[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.98 MB, 418x215, 1628783339323.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23514856 No.23514856 [Reply] [Original]

>Oh yeah? And what came before the big bang?
Your response? Without sounding mad

>> No.23514885

>>23514856
I don't know. I suppose 'before' didn't exist as time didn't exist.
What came before god?

>> No.23514897

>>23514856
God spoke it into existence. this is only "before" in a casaul sense, not a temporal one, for obvious reasons.

>> No.23514902

I big banged you're mom lol.

>> No.23514911

>>23514885
Both positions require extraordinary faith to believe in. Big Bang supporters and creationists have more in common than it seems.

>> No.23514920

>>23514911
We can observe that the universe is expanding.

>> No.23514922

>>23514885
ol potsherds acting up again

>> No.23514928

>>23514885
God is the Unmoved Mover. It's the only position that makes sense.

>> No.23514935

>>23514928
You know one can say the exact same thing about the universe?

>> No.23514939

The universe has necessary existence.

>> No.23514940

>>23514935
It's demonstrable that the universe has not always existed though.

>> No.23514943

>>23514939
Yes, exactly. Why does anything exist?

>> No.23514944

>>23514940
Demonstrate it for me then

>> No.23514948

>>23514944
Why does anything, anything at all, even whatever existence look like before the big Bang, even all potentialities, exist at all?

>> No.23514960

>>23514856
A very hot, dense, and uniform universe.

>> No.23514966

>>23514920
God made the big bang
Dawkins bent the knee
Ukraine lost

>> No.23514979

>>23514856
We are riding the waves of a cosmic nay nay following the primordial whip.

>> No.23514983

>>23514960
That's after the Big Bang. The phenomena we measure in vacuum was there causally before but working in infinite dimensions which our spacetime is one example of.
>then what was before anything particle physics describes?
Baby Jesus.

>> No.23515116

>>23514948
Why not? You've simply - implicitly - defined existence as needing a cause.
Can you demonstrate that the universe has not always existed or not?

>> No.23515117

>>23515116
Go read the encyclopedia Britannica article on cosmology.

>> No.23515147

>>23515117
I guarantee the article doesn't demonstrate that the universe 'has not always existed' - and I guarantee you know that yourself.
You've dodged the question, twice now, because the first anon pointed out the exact issue that you never have an answer for. This is another one of those times; you don't have an answer for why God can be an 'unmoved mover' but not the universe itself.

>> No.23515174

>>23514856
Last time I checked they are still kicking around pure chaos bubble expansion and bursting, the universe eating some other older shit span and then literally shitting ours out, and the usual multidimensional guys who sound the craziest but are actually quite intelligent still puzzling it that way. In other words, nothing to solve an infinite regress.

>> No.23515182

>>23515147
What I find interesting about theists is that they have different defence levels. First, they talk about near death experiences, miracles, etc. Anyone with a basic scientific background can get through this. Then they talk about how ackshually god is this abstract everythingness, the whole universe (like Spinoza). They still dare to talk about angels, miracles, etc. at this stage. Finally, they just give up and tell you it's all based on faith.
I wish religiousness was designated a mental disorder and treated with medicine.

>> No.23515522

>>23514856
We don't know and probably have no way of knowing, next question.

>> No.23515536

>>23514944
If the universe has always existed an infinite amount of time would have to pass before coming to this moment. This means that this moment would never actually occur and therefore the universe had a beginning.

>> No.23515535

>>23515182
>I wish religiousness was designated a mental disorder and treated with medicine.
By whom? Godless midwit redditor faggots whose one shot at a civilization of their own descended into trannies lopping kids' cocks off, record suicide rates, and 80% of the population on some form of medication?

Yeah, let's recruit our judges and enforcers of what is "normal" from these freaks.

>> No.23515538

First post already addressed this. Nonsensical question.

>> No.23515553

>>23515538
>Without sounding mad
You failed.

>> No.23515575

>>23515535
>trannies lopping kids' cocks off
Doesn't happen, why do you think about genitals of children, by the way?
>record suicide rates,
Capitalism. Religion only serves to fool you and mislead you, not liberate you.
>80% of the population on some form of medication
Capitalism.

>> No.23515597

>>23514856
Time doesn't actually exist, it's simply the human perception of time-space and it is by no means linear. Nothing truly came before the big bang, every moment is concurrent.

>> No.23515610

>>23515597
Do you like Kant?

>> No.23515614

>>23515575
>Doesn't happen
Chemical castration by way of experimental hormone replacement and puberty blockers.
>Capitalism
Liberalism.
>liberate
Go look up how many people killed themselves due to direct, not even indirect, influence under communism.
>Capitalism
Liberalism.

>> No.23515623

>>23515614
>Chemical castration by way of experimental hormone replacement and puberty blockers.
Experimental is a strong word here. What do we not know about hormones?
You were talking about "lopping kid's cocks off", now you're talking about something entirely different. Post nose, jew.
>Go look up how many people killed themselves due to direct, not even indirect, influence under communism.
Capitalism is destroying mother Earth.

>> No.23515659

>>23515597
This is one of those things that sounds nifty on paper but won't stop a rock falling if you drop it.

>> No.23515669

>>23514856
i would say something along the lines of
>why are you quizzing me about the big bang when we're here to discuss books? is this about a book you've just been reading? if so, which one, and how is it?

>> No.23515730

>>23514856
The big collapse

>> No.23515737

>>23514911
we have observed both the universe expanding, and the remnants of radiation the bang caused dwindling.

we have never observed anything about a space wizard mumbling existence into being.

>> No.23515784

>>23515737
>space wizard mumbling existence into being
No wonder you don't believe if this is your idea of God.

>> No.23515789
File: 1.69 MB, 4032x3024, 20240622_195138.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23515789

Y'all niggaz need to read Itzak Bentov.

>> No.23515792

>>23515536
Now apply the exact same argument to God and realize God must have had a beginning.
>some random excuse
Now apply that exact same excuse to the universe

>> No.23515816

>>23515792
God is transcendent, all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, infinite, containing all within himself yet also separate and above everything. The universe isn't, and if it were, then it would be God by definition.

>> No.23515890

>>23515792
>Now apply the exact same argument to God and realize God must have had a beginning.
Not how it works. This guy gets it >>23515816.

>> No.23515894

The previous Kalpa, of course

>> No.23515897

>>23514856
/lit/ is for literature

>> No.23515898

>>23515890
>Not how it works.
If the ETERNAL GOD has always existed an infinite amount of time would have to pass before coming to this moment. This means that this moment would never actually occur and therefore the ETERNAL GOD had a beginning.

There I did the hard work of replacing universe with God in your argument. BTFO

>> No.23515903

>>23514856
I don't know. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer in science for science is an ever changing and evolving field of learning and study. It is not a measure of absolute certainty but a reflection of data based on testing and observation. So I don't know and it is far better to admit to not knowing than to fill in the gaps with an answer of your own choosing as you find it more palatable.

>> No.23515906

>>23515898
God's creations have beginnings, but God is eternal. Time is only an illusion existing within this universe. It's not really difficult to understand man.

