/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21363664]

>God created the universe
If so, who created god?
>He always existed and has no creator
If god always existed and doesn't need a creator then why can't the universe have always existed and why does it need a creator?

It seems like because the question "Who created god?" Will get you stuck in an infinite loop someone just made up a condition as a desperate try to solve this problem but it doesn't solve anything and even if it would a god is not needed for this argument.

[Anonymous No.21363673]

>>21363664
God and the Universe are identical.

[Anonymous No.21363676]

>>21363664
This is your brain on atheism.

[Anonymous No.21363679]

God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

[Anonymous No.21363692]

>>21363673
That's pandeism, dating back to Xenophanes of Colophon . It's not Christianity.

[Anonymous No.21363694]

>>21363664
>If god always existed and doesn't need a creator then why can't the universe have always existed and why does it need a creator?
Because of causality.

[Anonymous No.21363699]

>>21363679
A non-argument because it also works like this:
>The universe is not in the category of things that are created or caused. The universe is uncaused and uncreated—It simply exists.

See, no God needed.

[Anonymous No.21363703]

>>21363699
From nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

[Anonymous No.21363711]

https://reasons.org/explore/publications/questions-from-social-media/who-created-god

[Anonymous No.21363721]

>>21363694
If something does not have a beginning it does not need to in a causal chain.

Why is the universe defined to have a beginning? Just define that it haven't one.

[Anonymous No.21363725]

>>21363699
That's not possible because everything in the universe needs to follow the laws of physics and chemistry.

[Anonymous No.21363727]

>>21363721
Because we can observe the physical universe and its laws. How does entropy work with an eternal and uncreated universe?

[Anonymous No.21363737]

>>21363703
Why should there have been nothing anyway?

[Anonymous No.21363744]

>>21363664
theists are too dunderheaded to accept a metaphysically-given universe. they feel the need feel to evoke god. it's just an espousal of faith, don't expect an explanation. it's just kicking the can until it's where they want it for the convenience of further contrivances like the 'soul.'

[Anonymous No.21363777]

>>21363725
>>21363727
We don't know physics an chemistry well enough to make this argument.

F.e. we can't make gold out of iron.

[Anonymous No.21363787]

>>21363777
>we can't make gold out of iron.
We can make gold out of platinum or mercury though.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY/Ar.iI No.21363794]

>>21363664
>If god always existed and doesn't need a creator then why can't the universe have always existed and why does it need a creator?


GOD IS ETERNAL; WHAT IS ETERNAL IS NOT BORN, NOR CREATED; THE UNIVERSE IS A CREATION; ALL CREATIONS ARE THE WORK OF A CREATOR.

[Anonymous No.21363805]

>who created god?
God isn't created.
>why can't the universe have always existed
Because it hasn't.
>why does it need a creator
It couldn't have created itself. Nothing comes from nothing.
>but god-
Not created, just is.

[Anonymous No.21363809]

>>21363787
But you still get my point.

>>21363794
Capsposting doesn't change the fact that the universe could also be eternal/not born/not created

[Anonymous No.21363810]

>>21363664
I prefer the argument of contingency to the argument of causation. Our existence is contingent on several things, even if we wouldn't say any one of them caused us. The universe does seem to be contingent on several things. For example, what would our universe be if space did not exist? It wouldn't be anywhere or exist in a way we recognize. Likewise the universe is contingent on basic laws of physics. If there were no laws governing the universe, there would be nothing to guarantee it continues to exist or that it did exist in the past.

Clearly the universe is contingent on some things. Those things may too be contingent on other things we cannot comprehend. However, there must be something that is not contingent on anything, otherwise nothing could have what it needed to exist.

[Anonymous No.21363818]

>>21363805
Change "god" with "the universe".

The universe isn't created.
The universe just is.

See, no god needed.

>Because it hasn't.
That's just saying "j-just b-because ok?". No argument here.

[Anonymous No.21363834]

>>21363810
Ok, so what if our "version" of the universe is just embedded in an even bigger universe where contingency doesn't exist?

