definition, false.

[Anonymous No.13441737]

>>13441535
God is only subject to his own laws

[Anonymous No.13441738]

>>13441737
And if he created the universe, his own laws would be the laws of the universe, yes?

[Anonymous No.13441740]

>>13441622
>Therefore it is a logical necessity that reality is real.
>implying the universe, or God, would be constrained by what humans find logical
'It makes sense to me for this to be so' is not a very compelling argument

[Anonymous No.13441743]

>>13441738
The laws pertaining to the universe do not pertain to God, but some laws may pertain to both.

[Anonymous No.13441745]

>>13441732
you still have not refuted what I said

[Anonymous No.13441746]

>>13441740
Nice psychologism.

[Anonymous No.13441752]

>>13441720
Is that OC ? Real well done

[Anonymous No.13441754]

>>13441538
Since God is beyond everything according to your definition. It is impossible to gleam any knowledge about God. Everything we say about God is definitely wrong.

QED God is fundamentally in a state of unknowability and we will never learn anything about God.

[Anonymous No.13441763]

>>13441679
You make a presupposition that God must exist. You admit that it could exist or not exist, yet you choose to act as if it must exist.

Nice tautology.

[Anonymous No.13441772]

>>13441746
Don't know what that is. Only know human has smol brain, Universe/God very big, why U/G should make sense to smol fruit locating brain?

[Anonymous No.13441775]

>>13441763
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.13441779]

>>13441740
The concept "reality" holds within its definition the predicate "is real". It is therefore, by necessity, true that reality is real. This is called a tautology. Tautologies cannot be contradictions, since contradictions are by definition false.
"God" does not hold within its definition "is real". Whether or not it is real would either have to be shown empirically or refuted by showing it is a contradiction, as I have done in the OP.

[Anonymous No.13441780]

>>13441754
God can give us knowledge though

[Anonymous No.13441788]

>>13441779
>"God" does not hold within its definition "is real"
What's the definition of God?

[Anonymous No.13441795]

>>13441780
No it can't. Any knowledge that God gives to us is inherently skeptical.

[Anonymous No.13441802]

>>13441795
>Any knowledge that God gives to us is inherently skeptical
Based on what?

[Anonymous No.13441803]

>>13441521
Where did reason come from?

[Anonymous No.13441805]

>>13441521
>He created himself.
Nope, God is uncreated. This is theology 101 faggot, kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.13441809]

>>13441803
The neocortex mostly, but if we expand the category, it came about from welt-umwelt horizontal evolution, so causation.

[Anonymous No.13441821]

>>13441802
Since God is unknowable, any information from an unknown source is inherently unreliable.

[Anonymous No.13441829]

>>13441639
Well, they are

[Anonymous No.13441833]

>>13441521
Why is it so difficult to realize that human understanding is nowhere close to that of the divine? We haven't even explored the full breadth of our own oceans, yet atheists want to define something that we humans cannot possibly understand in our temporal state. Everything we've concluded about God is everything God needs us to know. Religion is all about putting faith into something that our eyes cannot perceive.

[Anonymous No.13441849]

>>13441833
>Religion is all about putting faith into something that our eyes cannot perceive.
Faith which was given to you by people that did see *it* with their own eyes, if you go by your own tradition. Be it mediated or direct, your faith is based on an empirical experience somewhere down the line.

[Anonymous No.13441859]

What created the universe then or if you'd prefer the conditions for the big bang? Since self-creating is a contradiction, without God the universe much not be real.

>To exist is, by definition, to be part of the universe, and therefore subject to its laws.
>The universe as we know is all there is.

[Anonymous No.13441860]

Fellow atheists i have a question for you...
The very foundation of atheism is from rejection of god using scientific materialism. But we also know that the world around us and ourselves are changing.
So if we believe in atheism the idea of SELF is wrong because if you are constantly changing then there is no self. The idea of 'i' implies that something exists but it doesn't.
For instance the sentence 'i wrote a book' implies that the person who wrote the book and 'you' have some unique property common to you in the present and you in the past but scientific materialism says there is none.
So the only way to overcome this is by assuming a soul/spirit or by claiming the existence of an unchanging observer who can validate you. But atheism rejects the observer.
So my question to the atheists are how do you cope with having a belief that reject you. How do i escape this prison.

[Anonymous No.13441875]

>>13441738
If someone creates a computer game it's laws aren't identical to it's creators.

[Anonymous No.13441878]

>>13441809
So 1 + 1 didn't equal 2 before brians?