>> No.23515919

>>23515906
Now apply that exact same excuse about God existing outside of time to the universe. The universe exists outside of time so doesn't need to have had a beginning.
>but how can the universe be outside of time yet we are clearly effected by time?
How can God be outside time and still effect us? This goofy sophistry can always be turned around to bite you in the ass.

>> No.23515940

>>23515919
>"The universe exists outside of time so doesn't need to have had a beginning."
Clearly it doesn't and does respectively.
>"How can God be outside time and still effect us?"
>trying to make the eternal unknowable God conform to your worldly understanding of logic and causality
Silly.
You're wasting everyone's time trying to assault the internal logic of something which has been established and critiqued from every possible angle for thousands of years. Far superior minds to yours and mine have worked through this. Just stick to "it's unfalsifiable and there's no evidence" like a good simpleton.

>> No.23515948

>>23514856
Idk why these threads always devolve into
>But what about God????
>Checkmate
At least this guy is trying to engage honestly>>23515903

>> No.23515955

>>23515898
You asked someone to prove the the universe had a beginning. I gave you a logical argument that proves it does.
>If the ETERNAL GOD has always existed an infinite amount of time would have to pass before coming to this moment.
This demonstrates you don't understand the argument, anon. I'll restate. If the universe has always existed this means that an infinite amount of time would have to come to pass in order for this moment to take place. By this, this moment would never come to pass. Therefore, the universe has a beginning. Now, in order for the universe to have a beginning something outside of it and beyond its limit need exist to give cause. This is part of the prime mover argument.

Basically, if you think you can just replace "universe" with "God" you're not actually understanding the actual argent being made. The point is to establish the validity of a metaphysical argument to overcome infinite regress and not merely to insert the idea of "God" into the equation.

>> No.23515958

>>23515906
Fedoras almost always exemplify the Dunning Kruger effect. He doesn't understand the actual argument being made and overlooks the form of the argument for word substitution as if it's a high IQ move, lol.

>> No.23515961

>>23515940
>Clearly it doesn't and does respectively
Ah the argument from assertion. What Bible thumpers devolve to every time.
>You're wasting everyone's time trying to assault the internal logic of something which has been established and critiqued from every possible angle for thousands of years.
The cosmological argument hasn't been accepted for several hundred years.
> Far superior minds to yours and mine have worked through this.
And they've pointed out the numerous flaws in the cosmological argument that I'm just parroting.

You've given up on saying something existing eternally is contradictory since you want to claim God is eternal. Now you've moved onto claiming God is outside time which means God can't have created the universe since God would have had to exist BEFORE the universe and BEFORE is a temporal relation which a God outside of time couldn't have.

>> No.23515964
File: 234 KB, 828x1079, 1717451522945298.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23515964

Im to lazy to check the thread. How many faces of r/atheism "arguments" has this retard >>23515961 parroted so far?

>> No.23515965

>>23515955
>Is God eternal?
>Yes
>So God must have existed an infinite amount of time before this moment?
>Yes
>So by your same fucking argument that means this moment never actually occurs or that God had a beginning
>N-no you just don't understand.
Pathetic

>> No.23515967

>>23514856
>what came before the big bang?
The previous universe preceded by the previous Big Bang.
>history is cyclical
>nature is cyclical
>weather is cyclical
>women's periods are cyclical
>the universe is somehow NOT cyclical

>> No.23515974

>>23515961
>God can't have created the universe since God would have had to exist BEFORE the universe and BEFORE is a temporal relation which a God outside of time couldn't have
Hilarious semantics. I applaud if this was intended as a joke.

>> No.23515979

>>23515965
>still doesn't get it
The argument moves from the physical to the metaphysical, retard. Your mistake is to reassert physical properties through word substitution instead of engaging the actual point that's being made (which is, again, the movement from physics to metaphysics).

>> No.23515980
File: 89 KB, 849x632, 1717461293335315.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23515980

>>23515967
>women's periods are cyclical

>> No.23515984

>>23515974
Ah so before does apply to God then? So an eternal God must have existed infinitely long before this moment. And we both know what that means >>23515536

>> No.23515989

>>23515984
We're two different anons pointing out the same mistake you've made, retard.

>> No.23515990
File: 3.11 MB, 640x480, 1719063271732239.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23515990

>>23515575
>atheist who wants to label wrongthinkers as mentally ill/defective is also a literal tranny communist
HAHAHAHAHA

>> No.23515997

>>23515989
What mistake? And if you're a different anon you must think >>23515536 is stupid then.

>> No.23516012

>>23515174
You can solve infinite regress by positing a limited circular timeline or block world. These sorts of solutions have been around since at least Empedocles.

>> No.23516022
File: 144 KB, 1042x1781, mt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23516022

>>23516012
Or just brute facting the universe's existence.

>> No.23516031

>>23515997
>What mistake?
Missing the point of the argument by ignoring the move from the physical to the metaphysical in order to parrot the standard "who made God" fedora tip.

>> No.23516039

>>23516031
>physical to the metaphysical
You mean the special pleading to exempt God when you realize your argument is working against you. Yawn

>> No.23516051
File: 67 KB, 632x413, Zr6n2FwxOT6lL77AMcmb2pPV5gH-RzDIK3FoznXZi9U.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23516051

>>23516039
>still doesn't get it
You're awfully dimwitted, anon. If you can provide an actual counterargument we can continue the conversation but if all you have is boring semantics, as the other anon pointed out, we're done. I'll just post more faces of r/atheism instead so we can have a laugh.

>> No.23516062

>>23516051
Still haven't explained how an eternal God can have existed infinitely before now . This >>23515536 guy thinks that leads to a contradiction so God must have had a beginning.

>> No.23516073
File: 135 KB, 1000x538, LEp8psy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23516073

>>23516062
>I'm incapable of understanding the actual argument
To remind everyone, faces of r/atheism was a phenomena where fedora tippers heroically declared their atheism via doxing themselves by posting their picture alongside a quote (self-attributed of course). It inadvertently influenced the use of irony in internet memes and serves as an early example of the lolcow phenomena.

It also turned out that a lot of them actually wore fedoras, had neckbeards, and were overweight lol.

>> No.23516075

>>23515965
>So God must have existed an infinite amount of time
Come on bro you don't have to agree with them, but at least read The Confessions so you have a basic idea of what they're talking about.

>> No.23516078

>>23516073
Still no response about that eternal God. Did he exist infinitely before this moment? Am I wrong about that? Or maybe you think this moment isn't actually occuring? Is that it? Because otherwise you're fucked by your own argument. Forced to eat your own words I love it.

>> No.23516081

>>23515535
Holy fucking shit! Struck a nerve, did he? You surely sound like a sane and trustworthy judge.

>>23514948
>>23515536
Where's the demonstration?

>> No.23516084

>>23516075
So you don't think God is eternal. You and the other anon disagree about that.