Lile f.e. imagine that there is a different universe with different physical laws in each black hole and we are just another universe inside a black hole of a bigger universe.

[Anonymous No.21363838]

>>21363834
There's only one universe. Uni=one. The universe is literally everything.

[Anonymous No.21363853]

>>21363810
>>21363703
Any lit to explore this topics in more depth? I have never read theology or metaphysics

[Anonymous No.21363855]

>The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither, indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause ... Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first cause, to which everyone gives the name of God

But right away we have a problem: the text uses a phrase, ‘efficient cause,’ with which you are likely unfamiliar. A reasonable first strategy is to try out a familiar candidate. So let’s suppose that ‘efficient cause’ just means ‘cause,’ and see how far that gets us...

[Anonymous No.21363858]

>>21363853
it's kind of an axiom--you can't really prove it. it's just something accepted or rejected.

i'd be interested in understanding how one would try to justify this belief, if there is one.

[Anonymous No.21363860]

>>21363805
>It couldn't have created itself. Nothing comes from nothing.
Nothing is already something.

[Anonymous No.21363870]

>>21363855
To begin our search for the premises of Aquinas’ argument, let’s look at the third sentence.This seems to state a premise which we could write as follows:
>"There is no case known (neither, indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself..."
There are two kinds of premises in arguments: independent premises, which are supposed to stand on their own, and derived premises, which are supposed to follow from other premises. Which do you think this is?
He seems to argue for it in the passage immediately following this sentence, which suggests that it is a derived premise:
>for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible What premises do these passages express?
>If something were the cause of itself, it would be prior to itself
>Nothing is prior to itself

[Anonymous No.21363871]

>>21363834
If our universe is contingent on some "outer universe" where contingency does not exist, then our universe cannot have what it needs to exist. If the "outer universe" does have contingency, then you're just back to the start of the argument of contingency. You cns repeat the cycle as many times as you like, but ultimately you have to arrive at a non-contingent thing. Otherwise nothing could have what it needed to exist.

[Anonymous No.21363872]

>>21363860
It's an imaginary concept.

[Anonymous No.21363873]

>>21363818
The universe has necessarily a cause. Whatever that cause is, cannot be caused.
Call it big bang, call it god.
Although maybe big bang refers more to the moment the universe originated rather than the cause of it idk

[Anonymous No.21363877]

>>21363853
https://peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#1

[Anonymous No.21363880]

>>21363838
Then that "one" may contain "things" where your arguments don't hold.

[Anonymous No.21363881]

>>21363809
So the universe didn't originate 14 billion years ago? I thought you were a man of science

[Anonymous No.21363884]

>>21363880
1 + 1 = 2 is true in all times and places.

[Anonymous No.21363885]

>>21363870
We seem to get another premise in the next sentence.
>A chain of causes cannot be infinite.
It is pretty clear that this is a derived premise, since we get a long argument for it in the passage immediately following. Let’s set this difficult passage to the side for now, and see if we can figure out the shape of Aquinas’ argument. Notice that as we are doing this we are using simple ordinary language as much as possible. The aim is to be clear, not to use fancy or antiquated terminology.
>If something were the cause of itself, it would be prior to itself
>Nothing is prior to itself.
>Nothing is the cause of itself. We’ve now got some premises on the table. But to figure out whether they make for a valid argument, we need to first figure out what conclusion they are supposed to be an argument for.

[Anonymous No.21363888]

>>21363885
New Dream Theater album is looking good

[Anonymous No.21363892]

>>21363870
We seem to get another premise in the next sentence.
>A chain of causes cannot be infinite.
It is pretty clear that this is a derived premise, since we get a long argument for it in the passage immediately following. Let’s set this difficult passage to the side for now, and see if we can figure out the shape of Aquinas’ argument. Notice that as we are doing this we are using simple ordinary language as much as possible. The aim is to be clear, not to use fancy or antiquated terminology.
>If something were the cause of itself, it would be prior to itself
>Nothing is prior to itself.
>Nothing is the cause of itself.
We’ve now got some premises on the table. But to figure out whether they make for a valid argument, we need to first figure out what conclusion they are supposed to be an argument for.

