/sci/ - Science & Math

As long as he doesn't share his knowledge it's logically consistent.

>>2892417
that's not how free will works...

>>2892450
Sure it is.

Imagine a person with free will. They are being recorded on a certain day. The next day, someone else watches the tape. Did the person have free will?

Now: imagine a person with free will. They are being recorded on a certain day. At the end of the day, the tape is put in a time machine, and someone else watches it the day before. Did the person have free will?

The ways I view this is that if he is omniscient, then he knows the future. To know the future means that it must be unchangeable and immutable, otherwise how could he know?

If God knows the future he must know he will become obsolete.

It depends entirely on what you mean by "free will."

If what you mean is incompatible with a predetermined outcome, then yes, an omniscient being and "free will" can't both exist.

>>2892491

Or perhaps he recognises all possible futures and as the "time-distance" (i.e. T-minus ___) to a certain event decreases to zero, the possible outcomes are whittled down to one.

>>2892498
>possible futures

Then that isn't omniscience. Because one of them will happen, and if he doesn't know which, then that is something he doesn't know, i.e. he isn't omniscient.

>>2892469

>Immanuel Kant, homo phaenomenon and homo noumenon.

All these problems are easily solved by the solution that there is no god.

This contradicts absolutely nothing in science to the degree that if it were true, reality would be same as it is right now.

>>2892514
could you explain what this has to do with the post you replied to?

a cursory googling turns up a lot of stuff but I didn't see anything related to free will vs. omniscience.

>>2892523

There is no way to prove the existence / nonexistence of god in a scientific way, since to prove it on an empiric level you need to be omniscient.

The only scientist able to prove the nonexistence of god is god himself.

>>2892413
Well if you believe in the God of Abraham, God specifically gave us free will. Because he loved us he gave us the freedom to choose right or wrong. I think it is a Muslim teaching that says all of the infinite actions we can possibly contribute to God's plan.

>>2892561
Since you can't actually prove anything in science, I think you know little of the scientific method and should gb2/b/

>>2892563
How can you call that a plan then?

>>2892561

>god
>scientist

>>2892523
You state science as if it has all problems solved which it doesn't. Explain to me how the universe came to be. A principle that we can pretty much all agree on from observation is that everything has a cause. What is the cause of the universe being created? People say the Big Bang. What created that highly dense system of particles then? Then it keeps on going.

>>2892491
>mfw god was a statistician.
knowing what will happen isn't the same as having the power to change what will happen.

>>2892563
Actually the book of genesis pretty clearly says that we didn't have knowledge of right and wrong (and therefore couldnt choose between them) until we ate fruit that god told us not to. I don't know where this "God gave us free will because he loves us" idea came from, but it wasn't the bible.

>>2892587

it was the new testament, not the old one.

>>2892570
>>2892570
–noun
1.
a scheme or method of acting, doing, proceeding, making, etc., developed in advance: battle plans.
2.
a design or scheme of arrangement: an elaborate plan for seating guests.


It is a design that leads to an end. This God is so good at planning that even if the majority of people choose to reject him it still doesn't hinder his ultimate goal.

>>2892561

I didn't meant that it could/should/can be proved/disproved, merely that it is unnecessary.

That god is the author of the Universe, is the only feasible position. And I would agree with your post. But if he isn't needed to explain anything and we have no way of determining whether or not he exists, then what use is he?

oh dem action figures

oh you guys

>>2892576

what created god? then it keeps going.

'son of god, king of the jews'.
damn i wish i'd posted this on /new/ when it was still around

>>2892567

I'm not >>2892561, but piss off none the same.
In a thread about a supernatural entity, you are nitpicking on the word usage.
You should skip /b/ and go straight to an hero.

>>2892576


Who said they had to be created?

>>2892598
Well if the message of the bible is for the most part true save some changes made by opportunistic people then I would say that this god that authored the universe was nice enough to leave a moral code for all of us to abide by to be happy.

Think about it. The idea of a king being a servant to his people being created in that time is pretty amazing. Also the idea of loving your enemy and that sinners are the people that require the most help would be unheard of. At that time if your wife cheated on you she would be killed yet Jesus managed to teach that they should be forgiven and he actually managed to gain followers using this completely unpopular opinion.

>>2892610
Well the point of the idea of god would be a entity that is outside of our understanding and was not created.
>>2892618
Well if science is what you base your beliefs on, I am pretty sure it is accepted for anything cause to exist that there must be an effect but it is also accepted that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Science has contradictions like religion...

>>2892619
>>2892619

The idea of heliocentric solar system, a round earth, and that there were fundamental building blocks of matter that were all the same at that level is all pretty fucking trippy and these were known back before the bible.