>> No.23516085
File: 40 KB, 425x605, faces-of-atheism-v0-z3nh2cy7fzfb1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23516085

>>23516078
Take this anon's >>23516075 advice. You're hopelessly filtered and out of your depth.

>> No.23516090

>>23516084
>So you don't think God is eternal
I don't know where you got my position on an Eternal God from that post, but I do think God is eternal. I was simply giving you a very introductory text you can start with so you can better understand the arguments of people you disagree with. Having a less hostile mindset will serve you well.

>> No.23516093

>>23515906
You are genuinely retarded. Your reasoning is grounded on the inherently true and necessary idea that your god exists. That's not how the argument works. Commit suicide in the name of your faith.

>> No.23516094

>>23515623
>Experimental is a strong word here. What do we not know about hormones?
So you admit you want to give kids experimental hormones and puberty blockers?
>You were talking about "lopping kid's cocks off"
That's was a different anon and he's not far off the mark, troon.

>> No.23516095

>>23515955
Do you genuinely think that a man cannot outrun a turtle?

>> No.23516096

>>23516090
>I don't know where you got my position on an Eternal God from that post
Because God having existed an infinite amount of time follows pretty directly from him being eternal. It's the fucking definition.
>but I do think God is eternal
So you do think God must have existed an infinite amount of time before now. Refer to this guy >>23515536 for why that leads to a contradiction.

>> No.23516101

>>23516095
You've never studied calculus.

>> No.23516105

>>23515958
What's argument? Premises and conclusion, please

>> No.23516111

>>23514856
Natural causes exploded it into existence. this is only "before" in a casaul sense, not a temporal one, for obvious reasons.

>> No.23516113

>>23516101
I have a degree in electrical engineering. So does god bend to the laws of high school maths? Besides, you haven't answered my question: do you genuinely think that a man cannot outrun a turtle?

>> No.23516119

>>23516096
>Because God having existed an infinite amount of time follows pretty directly from him being eternal. It's the fucking definition.
I really don't understand how. Can you explain this and provide me with your definition?

>> No.23516121

>>23514911
There's more reason to believe in big bang than a God.

>> No.23516134

>>23516119
Eternal:
Without beginning or end

What is your definition of eternal? And since you don't seem to have been following the thread note the anon's argument hinges on God not having a beginning but the universe does. If being eternal doesn't mean not having a beginning you'll have to add that as another property of God.

>> No.23516149

>>23514856
God

>> No.23516152

>>23516149
Not without sounding mad respond to someone asking what came before God?

>> No.23516154

if you can't prove god is real via empirical or rational arguments then fuck off

>> No.23516156

>>23516154
Faith

>> No.23516159

>>23516134
>What is your definition of eternal?
Same one as yours!
>property of God.
I'm uncomfortable ascribing any properties to God.
I really don't see why you're insisting on time being coequal with God, but my head used to hurt when I tried to think about infinite sets in college so I may just be missing something here.

>> No.23516160

>>23516152
The big bang

>> No.23516164

>>23516113
I think a turtle can probably outrun you.

>> No.23516165

>>23516156
faith is an emotional reaction. Hormones and neural connections, it has nothing metaphysical in it whatsoever

>> No.23516168

>>23516160
No one is interested in hearing about your mother.

>> No.23516174

>>23516159
I don't understand what you're asking. If God is eternal he existed for infinite amount of time before this moment. Per this anon >>23515536 that leads to a contradiction. He wanted to show that the universe had to have had a beginning but his same exact argument shows God must have had a beginning for us to exist at this moment. Hoisted with his own petard

>> No.23516188

>>23516164
So this is the mental power of a theist. Woah!

>> No.23516194

>>23514856
what a stupid question

>> No.23516195

>>23516188
>t. stupid person
Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.

>> No.23516202

>>23516174
>If God is eternal he existed for infinite amount of time
No? God is eternal and time is not. Time has a beginning, God does not. You can say time is infinite, but since it clearly had a beginning I don't know how you can say it is eternal.

>> No.23516204

>>23516195
>stupid question
So you finally see how stupid it is to say that infinite time makes the current moment impossible?

>> No.23516205

In the end Buddhists will be proven right, shit just loops around forever.
The universe contracts and expands forever using the known laws of atoms not wanting to be crushed together but also matter being attracted to other matter.

>> No.23516207

>>23516202
Is god a mental noumena?

>> No.23516214

>>23516202
>God is eternal and time is not. Time has a beginning
Ah so that means there can't have been an infinite amount of time before now. So anon's argument here >>23515536 doesn't work since it relies on an infinite amount of time possibly existing before now. So he didn't prove the universe can't be eternal and must have a beginning. Which means that you can't rely on God not having a beginning while the universe has to have one which destroys the cosmological argument.

You and me working together have disproven another stupid Bible thumper's pathetic attempt at apologetics.

>> No.23516216

>>23516207
>noumena
I have no idea what this word means. Why are you trying to trick me instead of speaking clearly?

>> No.23516219

>>23514920
>>23515737
>>23516121
Do you know that the Theory of Creation, or how you stupidly call it, the "Big Bang theory", was created by a catholic priest. You are acting like this theory denies God while it actually enforces him.

>> No.23516221

>>23516216
Okay. Is god a mental idea? A Platonic form?

>> No.23516232

>>23515898
God isn't eternal because he lived an infinite amount of time. God is eternal because he is outside of time, he is the one who created time to begin with. Time doesn't affects God, but it affects this universe, thus this universe must have had a beginning.

>> No.23516235

>>23516221
I wouldn't say that platonic forms are mental ideas, and I wouldn't say God is either of these things.
>>23516214
>Which means that you can't rely on God not having a beginning while the universe has to have one which destroys the cosmological argument.
Now I'm really confused. I thought they settled the eternity of the world debated back in late antiquity. If God's eternal why would he ever have a beginning??

>> No.23516237

>>23516216
Smartest /lit/ user.

>> No.23516238

>>23516232
Why is god the exception to causality?

>> No.23516240

>>23516219
>was created by a catholic priest
So?

>> No.23516248

>>23516235
>I thought they settled the eternity of the world debated back in late antiquity
Aristotle thought he had with >>23515536 argument. But now you're saying time has a beginning and didn't exist infinitely before now.

>> No.23516251

>>23516204
>can't into philosophy
Holy shit, lol. Stick to (applied) math.

>> No.23516253

>>23516232
Which just gets us back to here >>23515919. Just apply the same special pleading you did for God to the universe.

>> No.23516260

>>23516248
>But now you're saying time has a beginning
I thought this was obvious. How the hell would time not have a beginning, doesn't it start at 0 and just go up??

>> No.23516262

>>23514856
didn't read a single comment in this entire boring ass thread
the easiest, most irrefutable answer is: the previous kalpa
you're welcome
/thread

>> No.23516268

>>23516253
NTA. Make an argument as to why it constitutes special pleading instead of declaring it.

>> No.23516272

>>23516260
>I thought this was obvious
Far from obvious and if you do assume time had a beginning you destroy Aristotle's argument against the eternal existence of the universe which explicitly relies on the impossibility of traversing an infinite amount of time to the present moment. By your own argument eternal existence doesn't imply an infinite amount of time before the present moment.