[Anonymous No.21363893]

>>21363888
>>21363892

[Anonymous No.21363898]

>>21363858
The axiom argument is the only one that holds.

>>21363860
That's correct. All nothingness must be embedded into something. Like f.e. a hole in a piece of wood. There is only nothing because of whats surrounding the hole.

>>21363871
It does not need to be stable. Like when walking we move from one leg to the other. Maybe the universe is constantly drifting from a contingent state to an uncontingent. This fits the entropic argument (entropy is constantly increasing).

[Anonymous No.21363909]

>>21363884
That's an axiomantic argument. It only holds when you choose axiom set in which it is true. You are most likely referring to the peano axioms.

Peano axioms are invented, or made up, mathematical results based on them are discovered.

[Anonymous No.21363914]

>>21363892
Fortunately, it is pretty clear that at least one thing Aquinas is arguing for is the following:
>There is a first cause.
By this Aquinas means “there is something which causes other things to exist but was not itself caused to exist by anything.” Let’s put our proposed argument in premise/conclusion form.
>1. If something were the cause of
itself, it would be prior to itself.
>2. Nothing is prior to itself.
>3. Nothing is the cause of itself.
(1,2)
>4. A chain of causes cannot be
infinite.
————————————————————————————————————
>C. There is a first cause. (3,4)

Here we represent the fact that (3) is a derived premise intended to follow from (1) and (2) by writing ‘(1,2)’ after it. Is this argument valid? Does the conclusion follow from (3) and (4)? It is invalid if we can describe some possible situation in which the premises are
true but the conclusion false.

Here’s one:
>nothing ever causes anything.
If nothing ever caused anything, then the premises of our argument would be true, since nothing would ever be the efficient cause of anything, including itself, and there would be no infinite causal chains, since there would be no causal chains of any sort. But the conclusion would be false: there would be no causes, so there would be no first cause. Hence our argument is invalid.

If your interpretation of an argument is invalid, your first question should be: was the author assuming some extra premise which, if added to the argument, would make it valid? And it is pretty clear if we look at the second sentence that the answer to this question is ‘Yes.’
>At least one thing has a cause.
Let’s add this to our argument and see if it helps.

>1. If something were the cause of itself, it would be prior to itself.
>2. Nothing is prior to itself.
>3. Nothing is the cause of itself. (1,2)
>4. A chain of causes cannot be
infinite.
————————————————————————————————————
>C. There is a first cause. (3,4)

[Anonymous No.21363921]

>>21363853
>Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor
>Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God
>On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ; St. Maximus the Confessor
>Sallust on the Gods and the World: and the Pythagoric Sentences of Demophilus and Five Hymns by Proclus
Adjacent and interesting, but otherwise unrelated...
>The Will to Believe, Human Immortality and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy

[Anonymous No.21363930]

>>21363664
You're presenting the idea that either god exists and created the universe, or doesn't exist and therefore the universe must have always existed. This is a false dichotomy. Other explanations for the origin of the universe are considerable. You assume god does not exist and therefore does not need a creator, but that's the very question you're bringing up for debate. Finally, you're misrepresenting the idea that god exists and created the universe by suggesting it's based on an arbitrary condition that is designed to solve a problem, when in fact this may not be the case.

[Anonymous No.21363941]

>>21363914
Is this argument valid?

>1. If something were the cause of itself, it would be prior to itself.
>2. Nothing is prior to itself.
>3. Nothing is the cause of itself. (1,2)
>4. A chain of causes cannot be infinite.
>5. At least one thing has a cause.
>C. There is a first cause. (3, 4, 5)

You might think that it is not, because we might have a circular chain of causes.

>A > B > C > D > E > A > B....

Here there is no infinite causal chain; nothing is the cause of itself; and yet there is no uncaused cause. Does this show that the argument we’ve developed so far is invalid? This is a little tricky. There is a sense in which in this example nothing is the cause of itself, because nothing is directly the cause of itself. But it still seems like things are indirectly the cause of themselves. After all, if A causes B and B causes C, isn’t there also a sense in which A causes B? Let’s agree to understand “causes” in our argument as meaning “directly or indirectly causes.” Then the kind of causal chain pictured above is ruled out by premise (3).