I guess everything else that they thought they knew must be true now to. Let alone the fact that we as humans learn and grow and so of course their magical thinking and selfish ways seem foolish to us now. Just because one idea sticks out as rational back then give any real meaning to the bible.

I hate religious trolls, their job is so easy.

>>2892631

What you know about a total energy of zero!!!

>>2892619

The vast majority of the bible is not original in content or meaning.
And it also contains a lot of "instructions" for slavery, genocide, infanticide etc

You have to understand the quality of life people had then - average lifespan, disease, engineering ability to withstand weather etc.
It is a book like all other books and it recorded common knowledge, history, culture etc in a time before information was manageble and easily replicated/transmitted.

The only example I can think of right now is I Kings 7:23-26, which essentially discusses the value of pi. It obviously isn't an accurate value, but to anyone reading it in context it provides applicable knowledge.

>>2892544

The overall topic ITT is: "Are we determined or not?"
Kant sort of solved this problem by attacking the problem from 2 different angles:

>Homo phaenomenon

"...every human being has an empirical character for his power of choice, which is nothing other than a certain causality of his reason, insofar as in its effects in appearance this reason exhibits a rule, in accordance with which one could derive the rational grounds and the actions themselves according to their kind and degree, and estimate the subjective principles of his power of choice. Because this empirical character itself must be drawn from appearances as effect, and from the rule which experience provides, all the actions of the human being in appearance are determined in accord with the order of nature by his empirical character and the other cooperating causes; and if we could investigate all the appearances of his power of choice down to their basis, then there would be no human action that we could not predict with certainty, and recognize as necessary given its preceding conditions. Thus in regard to this empirical character there is no freedom, and according to this character we can consider the human being solely by observing, and, as happens in anthropology, by trying to investigate the moving causes of his actions physiologically"

>>2892631

Causality yes.
Conservation of mass/energy is slightly more complex (literally and figuratively).

And what about an oscillating Universe? Same amount of mass before and after, yet all that has happened is a compression and consequent expansion of spacetime.

>>2892666

...ok, shit's too long. I think I should sum It up by my self(at least the 2nd half of it).... brb

>>2892631

>special pleading
>circular logic

Although we dont have answers for everything as scientist, we have evidence that suggests something. You in turn do not have evidence yet expect to have equal credibility.

>mfw

>>2892631

>Science has contradictions like religion...
It only appears that way because you are retarded.

>"...every human being has an empirical character for his power of choice, which is nothing other than a certain causality of his reason, insofar as in its effects in appearance this reason exhibits a rule, in accordance with which one could derive the rational grounds and the actions themselves according to their kind and degree, and estimate the subjective principles of his power of choice. Because this empirical character itself must be drawn from appearances as effect, and from the rule which experience provides, all the actions of the human being in appearance are determined in accord with the order of nature by his empirical character and the other cooperating causes; and if we could investigate all the appearances of his power of choice down to their basis, then there would be no human action that we could not predict with certainty, and recognize as necessary given its preceding conditions. Thus in regard to this empirical character there is no freedom, and according to this character we can consider the human being solely by observing, and, as happens in anthropology, by trying to investigate the moving causes of his actions physiologically"

>>2892639
I agree and disagree with you. I think the problem with religion is that they take what is written in the bible as fact. The bible was written foremost by people. People are corrupt and greedy. Many messages could have been changed. It's noticeable how in the old testament god was spiteful and killing people left and right but all of a sudden he is merciful?

But it wasn't god that wrote the old testament was it? Maybe the old testament was a bastardized version of Abraham's teachings? Then god, realizing that shit wasn't going as planned sent down jesus to save humanity by throwing away most of the irrational teachings and giving us new ones to live by. Then people come back and shit on the teachings again.

The moral code presented in the bible is pretty good. So good in fact that the government of the most powerful country in the world is based on it. The US government is based on the principle that our leaders are our civil servants. It has worked out pretty well.

>>2892683
#1 I was raised by Catholic parents but I am not catholic, I am agnostic.
#2 Theists claim to have a ton of evidence. The fact that Jesus came and was resurrected and the fact that Moses was given the ten commandments and all of that other shit.

>>2892718

Just because it brings a few good ideas doesn't mean its true or that it should be looked upon for answers. We have our own intelligence to analyze morality.

Not only that, but politicians are mostly shit.

>>2892728

Shit that's a lot of evidence that can be observed!