>> No.23516278

>>23516268
>Make an argument as to why it constitutes special pleading instead of declaring it.
Because you only want to apply it God. Do you object to me saying the universe is outside of time?
>We're clearly interacting in a temporal manner
>If you believe in the Bible so has God

>> No.23516288

>>23516278
>Because you only want to apply it God.
Again: NTA. It's not special pleading given the structure of the argument he's making. You're declaring it as such while not providing a valid argument as to why it constitutes such.

>> No.23516293

>>23516288
It's not special pleading if you allow me the same exemption to say the universe is outside of time. But saying the universe is outside of time destroys his argument that it must have had a beginning

>> No.23516297

>>23516293
>It's not special pleading if you allow me the same exemption to say the universe is outside of time.
That's simply rejecting his argument based on semantics without engaging with it.

>> No.23516300

>>23514856
Couldn't tell u, just know there was a big bang

>> No.23516307

>>23516297
No it's not it's giving a clear argument why his argument for the universe's beginning doesn't work if I'm to use the same special pleading he is.
>time applies to everything besides God
That is a textbook example of special pleading.

>> No.23516308

>>23516272
>Aristotle's argument against the eternal existence of the universe
Hang on, Aristotle said the world was eternal! I think the argument you're talking about comes from Christians trying to reconcile genesis with Aristotle.

>> No.23516313

>>23516307
>universe has a beginning
>to avoid infinite regress something that doesn't have a beginning need exist
>because the universe has a beginning this thing exists outside of the universe
>anon labels this "God" which seems to trigger you to the point you can't follow the argument
Do you get it now? You haven't been engaging with the argument that was being made.

>> No.23516317

>>23516313
it could be that the universe came into existence without being caused by anything to do so, but still has a start

>> No.23516319

>>23516238
Because he's God, dummy. If God wasn't transcendent then he wouldn't be God.

>> No.23516324

>>23516319
why do you know that god exists?

>> No.23516328

>>23516317
Which would be an assertion not based on evidence whereas the other anon entertains religious metaphysics. At best you're in the same boat as he is but you admit the utility of metaphysical arguments.

>> No.23516329

>>23516324
Saw him

>> No.23516330

>>23516324
I don't, and that question is outside the scope of this entire conversation.

>> No.23516333

>>23516308
>Hang on, Aristotle said the world was eternal!
Don't let the Christcucks hear that.

>> No.23516339

>>23516333
Hey retard, they obvious must've heard of it to write about it!

>> No.23516343

>>23516328
You are correct however that is not the point of the assertion, it is to demonstrate that the uncaused causer is an unproven and superfluous argument which cannot be conclusively used to prove any gods.

>> No.23516347

>>23516313
>Universe has a beginning
>God doesn't have a beginning
>Wait so why does the universe have to have a beginning?
>Goofy argument why the universe has to have a beginning
>But wouldn't that same argument apply to God?
>Because something has to be without beginning to stop the infinite regress
>So why can't that be the universe
>S-shutup you just don't get it
Even if you accept the necessity to end the infinite regress of causes as a valid reason you can just as easily say the universe is the first cause and snip off a superfluous God like I've been saying over and over. Occam's razor and all.

>> No.23516348

>>23516328
but we are talking about the universe as an empirical thing, not a metaphysical one
if we know that the universe exists and has a certain age (as defined by its own internal standards), we cannot say empirically that it had to have had a cause, as it is empirically impossible to prove that it had a cause (as it would go outside of empiricism)
that logic is as far as we are aware universal everywhere in the empirical world doesn't mean that things 'outside' the empirical world have to follow the logic of this universe

>> No.23516350

>>23516339
What schizo thinks an eternal universe was created?

>> No.23516362

>>23516347
>Wait so why does the universe have to have a beginning?
The problem of actual infinity.

>> No.23516363

>>23514885
>>23515792
>What came before god?
Such a stupid midwit question. God is eternal. Atheist/evolutionists/humanists are too stupid even to understand such a concept, they continually display a failing to understand it in this thread as well.

>> No.23516365

>>23516363
>Such a stupid midwit question
I say the same thing when someone asks what came before the universe.

>> No.23516366

>>23514935
>one can say the exact same thing about the universe?
Sure, they lie all the time.

But the universe cannot be eternal, and if you don't know how or why, why don't you study the laws of science like thermodynamics or conservation of matter/energy. You won't though, you'll just demand to be spoonfed, not like you'd even understand the science. You lying coward retards literally think monkeys transform into man and life came from a rock on blind faith alone and you think it's science.

>> No.23516367

>>23516362
>The problem of actual infinity.
Which applies equally to God as I have repeatedly shown >>23515898

>> No.23516368

>>23516365
No actual rebuttal, just a stupid deliberately ignorant fedora quip. That's all you lying cowards have.

>> No.23516370

>>23516367
>Which applies equally to God
It doesn't though. I get why the other anons gave up on you.

>> No.23516371

>>23514911
>Both positions require extraordinary faith to believe in. Big Bang supporters and creationists have more in common than it seems.
The main difference is the evolutionists/humanists religious creation myth is tax-funded and indoctrinated into kids as "Science™ fact" in the schools (despite contradicting dozens of laws of science and being mathematically impossible).

>> No.23516374

>>23514920
>>23515737
We can observe galaxies and voids and planets that "spin backwards". You don't know the meaning of science and you don't know what the data actually proves.

Evolutionists/humanists are lying cowards way behind on the science and willingly ignorant. Their religion is state-funded and indoctrinated into kids. They can't prove it so they post all the cope garbage they've been posting in this thread, like your post.

There's at least tenfold more evidence contradicting and irrefutably disproving your baseless religious creation myth you lying cowards falsely call science and that includes your fallacious timeline. According to you lying cowards, the world ages several million years every year, because you need to keep adding "2 more weeks" and "2 more millennia" for your religion to sound more reasonable.

>> No.23516375

>>23516366
>conservation of matter/energy
So you accept this as real then? That matter and energy can't be created or destroyed? Well there you go God can't have created the universe of matter and energy science proves it.

>> No.23516379

>>23514966
God told you how he did it. The world was formed in water and not as balls of fire from an explosion of nothing, and there's proof they're wrong as well in polonium halos.

>> No.23516380

>>23516370
>It doesn't though.
Why not? It's the exact same argument
>eternal thing exists an infinite amount of time before now
>an infinite amount of time before now means now can't exist
>the present moment exists
>therefore eternal thing wasn't eternal.

>> No.23516383

>>23516375
God is a miracle maker. You believe in zillions of miracles with no miracle maker.

You read the Bible, read something God did, then remove God, and ask "how did this happen in my self-refuting naturalist worldview". You're a retard.

>> No.23516384

>>23516219
A true man of science if he could put childish comforting superstitions aside to push the boundaries of our knowledge.

And if God created everything, would he not also have created the big bang?

John 15 describes the empiric method.