>1. If something were the cause of itself, it would be prior to itself.
>2. Nothing is prior to itself.
>3. Nothing is the cause of itself. (1,2)
>4. A chain of causes cannot be infinite.
>5. At least one thing has a cause.
>C. There is a first cause. (3,4,5)

With this stipulation, the argument seems valid, because the following assumption seems to be true:

>Every causal chain must be (i) circular, (ii) infinite, or (iii) have a first cause.

Since our argument seems to depend on this assumption, we may as well make this explicit by adding it as a premise to our argument — even though it is not something which Aquinas explicitly says.

1. If something were the cause of itself, it would be prior to itself.
>2. Nothing is prior to itself.
>3. Nothing is the cause of itself. (1,2)
>4. A chain of causes cannot be infinite. >5. At least one thing has a cause.
>6. Every causal chain must be (i) circular, (ii) infinite, or (iii) have a first cause.
>C. There is a first cause. (3,4,5,6)

Does this argument show that there is at least one first cause, or exactly one first cause?

This argument seems pretty clearly valid. But it also seems pretty clearly incomplete as an interpretation of Aquinas. Why? Aquinas’ ultimate aim is not to argue for the existence of a first cause; his ultimate aim is to argue for the existence of God. So the thing we have labeled as a conclusion must actually just be a (derived) premise in the overall argument. How can we get from our argument to the conclusion that God exists?

[Anonymous No.21363945]

>>21363930
>you're misrepresenting the idea that god exists and created the universe by suggesting it's based on an arbitrary condition that is designed to solve a problem, when in fact this may not be the case.
what is an alternative case. the point of this discussion is to get beyond the arbitrary assertion that the creation of the universe must have included god, so it's pertinent to the discussion. you would be teasing us if you leave this here.

[Anonymous No.21363946]

>>21363898
It doesn't make any sense to "drift" from contingency to non-contingency. If something's contingency changes over time, then it is certainly contingent on time. Whether or not it is contingent depends (is contingent) on when it is.

If you're suggesting that a thing could lose it's contingency, then it's contingent on whatever eliminates the contingency. In other words, you've swapped out one contingency for another.

[Anonymous No.21363954]

>>21363941
The simplest way is to add a premise which Aquinas seems to assume: If there is a first cause, then God exists.

>1. If something were the cause of itself, it would be prior to itself.
>2. Nothing is prior to itself.
>3. Nothing is the cause of itself. (1,2)
>4. A chain of causes cannot be infinite. >5. At least one thing has a cause.
>6. Every causal chain must be (i) circular, (ii) infinite, or (iii) have a first cause.
>7. There is a first cause. (3,4,5,6)
>8. If there is a first cause, then God exists.
>C. God exists. (7,8)

This is a valid argument, and seems to be a plausible interpretation of the piece of text with which we began.

[Anonymous No.21363958]

>>21363945
you would be teasing us if you leave this here without further extrapolation*
just wanted to clarify that last sentence

[Anonymous No.21363966]

>>21363945
No I wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.21363970]

Going by this logic, causality effectively causes itself. That's because it is committing a flagrant transcendental error by treating causality as an object within causality. Seems to me it has to grapple with this objection before it can actually obtain.

[Anonymous No.21363975]

>>21363966
i think it would. op is explicitly asking for a reason for the imposition of god and you are saying that there MAY in fact be a reason for it but you fail to deliver.

[Anonymous No.21363976]

>>21363970
in some serious interpretations of quantum mechanics cause and effect are actually the same thing

[Anonymous No.21363977]

>>21363954
But even if Aquinas’ defense of (4) is unsuccessful, (4) might still be true. Can you think of any way to argue for it? One way to do this is to use a thought experiment called ‘Thomson’s lamp.’