>>2892682
damn it, it's too compact to sum it up in a few hours
I could do it in German, but that wouldn't be very productive (Yes, I need to improve my goddamn English, I'm very sorry)

"But if we consider the very same actions in relation to reason, not, to be sure, in relation to speculative reason, in order to explain them as regards their origin, but insofar as reason is the cause of producing them by themselves — in a word, if we compare them with reason in a practical respect — then we find a rule and order that is entirely other than the natural order. For perhaps everything that has happened in the course of nature, and on empirical grounds inevitably had to happen, nevertheless ought not to have happened. At times, however, we find, or at least believe we have found, that the ideas of reason have actually proved their causality in regard to the actions of human beings as appearances, and that therefore these actions have occurred not through empirical causes, no, but because they were determined by grounds of reason.

(to be continued)

>>2892734
The problem with that statement is that if a god doesn't exist why the hell should we abide by moral guidelines? If I am an atheist, if I had the chance to get away with murder for some personal gain why should I not do it?

Also pertaining to politicians I never said that they where good or bad people. I just said that the idea our government was based on which for the most part works came from the Jesus' teachings. Now if politicians themselves don't see themselves as servants that is an entirely different story.

>>2892688
Yes I am retarded. I go to the number 4 engineering school and I am a fucking idiot. Please explain to me how the principle of cause and effect and how the conservation of energy principle do not contradict?

>>2892728
>The fact that Jesus came and was resurrected
"Fact" doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>2892755

....Suppose now that one could say reason has causality in regard to appearance; could reason’s action then be called free even though in its empirical character (in the mode of sense) it is all precisely determined and necessary? The empirical character is once again determined in the intelligible character (in the mode of thought). We are not acquainted with the latter, but it is indicated through appearances, which really give only the mode of sense (the empirical character) for immediate cognition. Now the action, insofar as it is to be attributed to the mode of thought as its cause, nevertheless does not follow from it in accord with empirical laws, i.e. in such a way that it is preceded by the conditions of pure reason, but only their effects in the appearance of inner sense precede it. Pure reason, as a merely intelligible faculty, is not subject to the form of time, and hence not subject to the conditions of the temporal sequence. The causality of reason in the intelligible character does not arise or start working at a certain time in producing an effect. For then it would itself be subject to the natural law of appearances, to the extent that this law determines causal series in time, and its causality would then be nature and not freedom. "

>>2892739
Supposedly it was observed and it was written down. Does the fact that we can't go back in time to find out if it is true or not make it false?

>>2892756
>The problem with that statement is that if a loving, merciful god exists why the hell should we abide by moral guidelines? If I am a christian, if I had the chance to get away with murder for some personal gain and then ask god for forgiveness why should I not do it?

>>2892761
I am sorry my usage of words wasn't to your taste but if you can't understand what I am trying to say you are hopeless. I am not catholic or belong to any other religion. I am arguing from the point of a catholic because that is the point of view I am most familiar with considering I was raised as one.

>>2892718

>The moral code presented in the bible is pretty good.
Pretty good obviously doesn't include slavery

>So good in fact that the government of the most powerful country in the world is based on it.
To quote George Carlin "Slavery. Just fucking slipped his mind"
Also, 13th Ammendment.

>The US government is based on the principle that our leaders are our civil servants. It has worked out pretty well.
An economic crisis every few decades, a major war every decade, a president father and son tag team with ties to Big Oil and Big War, a lack of response on natural disasters, the genocide of an indigenous population. Yeah, pretty awesome so far.

>>2892756
>The problem with that statement is that if a god doesn't exist why the hell should we abide by moral guidelines?

Why would you abide by moral guidelines if there IS a god? To avoid punishment? Well, if that's the only reason to be moral, then the lack of punishment means it's NOT a "problem."

But of course it is a problem, as you say yourself, thereby implicitly admitting from the beginning that morality has value independent of there being any kind of god figure.

>>2892756

Firstly, if you wanted to murder someone, you easily could. Some people do, some people enjoy it. But for most people, its out of the question, even if they could get away with it. Not because God bestowed upon them a moral compass, but because we are a social creature that relies on other. If most people killed and you followed this behavior, YOU yourself could be killed. Mass murder is not a very stable strategy to anyone, but we clearly witness some people using this strategy.

Just like lying, being honest, faithful, all these have evolutionary and societal impacts which is why most of us don't do these things. Some things are more stable than others. Such as infidelity. Sure god says not to, but it doesnt matter if it says so in the bible, if it works in our society it will flourish and as such we accept and see more of this behavior than say, murder.

If you think you need someone to tell you how to live better in a society, then im glad you have a god to show you how to live, because you are fucking stupid. I'm not surprised to find out your an engineer, most of those guys are myopic arrogant assholes.

I know, I fucking am one.

>>2892774
The bible has pro slavery teachings in it? I never knew. I want you to think back on this post and understand why it is so bad. We are discussing the moral code of the bible not the faults of american government.