>> No.23516385

>>23516253
>the universe exists outside of time
Clearly not true.

>> No.23516386

>>23514960
>>23514983
>>23515730
>>23516300
Blind faith. Keep your big bang creation myth religion out of the schools, evolutionist/humanist lying cowards and hypocrites.

>> No.23516389

>>23516383
Ah so now science doesn't matter lol. Pathetic.

>> No.23516390

>>23516384
When did I deny the big bang? I only denyed the big bang with the absence of God, but not the big bang with God.

>> No.23516391

>>23516383
the difference is though, the empirical method constantly and every day disproves what the Bible has told us about the world
of course, Christians and Jews resort to saying it's all a metaphor, but what then is the content of your religion?

>> No.23516392

>>23516389
Thanks for proving you're unwilling to argue in good faith, as always with you lying coward sodomites. You don't even know the miracles you believe in on blind faith, like origin of time, space, matter, laws of universe, life, etc.

>> No.23516393

>>23516350
Nobody, that's why they wrote against the eternity of the world when defending Genesis' account of creation.

>> No.23516394

>>23516385
Give me some examples of the universe clearly existing in time. Be aware that whatever relation you demonstrate I'm going to immediately turn around and apply the same relation to God who most Christians think has vast instances of historical interaction.

>> No.23516396

>>23515597
>Time doesn't actually exist, it's simply the human perception
And this is the level of retardation atheist/humanist trash promote. Go watch a time lapse of a plant growing, you fucking retard.

>>23515965
>>23515984
God created and started time, dipshit. You envision a false universe with an infinite timeline, not that such a universe could even exist by the laws of science.

You people are the dumbest motherfuckers in the entire world.

>> No.23516399

>>23516393
So they contradict Aristotle whose arguments they rely on. Like I said Christcucks are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

>> No.23516400

>>23516391
That's just a baseless assertion and mantra you repeat and were brainwashed to believe. You're a retard and a liar and a coward.

>> No.23516401

>>23516380
You're getting hung up on the term "God" and missing the point of the argument.
>the universe has a beginning (problem of actual infinity)
>to avoid infinite regress something without a beginning need exist
>this something need exist outside the universe
>anon labels this "God" and you get hung up on it
The reason you can't shift semantics is because the concept of beyond time and thereby the universe is baked into it.

>> No.23516405
File: 760 KB, 2016x1124, 1691946166818.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23516405

Atheists/humanists prove ITT they will never argue in good faith and never prove their blind faith religious creation myth which is tax-funded and indoctrinated into kids in schools as "science" when it is just a fairy tale.

>> No.23516409

>>23516399
Which arguments of his do they rely on? I'm excited to be talking to an expert in late antique Aristotelian Commentaries.

>> No.23516410

>>23516400
you base your beliefs about the world on your hormones and neurological activity in the brain, which you then decide to call faith? or do these also not exist?

>> No.23516411

>>23516396
>God created and started time, dipshit.
This is just an assertion and one that doesn't make sense at that. Remember this started with an attempt at a rational argument that the universe had a beginning and like usual has devolved into dogmatic chanting. Christians are really the dregs of civilized society

>> No.23516413
File: 98 KB, 421x447, 1689907312778.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23516413

Atheists/humanists have no arguments. They've posted no arguments at all.

Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible
https://trueorigin.org/abio.php

The Evidence for a Creator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXexaVsvhCM

Dawkins: Literally Nothing is Something
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPlTsWFYBIM

Dawkins: Intelligent Design Possible by Aliens, but not God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abugiGHOHg0

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia - Evolution is a lie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0e-omnsukM

Comedian Debunks Evolution. Reno Collier - Full Special
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mdn3aI7twc

Eloquent Atheist Goes OFF on Christian!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT93-BA0474

Amazing Atheist Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzMmLHlxG_Y

Atheism Is A Religion
https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-is-religion/

Living Waters: The Atheist Delusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM

#1 Reason Evolutionism is Impossible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db2DzHLUfwc

Evolutionism vs God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeSxIqAYP4M

Evolutionism Is A Fairy Tale For Adults
https://www.christianevidence.net/2017/11/15-reasons-why-evolution-is-fairy-tale.html

Three Evolutionists vs One Christian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OghwjQDUiCM

Science confirms the Bible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFYswvGoaPU

Genesis is History
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM82qxxskZE

The Age of the Earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaHcHwPj4sw

100 Reasons Why Evolution is Stupid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhCsGlky4-M

Noah’s Ark: Science Confirms the Bible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82j1IqwA6P0

Sodom & Gomorrah Discovered
https://arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nFq6PCmj24

>> No.23516414

>>23516396
>And this is the level of retardation atheist/humanist trash promote. Go watch a time lapse of a plant growing, you fucking retard.
Hey retard he's quoting St. Augustine and his conception of the Eternal Present.

>> No.23516415

>>23516409
Aquinas's five ways are slavishly dependent on Aristotle. 1-3 are all cosmological arguments of the sort we are arguing

>> No.23516418

>>23516410
>>23516411
You're just projecting, lying coward.

>>23516414
>but muh papist pedophile cult said so
Who the fuck cares about what some papist says, you God damn coward.

>> No.23516421

>>23516401
>anon labels this "God" and you get hung up on it AND CALLS IT ETERNAL
Do you think God is eternal yes or no? If yes read the post you're responding to carefully again.

>> No.23516423

>>23516418
no, logic is universal and transcendetal, faith is unfortunately just hormones in your body

>> No.23516424

>>23516415
But John Philoponus existed before Aquinas, and Aquinas was medieval and not at all engaged with the living debate on the world's temporal status!
>>23516418
Care to argue against this idea instead of name calling?

>> No.23516427

>>23516424
>But John Philoponus existed before Aquinas, and Aquinas was medieval and not at all engaged with the living debate on the world's temporal status!
Don't know John whatever is but at least we can agree that Aquinas's arguments were stupid yes?

>> No.23516431

>>23516427
>least we can agree that Aquinas's arguments were stupid yes?
No, I've never read them and don't feel comfortable doing so. Can you explain them to me?

>> No.23516433

>>23516390
That's ok. keep your Teddy bear close. The universe is a precise uncaring thing.

>> No.23516435

>>23516431
>Can you explain them to me?
I'm kind of typed out at this point. This whole thread has been mostly about Aquinas's First Mover/Cause/Necessity and his arguments against infinite regress that he cribbed from Aristotle. See >>23515536 and >>23515898

>> No.23516437

>>23516394
When did I say the universe existed inside of time? Denying that the universe exists outside of time doesn't means that it exists inside of time. The universe HAS the property of time. But it's not inside or outside it, since it's not a place or a physical object. You clearly have logic problems, because you always missunderstand the most basic arguments.

>> No.23516438

>>23516435
I see, I'll have to look more into this on my own, as I've really been unable to understand anything you've said.