Suppose that I told you that I have a lamp in my office which turned on and off 10 times between 8:00 and 9:00 this morning. Would this make sense? Now suppose that I told you that it turned on and off 1000 times during this interval. Would that make sense? Now suppose that I told you that it turned on and off infinitely many times during this interval. Would that make sense? Here is an argument that it would not:

>If the lamp turned on and off infinitely many times during this period, then there is no last event of it turning on or off. So at 9:01 the lamp cannot be on, since every on-turning is followed by an off-turning. But it also cannot be off, since every off-turning is followed by an on-turning. So, at 9:01 the lamp is neither on nor off. But that is impossible. So an infinite series of on- and off- turnings is impossible.

Now, you might reply that this only shows that a certain sort of infinite chain is impossible. For we can contrast two different sorts of infinite chains — those with no last member, and those with no first member. This is like the contrast between these two different infinite series of numbers:
> .... -5, -4, -3, -2, -1 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...

It looks like our argument only shows the impossibility of the second kind of infinite causal chain. But which sort would make trouble for Aquinas’ argument? However, perhaps we can adapt our argument to show that the first sort of infinite series is also impossible.

>Suppose that the lamp turned on and off infinitely many times between 8:00 and 9:00, and that there was no first event of it being turned on or off. So at 7:59 the lamp could not have been off, since then the first event would have been an on-turning. But at 7:59 it also could not have been on, since then the first event would have been an off-turning. So, at 7:59 the lamp is neither on nor off. But that is impossible. So there had to be a first on- turning or off-turning between 8:00 and 9:00

Does this argument rely on the assumption that the infinite series took place in a finite interval of time? Could a similar argument show that there can be no infinite series of on- and off-turnings in an infinite period of time? If not, then it looks like this argument, even if it works, can only rule out the possibility of an infinite causal chain if we assume that the age of the universe is finite. Is that a reasonable assumption?

[Anonymous No.21363978]

>>21363818
>Change "god" with "the universe".
Why would I?
They are two different concepts, and the universe being used in those sentences is inconsistent with reality.
>That's just saying "j-just b-because ok?". No argument here.
The universe being created is self-evident, chump. So much so, that people knew it over 2000 years ago even though concrete scientific data to support it could only be gathered/understood in the past couple hundred.
>>21363860
"Nothing" is a word for absence of something, it isn't something in of itself. Besides the word, which is or course, simply a word. Mistaking symbols for reality only shows how deep in the cave you still live.

[Anonymous No.21363980]

>>21363787
>>21363777
Yes you can, it's called nuclear alchemy. A better example would be that we can't make one quark into another.

>>21363834
>>21363871
>>21363898
>>21363946
This is the transcendent realms of Platonism in a nutshell. It runs into the problem of
>how do two things that are transcendent of each other ever interact
The alternative is the ancient Germanic (in truth just PIE) cosmology, where our "universe" is actually just a specific region where everything happens to be occurring in 4D Minkowsky Spacetime, and things with radically different laws of physics can exist in other regions (that are possibly completely uninhabitable by us).

>>21363954
>>21363941
I think it's far simpler to ditch the whole "transcendent deity" bit and just go back to Aristotle: the Gods have bodies and they are in the universe with us. Thus, there's no need to posit a transcendent first-cause, just a first movement initiated by one of the plurality of Gods, going backwards in some causal chain.

[Anonymous No.21363982]

>>21363703
Bold of you to assume there was never anything.

[Anonymous No.21363989]

>The universe being created is self-evident, chump.
this is what the whole theist argument boils down to: an assertion that the universe was created. nothing more. there is no substance here

as i've said earlier, this is just an espousal of faith. there is no argument to be had here.

[Anonymous No.21364001]

>>21363977
>8. If there is a first cause, then God exists.

Let’s turn to premise (8). Here is one hypothesis which would seem to falsify (8):

>The Big Bang The first event in the history of the universe was an explosion of an extremely dense collection of particles, with every particle moving apart from every other particle. This event had no cause - in particular, no intelligent being set it into motion - and, further, every subsequent event has been an effect of this event.