[Anonymous No.13441891]

>>13441860
>The very foundation of atheism is from rejection of god using scientific materialism.
Not necessarily. There are philosophical and religious systems which are atheistic yet not materialistic.

>But we also know that the world around us and ourselves are changing.
So if we believe in atheism the idea of SELF is wrong because if you are constantly changing then there is no self.
Namely Dharmic religions.

>But atheism rejects the observer.
So my question to the atheists are how do you cope with having a belief that reject you. How do i escape this prison.
You can go about this in several ways. Your line of reasoning is: Materialism->Monism->No-self. Try inspecting the unchanging aspect of your aggregate procedural being, some find nothing, some find everything, some just go with a biological feedback loop and call it a day, and that's when the qualia fags come out the woodwork.

[Anonymous No.13441905]

>>13441878
There are several theories on the foundation of mathematics.

In my opinion, the chicken-and-egg game is irrelevant. The world of pure quantity preceded biological (or spiritual what have you) life able to experience it, the world precedes us and we evolved from it and in it in accordance with its determinate operations. That simple arithmetic is an abstraction holistically perceived objects in the world, a very useful map, yielding to our survival and replication, we are special insofar that we have made it into a self-propelled conceptual machinery, i.e. the field of mathematics. If reason ''came from'' anywhere, it came from the world, as I already wrote in my first post.

[Anonymous No.13441933]

>>13441779
Firstly I'm not sure you've grasped the idea that what appears logical to humans is not necessarily how the universe must function.
Secondly, for centuries an enormous number of people have argued that 'God' holds within its definition 'Real'. Either you knew that and are being disingenuous, or you didn't know that and are wildly out of your depth in a subject you know nothing about

[Anonymous No.13441952]

>>13441891
>Try inspecting the unchanging aspect of your aggregate procedural being.
Like? There is no unique property in any person or object that cannot be copied.
But if there is a priori relation how can we conclude a posteriori knowledege. For instance if you had own any property the only evidence of it is memory but to interpret the memory one have to assume his own existence which nothing in this material world can. Also memory is bound to material world and can be manipulated or changed.
So my question is 'if i had owned something in the past how do i have more right to the property than any other fellow humans'.

[Anonymous No.13441961]

>>13441521
>He created himself

Wrong statement.

[Anonymous No.13441966]

>>13441521
>be Gerry
>Gerry makes a shelf
>Gerry does not exist within the shelf
>ergo Gerry does not exist
That's not a contradiction dude, you're just a dumbass.

[Anonymous No.13441970]

>>13441966
>woodworking analogy

[Anonymous No.13441974]

>>13441952
>So my question is 'if i had owned something in the past how do i have more right to the property than any other fellow humans'.
That's arbitrary and unrelated to the ontological question, unless you meant it as some metaphor or something.

>Like? There is no unique property in any person or object that cannot be copied.
It is not a question of uniqueness but endurance, what is that can be said to be unchanging yet still have being and what is the nature of that being. There are various methods, most of them fall under the nomenclature of ''meditation''.

[Anonymous No.13441978]

>>13441966
You just argued for monism my dude.

[Anonymous No.13442056]

>>13441541
>Logic
>Christians
Pick one

[GOD No.13442108]

It is a coincidence

[Anonymous No.13442114]

>>13442108
These dubs aren't, my niga.

[Anonymous No.13442115]

>>13441780
How?

[Anonymous No.13442143]

>>13441966
the shelf didn't create itself

[Anonymous No.13442145]

>>13441521
Or maybe God always existed?
You need to show that all possibilities lead to a contradiction to have a contradiction.

[Anonymous No.13442157]

>>13441779
He thinks reality is a larger reference model than God, not realizing theists argue for a God that created reality.

Laughinggirls.jpg

[Anonymous No.13442160]

>>13441821
He doesnt know what Divine Revelation is.

Laughinggirls.jpeg

[Anonymous No.13442163]

>>13441933
>Secondly, for centuries an enormous number of people have argued that 'God' holds within its definition 'Real'.
that has been absolutely btfo by reference theory

[Anonymous No.13442171]

Why are atheists so insufferable? Because you don't believe in something that doesn't make smarter

[Anonymous No.13442173]

>>13441521
He doesnt realize all models exhaust themselves in either contradiction or unknowability but that theism is the one with the logic to account for this exhaustion, making it the most likely explanation for reality.