>> No.23516443

>>23516437
>When did I say the universe existed inside of time? Denying that the universe exists outside of time doesn't means that it exists inside of time.
So I guess the anons and anyone else saying God exists OUTSIDE of time are retards. I knew their arguments were dumb but you've just pointed out another facet of their stupidity. Thank you fellow traveler

>> No.23516448

>>23516438
>I've really been unable to understand anything you've said.
It's cause I'm trying to rationally arguing against a fundamentally irrational position so I'm forced to treat a lot of gibberish as meaningful. It's obvious to any reasonable person that God doesn't exist.

>> No.23516450

>>23516448
>It's obvious to any reasonable person
It does not seem to be so, at least from my experience in the world.

>> No.23516451

>>23516421
I've clearly explained to you why you can't simply play semantics with the terms that are being used and pointed out how they're baked into the argument. Can you respond or is your only response shallow semantics and the occasional cry of "special pleading"?

>> No.23516458

>>23516438
He's not presenting the actual arguments and seems to have picked up the strawman versions by way of Richard Dawkins. You can start here:
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/#God
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/#God

>> No.23516461

>>23516451
Dodging the question. Wouldn't expect any less from the guy defending special pleading.

>> No.23516464

>>23516461
It's not special pleading if he simply STATES that everything that has a cause has a causer. How does he prove it? He doesn't, it's just a statement, a worthless thing which proves nothing.

>> No.23516469

>>23516464
>It's not special pleading if he simply STATES that everything that has a cause has a causer.
That's not the special pleading the special pleading is
>time effects everything BESIDES God
I already said that here >>23516307

>> No.23516489

>>23516443
You were the only anon who said the universe, a material place, existed outside of time. I am talking about God, which is not a natural being, or a material being. God trascends time. And the universe doesn't.
I'm trying to explain to you the mere basics of theology, so basics that a mere google search can tell you what christians believe in.
>Traditionally, God's eternity has been understood in terms of timelessness. God simply transcends time; He doesn't exist in time. He doesn't exist now, but He exists simply timelessly
That is the first answer google gives when you search about this.

>> No.23516501

>>23516489
why does something outside of time and space exist?

>> No.23516506

>>23516489
Yeah but anyone who says God exists in or outside of time is stupid and in your words
>clearly have logic problems, because they always missunderstand the most basic arguments.
Aquinas says
>For His eternity is in present contact with the whole course of time, and even passes beyond time
How can an eternity be in contact with anything? It's not a material substance. Like you've pointed out that's a fundamental logical error. Aquinas doesn't understand basic theology. I knew he was an idiot but you've shown me he was a bigger moron than I thought. Thank you anon

>> No.23516564

>>23516461
I pointed out you're hung up on the idea of "God" like 5 posts ago and it causes you to miss the substance of the argument being made.
>>23516464
He's hopeless.

>> No.23516565
File: 190 KB, 624x481, galactus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23516565

>>23514856
>And what came before the big bang?
ME!!

>> No.23516583

>>23516469
>That's not the special pleading the special pleading is
>>time effects everything BESIDES God
It's not special pleading. If you want to reject the clause that leads to the conclusion that something need exist outside the universe provide a reason and go for it. Changing the semantics of the conclusion without countering the argument that was made isn't a response and at least 4 anons have pointed this out to you already. Take a hint.

>> No.23516599

>>23516583
>everything besides the universe needs a cause
Is that special pleading? That answers the same question of what created the universe. Nothing did since it doesn't need a cause.

>> No.23516615

>>23516599
>Is that special pleading?
No. If you want to reject one of the arguments that lead to the conclusion go for it.
>That answers the same question of what created the universe.
It doesn't.
>Nothing did since it doesn't need a cause.
That's an assertion and not an argument.

>> No.23516651

>>23516615
So I've BTFO of his argument then. Just assert the universe doesn't need a cause which solves the problem of what caused the universe. No God needed and no special pleading fallacy on my part.

>> No.23516683

>>23516651
>Just assert the universe doesn't need a cause which solves the problem of what caused the universe
He provided an argument as to why it needs a cause. You have yet to provide an argument as to why it can be rejected let alone establish why it doesn't need one. All you've done so far is fundamentally misunderstand the premises in a way that indicates the argument goes over your head.

>> No.23516691

>>23514856
>what came before the big bang?
A guy with holes in his hands

>> No.23516765

>>23515623
>trannylover calling others jew
You will never be a woman kikestein

>> No.23516837

>>23514856
There was no big bang. God created the world

>> No.23517906
File: 600 KB, 700x6826, 1696430928408309.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23517906

>>23515117
>>23515147
Because the universe mustn't have always existed because that would cause an infinite regression of change/motion in the cosmos. If there were an infinite regression, there would be no present change/motion in the cosmos. You wouldn't see an infinite set of train carriages moving without an engine (the prime mover), so the apparently 'infinite' set of carriages wouldn't be infinite. If they were infinite, they wouldn't be moving. If the cosmos were infinite going-backwards-in-time-wise, there would likewise be no change/motion, because there would be no prime mover (pure actuality) to have put to cosmos into motion (potentiality --> actuality --> potentiality, etc.). Don't think you've outsmarted Aquinas, comparable to Aritstotle himself in the realm of logic, because you've misunderstood him.

>> No.23517914

>>23514928
"makes sense"
buddy we're talking about faith

>> No.23517917

>>23515816
Correct. More specifically God is atemporal, the cosmos is temporal.

>> No.23517951

>>23514856
a thread died for this

>> No.23518202

>>23517906
*actualizes a potential fart*

>> No.23518218

>>23518202
that's the spirit

>> No.23518231

Causal finitism isn't universally accepted.

>> No.23518233

>>23517906
I think it's pretty cute that none of the examples truthfully describes what we see happening in reality

You can take away the power plant, and the ice in my freezer would sill freeze, because my freezer is 20 degrees bellow the freezing temperature of water, and insulated

This is just a medieval way to construe things, it doesn't help you accomplish practical goals
on my view, potential is not a feature of reality

I'm just not impressed by asserting that the universe (everything, except God) would behaves like a paintbrush
Besides, the notion of that the end of an infinitely long paintbrush would move at all, is in conflict with our current best understanding of natural science

>> No.23518239

>>23518233
>notion of that the end of an infinitely long paintbrush would move at all
even if there's some big painter at the other end, I mean

>> No.23518243

>>23514856
>Your response?
do shrooms

>> No.23518316

>>23515669
exactly. this is a /pol/ or /b/ question being posed in /lit/

>> No.23518320

>>23514856
Time is a flat circle. The end of our universe will create the big bang.