This would appear to be a description of a world in which there is a first cause, but God does not exist. So it looks as though, if we are to believe (8), we must have some reason for rejecting the above hypothesis. Might one defend (8) by saying that this hypothesis is impossible, on the grounds that there can’t be an uncaused cause, like the explosion of particles described?

Instead, it seems Aquinas has to argue that nothing like the Big Bang could genuinely be a first cause. Things like the Big Bang have to have a cause; but things like God don’t. And that is, in a way, exactly what Aquinas tried to do (though of course he did not have the Big Bang in mind). He tried to argue that something which was an uncaused cause would have to have other properties, which God has, but the Big Bang does not. And that is, in a way, exactly what Aquinas tried to do (though of course he did not have the Big Bang in mind). He tried to argue that something which was an uncaused cause would have to have other properties, which God has, but the Big Bang does not. Rather than pursue Aquinas’ thought on this further, let’s consider one way of developing the argument which was prominent in a school of Islamic thought which predates Aquinas. On this view, everything which begins to exist at some time must have a cause. Because the universe — including the Big Bang — has a beginning in time, the universe as a whole — again, including the Big Bang — must have a cause. So the Big Bang can’t be the first cause — and indeed nothing in the universe can be. If one accepts this extra premise, and one accepts the assumption that the universe came to exist at some time, then it follows that the universe was caused to exist by something outside the universe.

[Anonymous No.21364005]

Is it possible for nothing at all to exist?

[Anonymous No.21364010]

>>21363810
>For example, what would our universe be if space did not exist? It wouldn't be anywhere or exist in a way we recognize
OK and? If I were Bill Gates I'd be the richest man in the world but I'm not, so?

[Anonymous No.21364016]

>>21363978
>"Nothing" is a word for absence of something, it isn't something in of itself. Besides the word, which is or course, simply a word. Mistaking symbols for reality only shows how deep in the cave you still live.
On he contrary, the allegory in the cave is a spook. The highest orders of being are the most empty and devoid of content.

[Anonymous No.21364018]

>>21364001
And then there are just two options — that thing must be eternal, or it must have come to exist at a certain time. If we go with the second option, then it must have had a cause. And then that thing would have to be eternal, or have come to exist a certain time. If we agree with Aquinas that there can’t be infinite causal chains, then this must come to an end somewhere. And that end must be an eternal thing which is (whether directly or indirectly) the cause of the universe.

This would not show that this eternal being has many of the other properties which people associate with God — such as being loving, or morally good, or all powerful. But it would show the existence of a being which is not a part of a kind of standard atheist world view. What’s the best response to this argument?

[Anonymous No.21364026]

>>21364010
I don't think you're really comprehending this conversation.

[Anonymous No.21364037]

>>21364016
>The highest orders of being are the most empty and devoid of content.
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.21364045]

>>21364005
No. It is an imaginary concept.

[Anonymous No.21364057]

>>21364005
Nothing can't exist since it's nothing.

[Anonymous No.21364059]

>>21364057
It exists as an imaginary concept.

[Anonymous No.21364071]

The one we call God is just a normal person in his higher-level universe.

[Anonymous No.21364077]

Can you actually speak of a causality which is outside the realm of possible experience? Causality emerges as Will through experience of the world. How do you evaluate differentiating perspectives on the causal chain? One man might say his diet caused his weight loss, while his wife might say that it is stress from his job. His son might say it is both. His daughter might say neither. Which is to say that using causality to prove or disprove God is stupid, because we can only really arrive at causality using experience and sensation, and that this is intimately related to and dependent on our own Will to Power and desires. Why is there necessarily an uncaused causer? If we cannot identify the cause of something, can we actually say that it did not cause itself? That it was not prior to itself? And therefore, does that not lead us to taking an agnostic position on the existence of such an "unmoved mover", and the concept of linear causality itself?

[Anonymous No.21364082]

>>21364026
No my friend, you don't even comprehend your own argument.

[Anonymous No.21364109]

>>21364057
Nothing lasts forever.
Nothing is worth fighting for.
Yes, we have no bananas.