Laughinggirls.jpeg

[Anonymous No.13442185]

>>13441521
He doesnt realize God is materially unknowable in order to allow for degrees of free will and choice by moral quality instead of intellectual prowess. He doesnt realize the whole universe is set up in a way that being reflects moral quality not logical reflection. He doesnt know physical reality is ontologically incomplete to allow for this reflection. He doesnt know all of this is stated in the Bible including God laughing at philosophers.

Laughinggirls.jpeg

[Anonymous No.13442191]

>>13441521
He doesnt realize the whole universe/reality declares the glory of God regardless of the level of inquiry.

[Anonymous No.13442199]

>Thinks god is bound by our rules of reality
Fucking brainlet

[Anonymous No.13442200]

>>13442199
>God is Indeterminate
brainlet petit

[Anonymous No.13442203]

>>13441905
So the world exists for no reason.

[Anonymous No.13442208]

>>13442173
>>13442185
>>13442191
this is some impressive cope. keep hiding from the enlightenment brainlets

[Anonymous No.13442211]

>>13442203

The world exists, this immediate knowledge, we can trace back this immediacy, literally look back in time to follow the becoming of the world, to deduce by working backwards, but this itself lands us at a tautology, and whatever the answer is, will be a tautology, unless there is some spooky higher dimensional reasoning which we can not grasp by the categories of how our brains work, that would forever remain on the outside to us. Again, we need not anthropomorphize ''reason'' for the world's being, as again, the world preceded us and all other conscious life-forms. Whatever the primary cause/reason is, it will be an absolute tautology, I don't think a God that is himself a subject is the answer. I think such a God is dialectically not possible.

[Anonymous No.13442216]

>>13441521
You’re the reason why no one ought to take atheists seriously.

[Anonymous No.13442217]

>>13442211
We are subjectivity; subjectivity is God

[Anonymous No.13442220]

>>13442217
based hegelposter

[Anonymous No.13442221]

>>13442217
Can you reformat your claim as a proof.

[Anonymous No.13442230]

>>13442220
As far as I understand Hegel, the Absolute is God, which is immanent which is substance which is subject, which is absolute?

[Anonymous No.13442250]

>>13441521
>>He created himself.

Barely anyone makes this argument.

>Now that which ever-liveth, differs from the Eternal; for He hath not been brought to being by another, and even if He have been brought to being, He hath not been brought into being by Himself, but ever is brought into being.

[Anonymous No.13442254]

>>13442200
He literally is

[Anonymous No.13442255]

>>13442230
yeah i guess

[Anonymous No.13442260]

>>13441860
just live your life? I don't quite see what the problem is

[Anonymous No.13442265]

>>13442254
That's my point, if God is indeterminate, he literally does not exist, i.e. has no determinate being.

[Anonymous No.13442283]

>>13442265
>Thinking god needs a physical vessel to be real

[Anonymous No.13442286]

Being ad infinitum necessitas nihilum; atemporality and omnipotence permits the self-negation. Uncaused with an infinite progression of unrestrained actions - Chaos, and it follows: Nothingness.

[Anonymous No.13442290]

>>13441521
>God is a contradiction, and contradictions cannot be true.
Unless they're god.

Checkmate

[Anonymous No.13442303]

>>13442283
This applies to pure reason. Any fantastical transcendental notions you come up with do not explain anything except add unnecessary and unproven traits to a tautology.

[Anonymous No.13442316]

Reality is, ultimately, self-determined. If there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality.

God is this ultimate reality. How do we know? The structure of reality exhibits properties that are traditionally attributed to God.

See: CTMU and "supertautology"
http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Three_Cs_/_Three_Ms

[Anonymous No.13442319]

>>13441535
>>13441544
>>13441552

This sucks. Consider a check valve separating two chambers. The "laws" observable from the receiving chamber are not necessarily the "laws" of the giving chamber. I'm not even making a Theological argument, since it's so lame. The giving chamber might hide anything, even lesser things relative to the receiving chamber. Such is the weakness of "law".

[Anonymous No.13442328]

>>13441521
>God was created

[Anonymous No.13442339]

>>13441754
The Catholic Church agrees with you. The Fourth Lateran Council dogmatically decreed that no similarity between God and any created thing can be drawn without implying an even greater dissimilarity. Outside of what has been positively revealed by Him, Catholic (and Orthodox) thought relies on apophatic theology.

[Anonymous No.13442343]

>>13441521
>existent world
Why are materialists so dense? How can they believe in an uncreated world, but not an uncreated creator?

[Anonymous No.13442436]

>>13442163
No it hasn't, even if you apply reference theory with autistic strictness