>> No.23518322

>>23515964
>to
>calls others retards

>> No.23518408

>>23517906
>be knowledge itself
actual gibberish
I have no idea how you're not embarrassed about this intellectualism cosplay

>> No.23518681

/// He was initially blackballed because of a dispute he once had with a couple of the committee members /// The appendix provides a very useful crib sheet for exams and reference /// Why has there been such a political flap over his appointment? /// Most people and organizations just roll over and give up when they're challenged or attacked by the IRS /// He walked out to jeers and catcalls /// To him, nationalism is an independent cultural construct and not just an epiphenomenon in the process of capitalist development /// Are you kids strapped in back there? /// These performance differences point to a pattern of highly variegated national responses to relatively similar sets of international constraints /// There was a lot of grousing about the last two Sopranos seasons, and the end remains divisive /// She liked me better from that time on, and she never took a supercilious air with me /// It's another moralizing tale filled with jejune platitudes /// Now seven months into hospice care, Jimmy continues to defy the odds /// The hokey stories of his impoverished childhood always surface at election time /// Stars twinkle in the night sky /// This idea has long been attributed to Keynes, but in fact he was not the first to think of it /// The guards conducted a shakedown of the prisoners' cells to look for weapons /// This limitation becomes problematic when mathematicians want to think about objects that are equivalent or isomorphic in some sense, if not necessarily equal in all respects /// Loss of memory is a natural concomitant of old age /// A relatively large number of bird names arise by onomatopoeia /// They drilled 361 holes into the base of the tower and filled them with mortar /// I think no other bodies of men are so loquacious as the temperance societies /// They receive appropriate recompense for any overtime worked /// After a long Saturday of being in character, the actors camp out in Sterling Forest, where they may pop a beer, grill a bite to eat and generally hobnob /// Apartment style condominiums account for 13% of all residences while duplexes account for 14% of all residences /// When asked directly for his position on disarmament, the candidate only equivocated /// There is something unhealthy and furtive about secret contributions to political parties in exchange for favours which may or may not be given /// You're feeling a bit under the weather so unsurprisingly you won't feel inclined to push yourself more than you absolutely need to /// He came back, enthusiastically popped the cork and poured two glasses of the fizzy wine /// The inscrutable depths of the ocean /// Written in academic prose, it gives very little back to the scene /// The meeting produced the usual bromides about the environment ///

>> No.23518824

>>23518233
You're not thinking metaphysically then, you're just thinking about your particular freezer and its source of power. Metaphysics goes beyond natural science. Plus it's not mediaeaval. The concept of actuality and potentiality comes from Aristotle. It's your choice to pooh pooh philosophy if you see zero utility in it, but you're viewing it from the perspective that everything with utility must be productive (like a consoomer); philosophy is directive.

>> No.23518875

>>23518243
Muh shrooms

>> No.23518940

>>23518824
The problem being that you are trying to use a set of philosophical assumptions to learn things about the natural world
But it's failing. It's landing you at conclusions that are demonstrably false (like the paintbrush and the freezer)

Then rather than maybe scrap the actuality/potential assumptions, you just keep on trucking, and suppose they apply to the universe (even if they don't apply to anything in it, at least not with a high degree of accuracy)

>You're not thinking metaphysically
Because I am providing relevant criticism? lol
Besides, I'm being very particular about what I say is mistaken. Was that philosophy overall? No, it was not.
It was this particular explanation (of nature) failing to hold up to how we know nature to actually work.
Medieval, because it's disregarding what we learned the last 500 years. There are better explanations, with a higher degree of resolution avaiable to us, if you want to describe what's going on in nature.

>> No.23519074

>>23514856
There's a very simple answer.
There was another universe.
The big bang destroyed that universe and created this universe simultaneously. Eventually, this one will implode and create a new universe out of our ashes.

>> No.23519076

>>23519074
Was there first universe?

>> No.23519134

>>23519076
the first universe is the last universe. it loops. the universes do, but not what happens in them.

>> No.23519142

>>23519134
Then there is no first and last.

>> No.23519148

>>23519142
exactly

>> No.23519295

>>23516219
religious people actually think like this. fucking wild lol..

>> No.23519375

>>23519295
>can't explain the creation of the universe without a God
>appropiate the theory of a catholic priest and take out God

>> No.23519615

>>23518940
>But it's failing. It's landing you at conclusions that are demonstrably false (like the paintbrush and the freezer)
Either you misunderstood its point or didn't explain very well what the problem is you're running into. If we come to terms and you try your best and explain how and where you ran into a misunderstanding, I could help you understand. What that graphic says about freezers doesn't concern your particular freezer. I believe you understand this also, so I'm not sure what point it is you're trying to make. Again, this is a matter than transcends natural science, the 'meta-' in metaphysics means 'beyond (physics)', so I don't know why you're trying to lower the discussion down to that domain.

>> No.23519620

>>23514856
Cosmic Inflation. This has been the consensus amongst cosmologists for a while now.

What came before cosmic inflation? That's a tough question.

>> No.23519623

>>23514911
>both sides are the same
Weak

>> No.23519633

>>23519148
That causes an infinite regression. See:
>>23517906

>> No.23519635

>>23514928
That argument wasn't about linear causality
Even Saint Tommaso d'Aquino tought it was an extremely weak argument.
The universe could be eternal so there is no need to explain what created it.
Obviously Thomas believed God to have linearly caused the Universe ,but it wasn't one of his main argument since it is a flawed argument.

>> No.23519638

>>23519074
Or Black Hole Cosmology is correct and every Black Hole leads to a White Hole that looks like a Big Bang from the inside. And the physical constants might be different in each universe, but a natural selection-like effect would tend to make it more likely that universes that produce a lot of Black Holes reproduce. And those universes would also seem to be just those that would have constants close to what is needed for the emergence of life.

So, in a neat way, Black Hole Cosmology *might* be able to offer a solution to the Fine Tuning Problem that doesn't have the undetermination/Boltzmann Brain problems of the infinite multiverse of MWI.

This doesn't rule out a Prime Mover though. The problem is always going to be there that if stuff can just start existing at any moment, for no reason at all, then it can keep on doing it, at random, but we don't observe anything like that. So you could also say that Black Hole Cosmology just shows that God is very clever and uses selection-like effects at multiple levels of emergence in a very neat pattern of fractal recurrence across time and spacial scales.

>> No.23519650

>>23519375
who you quoting mousebrain?

>> No.23519673

>>23517906
Maybe read Aquino...
Before quoting him

>> No.23519687
File: 54 KB, 1011x243, Screenshot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23519687

>>23514856
Leftists and big bang believers are the dumbest people in the entire world, they're all just golem for the state.

>> No.23519704

>>23514856
The universe that predates our one. That collapsed in on itself and the lingering energy gave birth to this universe. Then after this one the next kalpa will kick in and it'll keep repeating itself to varying degrees.

>> No.23519713

>>23519615
>this is a matter than transcends natural science, the 'meta-' in metaphysics means 'beyond (physics)', so I don't know why you're trying to lower the discussion down to that domain.
I don't get this point, at all
You're trying to explain something about nature
And, as far as I know, all of reality is nature. I don't make a distinction between natural things, and non-natural things.

I just view this as some weird rhetorical move

>> No.23519734

>>23517906
No, but seriously. This is so silly to me.
Make a bunch of convoluted assumptions, then act surprised about the conclusion that follows from them -> A GOD!
Is this really what philosophical arguments are?

>> No.23519739

>>23519713
>I just view this as some weird rhetorical move
rhetorical move to make your explanation except from certain criticisms*

>> No.23519756

>>23519650
It's not a quote, it's a statement. The theory of the big bang was created having God in mind by Georges Lemaître, a catholic priest. Atheists mocked the theory, until it was accepted, so they had no other choice than to use this theory but without God.