[Anonymous No.21364125]

>>21364109
If Nothing exists in a state of nothingness, or does not exist in any state in particular, then how how could it last forever? Similarly, how would one fight for Nothing?

[Anonymous No.21364151]

>>21364125
Either you're a chatbot, or you just need to watch the episode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D-3oKCcGhQ

[Anonymous No.21364196]

>>21363703
>From nothing, nothing comes.
This is an assumption based on common experience, and might not apply to the whole universe.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY/Ar.iI No.21364228]

>>21363809
>Capsposting[...]

MORON.


>[...]doesn't change the fact[...]

YOUR ATHEISTIC BELIEFS ARE NOT FACTS.


>[...] that the universe could also be eternal/not born/not created[.]

WHAT IS ETERNAL DOES NOT DEGRADE, IS NOT BORN, DOES NOT PERISH NOR DIE: WHAT IS ETERNAL DOES NOT CHANGE; IT IS IMMUTABLE; EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS MUTABLE, THEREFORE, NOT ETERNAL.

[2lazy2game gamer No.21364240]

>>21363664 it s just roman writings the jews and arubs copied dud.

But i guess broken things make for work opportunities

How else do you win in life? Shake satan's hands mid conflixt? Lol

[Anonymous No.21364248]

>>21363692
That’s fine

[Anonymous No.21364264]

>>21363818
>The universe just is
No, it isn't. Things that just 'are' don't have points to which it can be traced back to where time and space were booted up. Physicality/the universe has this point.

[Anonymous No.21364276]

>>21363664
You're just saying atheism requires an equally blind leap of faith but for no reason. This argument will fall apart the minute someone brings up faith.

[Anonymous No.21364343]

>>21364005
It would have been possible for physicality, ie the universe, to not have existed. The universe is contingent and the all mind could have chosen not to boot it up. The all mind, god, whatever it prefers to be called, could not have not existed. This is the necessary entity. The thing which ends the infinite regress of contingent beings. Anything physical is derivative and not fundamental. Anything physical began. Physical things emerge in minds, just as the objects we call physical emerge in minds. And ultimately, the whole of physicality, the universe, is nested in the god mind. The part of us that is not emergent and is not a physical object, is our mind/soul. This is why every physical thing can be observed objectively but subjective experience is by definition not objectively observable. It is however constrained by physicality in some ways during a particular experience packet associated with a particular avatar. These physical constraints are lifted at 'death'. Then you log off in terms of interfacing with a particular experiential data stream associated with a particular physical avatar body.

[Anonymous No.21364379]

>>21364016
>On he contrary, the allegory in the cave is a spook
The idea that everything is a spook is a spook. This idea that you can call everything a spook in some objective universal and invariant way requires the same grounding in universality and objectiveness that the guy wants to claim that things which are spooks lack. It's a self defeating claim just as the claim 'there are no universal truths or values' is. If the claim that there are no universal truths or values is true, then it is false, being that there would then be at least one universally true statement, namely that there are no universal truths. This is why nihilism is dumb and the 'everything is a spook' shit is fake but also gay.

[Anonymous No.21364408]

>>21364045
It is possible that physicality itself could not have existed. In fact there was such a time. There is a time to which it can be traced back to when the time and space of physicality were booted up. Big clue of the virtualism/information theoretic nature of physicality by the way. So the volitional all mind that pushed the run/enter button to boot up the virtual time and space of the physical universe could have decided that there would be 'nothing' in terms of nothing 'physical'. It is true though that there was never a time where there wasn't anything at all. There was always the all mind.

[Anonymous No.21364418]

>>21364228
lol

[Anonymous No.21364449]

>>21363664
>If god always existed and doesn't need a creator then why can't the universe have always existed and why does it need a creator?
Because it began. There is a time to which the time and space of this reality began. This is of course the way it is with all informational/virtual realities, see picrel here
>>21364264
And you are like the consciousness immersed in the virtual reality that looks around and doesn't see the developer inside the virtual world and since he isn't apparent, you believe you can declare that the designer doesn't exist. a naturalist is as a player immersed in the virtual world who since he has discovered how to make predictions using the god's math about the the behavior of the gods creation and infer somethings about the physics engine now believes that there is no need to postulate that there was an entity who booted the thing up or who does the coding or rendering or processing. Very haughty attitude there buddy.

[Anonymous No.21364450]

>>21363699
It's a nonargument for a problem which can't be determined positively or negatively. The time that was before the first humans, if ever there was such a time, is outside of the empirically validatable since obviously no one existed to observe anything back then. Without experiences to feed logic, logic argues in it's own world of pure reason. Because of this, all we can argue is wether or not a set of presuppositions could possibly lead to the reality that we experience everyday. In this since, OP is right that both arguments are logically consistent as far as we can decern within our limited view as mortsl beings. Now this does not BTFO Christianty since within the Christian framework, faith is required in order to go to Heaven. Logic cannot determine our biases going into an argument. It can only seperate the plausible from the impossible. An ever existing Universe and a world created are both irrefutable

[Anonymous No.21364461]

>>21364248
based

[Anonymous No.21364462]

>>21363664
> [ atheistic question]
Because it was revealed to us as such.

[Anonymous No.21364474]

>>21363664
>It seems like because the question "Who created god?" Will get you stuck in an infinite loop someone just made up a condition as a desperate try to solve this problem but it doesn't solve anything and even if it would a god is not needed for this argument
Yes it is needed. The assertion is not that EVERYTHING needs an explanation for it's existence. It's that everything that BEGINS needs an explanation. The thing which created the contingent entity, in this case the universe, can not ALSO have had a beginning, or you get an infinite regress of contingent entities. So you can end the regress by postulating a single non-physical entity which is outside of the temporality constrain of the universe, ie without beginnings of endings. The universe can't be this entity. Naturalism is cope by players immersed in a virtual world who don't want to admit that data stream of their game play began.

[Anonymous No.21364477]

A human creator is as much created by the act of creating as a creator, therefore they are co-creators. Moreover a human creator doesn't create ex nihilo, but is with other influences and experiences that co-create with them.

The universe isn't a "chain of causes" like dominos falling, the ultimate truth of causation is that everything affects everything else, though not equally. A metaphor for this is that the cosmos is like a tapestry where individual threads weave with each other.

The universe didn't begin with One because One cannot exist on its own; if there is only One there is no motion, time, or experience, because these are relational phenomenon (betweenesses) and betweeness implies the existence of two or more relating to each other. Therefore the universe began with Many, and those Many are the many phenomenon in our universe.

TL;DR everything is a co-creator, everything has creativity, though not necessarily conscious. Human creativity is an extension of the implicit "eros of the universe." Human creativity is something sacred, the means by which we can connect to each other and the rest of the universe in ways that have never before been achieved.

[Anonymous No.21364504]

>>21363978
>Why would I?
>They are two different concepts, and the universe being used in those sentences is inconsistent with reality.
There is nothing inconsistent with reality that has been said, just maybe inconsistend of what you think reality is or wish to be.

>>21363978
>So much so, that people knew it over 2000 years ago
A few 100 years ago people thought they have to draim blood to be healthy and that elves are real. Not an argument.

>>21364001
Something that came to exist has a cause. Why does it need to start to exist anyway? Whats the reason for that?

Our mind is wired in a way that what we call "a thing" needs to become existent. Like a living being or a car. But this is an illusion. Living things and objects are just rearragements of particles that are made out of energy that always existed.

[Anonymous No.21364515]

>>21364018
>What’s the best response to this argument?
That there are infinite casual chains. You can't disprove that those chains exist because any proof has to have a start and an end.

[Anonymous No.21364530]

>>21364077
Yes, "we can't know" is the only real answer to this. And that's ok and needs to be accepted.

[Anonymous No.21364536]

>>21364462
based

[Anonymous No.21365193]

>>21363664
"If the bread was baked by a baker, who baked the baker?"

[Anonymous No.21366003]

>>21365193
>christian theology