>> No.23519762

>>23519734
>Make a bunch of convoluted assumptions, then act surprised about the conclusion that follows from them
If we assume the universe is like a moving train, then the train has an engine
an engine, to which everyone gives the name 'God'
QED

Impressive stuff.
My rebuttal is that the universe isn't a train

>> No.23519775

>>23516219
Big bang theory is independent from the Judeo-Christian God. If the Big bang happened, there is no reason to believe in a God because physical life arose from cosmic happenings. If life can arise from gasses swirling, without divine intervention, how can the account of creation in Genesis 1 be believed? If this happens, why does man need God?

>> No.23519786

>>23519756
I'm another guy. But you talk like that should trouble me, as an atheist in the 21st century.
It doesn't, not one bit.
Catholics are allowed to engage in scientific activities.

>so they had no other choice than to use this theory but without God.
Are theories commonly in the business of using God as an explanation? No, of course not.

>> No.23519794

>>23519775
>If the Big bang happened, there is no reason to believe in a God because physical life arose from cosmic happenings.
Not true. The big bang theory says that everything came from a particle, but it never explains where did that particle was created.

>> No.23519800

>>23519794
it doesn't say this at all
in any case it could have been something random, yes, completely random and without causality such as quantum fluctuations which gave rise to the universe

>> No.23519801

>>23519786
I couldn't care less if it mocks or doesn't mocks you. What I care, and I see injustice in, is that the first comments I quoted were mocking religious people, when they believe the creation of a theory made by a religious man.

>> No.23519807

>>23519800
Have you even read the theory?

>> No.23519811

>>23519807
have you?

>> No.23519834

>>23519811
Dude, the original name of the theory was "hypothesis of the primeval atom", are you seriously arguing that the big bang didn't came from a single atom? And are you seriously asking that said atom wasn't primeval? Holy fucking shit. Blows my mind.

>> No.23519840

>>23519801
Catholics literally think the cause of this universe is a carpenter with holes in his hands
it's silly, it's foolish (to those who perish)

Their own scripture tells them to expect mockery
Why shouldn't I mock?

>> No.23519846

>>23519635
>>23519734
It is a flanderized version of Aquino's arguments, from someone who didn't read them.
The first mover argument is about tge nature of potentiality and actuality.
A table for ex has the potential to be broken
If it break something actualized the table potential
For ex an hammer hardness
and a toolmaker actualized the potential hardness of the hammer by building it of a hard material.
By climbing this chain of dependecies we get to something that has no potential but only actuality
So it doesn't depend on anything else for its existence
It cannot have a beginning since that would imply it had potential
And it cannot change since that would mean it had a potential property that is now actual whych imply something else actualized it.

The other anon just made stuf up about infinite regression.
Which as i said previously is not an argument Aquino made.
Ps
Sorry for my ESL.

>> No.23519847

>>23514911
Nope because the universe doesn't need a creator, it's just matter and void (more void than matter), the Universe is already ''nothing'' with some bits of ''something'', so the question ''why is there something rather than nothing?'' is retarded. The existence of a God is way more extraordinary than the existence of the Universe

>> No.23519851

>>23519840
>Catholics literally think the cause of this universe is a carpenter with holes in his hands

No they don't. You are confusing The Father and The Son.

>> No.23519857

>>23519851
But they are the same person??

>> No.23519861

>>23519851
Jesus is God, God made the universe
simple

Do you think Jesus was exempt from the act of creation?

>> No.23519876

>>23519861
>>23519857
Jesus is God, but God created the universe before being encarnated into a human, becoming a carpenter, and being crucifixed.

>> No.23519888

>>23519876
Ok

eternal and immutable, btw >>23517906

>> No.23519902

>>23519876
Are you chrystian??

>> No.23519910

>>23514911
The big bang was refuted. Meanwhile miracles have been observed which directly proves God's existence. I literal talk to God when I pray at night

>> No.23519930
File: 158 KB, 1002x1002, lilith.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23519930

Unanswerable speculation isn't worth your time speculating over. This is, in fact, a luxury. Either way, you never get an answer. The sciences will always bottom out at the phenomenal, and God could never assuredly tell you the truth of his own origin. Your time is better spent fortifying your position in the socioeconomic hierarchy until death, at which point you still won't get any answers. If god himself told you that you were in heaven, you have no cause to believe it won't turn to hell next Wednesday.

>> No.23519990

Atheists are afraid of death, they spend their whole life desperately trying to convince themselves that they won't face eternal consequences for their wretched actions, throw tantrums and try to destroy everything around them.

>> No.23519993

>>23519930
YWNBAW, severe brain damage, possible drug addiction, no assured drug addiction, certain porn addiction.

>> No.23520018

>>23519990
Yeah. Christians get to live forever.

>> No.23520025

>>23519876
>least heretical catholic

>> No.23520039

>>23519876
>things that didn't happen

>> No.23521001

>>23519713
I guess it would be a rhetorical move if we stayed within the domain of nature. By nature I assume you mean the cosmos, a.k.a. space-time. Well, if we're discussing what 'came before the universe', a.k.a. what is outside of (or more accurately sans) spacetime, then you're no longer within the realm of spacetime, the cosmos or nature. You're now speaking in spiritual terms, which is synonymous w/ metaphysics. Because of false preconceived notions of spiritual matters, people like atheists or materialists will immediately dismiss it because their default way of thinking only involves what occurs in the realm of matter. The nature of pure actuality itself would require it to take on those properties that make it immaterial, eternal, etc.

>> No.23521003

>>23514856
Well the big bang never happened, so it's kind of a stupid question to begin with

>> No.23521023

>>23519734
>>23519762
It isn't a train, it's like a train, by way of this metaphor: a moving train and a currently-active universe both involve motion (change). The universe is currently in motion, and God is seen as the thing to have put the universe in motion. You have to understand that in the past, motion and change meant the same thing. When one train carriage moves by 1 metre, it 'changes' it's location by 1 metre. The actual carriage 0 metres to the left is a potential carriage 1 metre to the left. Once it performs that motion/change, it becomes an actual carriage 1 metre to the left. Likewise for every change that can occur in the universe. Apply that to everything in the universe.
Plus, the was not to equate the universe to a train. We are using the 'apparent' infiniteness of the moving train carriages to represent the 'apparent' infiniteness of time. Because the universe is in motion, it can't possibly be infinite. If it were, there'd be no first mover, and thus there'd be no motion. The train-carriages thing was meant to be a more simple way to visualise that, whereas you interpreted it more as us applying the nature of trains and carriages onto the nature of the universe, which is not at all what is being done.

>> No.23521033

>>23519846
What you stated is about as essential (and not flanderised) as what I stated. I only brought up the infinite regression because it is always the result of what people who are contra-Aquinas always bring up. The first things they always go towards involve the necessity of an infinite regression. I am only serving to prove its impossibility.