>>2892756

> Please explain to me how the principle of cause and effect and how the conservation of energy principle do not contradict?

lolwut

also

> I go to the number 4 engineering school and I am a fucking idiot
> number 4 engineering school
> engineer

>>2892773
>I am sorry my usage of words wasn't to your taste but if you can't understand what I am trying to say you are hopeless.
My problem isn't with your choice of words, but with your fucking *point*. Someone mentions that Christian faith isn't empirically substantiated, and you respond with fucking Zombie Jesus, which is right up there with Noah's Ark in terms of plausibility and reliability.

tl;dr: uncorroborated Bible stories are not evidence

>>2892756
>I go to the number 4 engineering school

No one is impressed.

>Please explain to me how the principle of cause and effect and how the conservation of energy principle do not contradict?

Explain how they do?

>>2892785

So basically you're saying that you have no moral compass and that you don't murder people simply to avoid punishment.

See, that's the problem with not believing in moral absolutes. You end up falling into the same trap you accuse Christians of, which is only behaving to not get in trouble.

>>2892788

Not my intent, sorry.
I meant that the Bible, being a book, is open to interpretation. So whilst someone may read it and go "hey, this is actually pretty useful" (and no doubt it does contain positive guides in morality), someone else might go "I need to get a lot of shit done, how can I force other people to do it for me"

More-so, god is still depicted as being a vengeful, maniacal, genocidal, hypocritical bastard.

>>2892781
>>2892785
Fine, instead of murder put theft in there. If there was a way of stealing that you couldn't get caught would you do it? I already know the answer since I pirate music and movies all the time and am sure as hell you do it too.

>>2892728

Agnostic is not a point of view. Agnostic simply means you understand your knowledge of god is limited. If you do not have a religious preference you are therefore an Agnostic Atheist. The two are not parallel... they intersect because one deals with knowledge and the other deals with the in/credulous. Moreover please refrain from saying "Fact" when stating those arguments. They aren't facts because they were written down. Facts have evidence to support them as such, not stories/fables/re-telling/etc.

>>2892810
>I pirate music and movies all the time

As do I. However, I happen to believe that's not immoral, nor is it actually theft.

>>2892810

And most people do, but that because with the current economic system and society we live in, it is a stable strategy.

I dont have to justify it as moral or not, because there is nothing telling my stealing digital music is wrong or that information is free. If stealing music harmed society enough, guess what, it wouldn't be happening. Both because people would care and law officials would crack down. Is it that fucking difficult to understand?

The only reason you find error in this is because the bible says ALL stealing is wrong.

>>2892799
I wasn't trying to impress you. I would find it strange that I would be accepted to a top 10 engineering school if I was retarded.

As for the contradiction. If matter and energy can't be created or destroyed how is it that matter and energy exist in the first place? Something had to happen (cause) for matter to exist (effect).

Energy can't be created or destroyed yet it exists which implies it has been created but it couldn't have been created because it can't be created or destroyed. Mind boggling huh.

>>2892802

No, but if a society allows certain actions, they will be done. Even if they don't, some people will attempt to play the game their own way.

To be honest, I'm probably more saintly than anyone here at the moment, but thats just because Im as lame as a christian.

>>2892413
First off I would like to say without God we also do not have free-will. At best we have random will.

I am a compatibilist. I define myself and other people to be to culmination of all physical traits for their lives, all situations they are in through their life, all choices made in those situations, All thoughts, feelings and experiences and relationships. Essentially If the past had not occurred then "you" would not exist. In my view there is no "what if". A what if statement is equivalent to asking if I was in such and such situation instead etc. Would be the equivalent of asking if I were this other possible person.

Next we consider God's omniscience. We know that human's are finite. Even the definition for human's I give is finite. God has infinite knowledge, thus he knows all finite beings, not only that exist, but could exist. God does not create the idea of "you", He knows that idea as a necessity of His being (omniscience). Therefore, God simply allowed humanity as occurring in history and present and future to exist. Finite creatures such as ourselves could have been any different then thus. To have been different is to not have been you. Free-will in this distinction is more like the ability to be yourself, all that was ever possible to begin with. Responsibility for our actions is inherent as their is no distinction between what you do and who you are. They are the same.

>>2892810

So you think pirating music is equivalent to theft, but you do it anyway?

Shit, that's fucked up. Are you a sociopath?

>>2892785

People will murder if they can rationalise it - that is, if it benefits them.
They will also tab on-the-fly the probability that they will get caught. Some people will be happy to accept a 99% risk, most will not and hence will not do it.
Also, as someone already said, mass murder isn't a viable strategy in society as it is (obviously) counter productive on at least one level.

>>2892828
>>2892814
Well lets say that 3d printers become widespread in use. Would it be immoral to download a design for a chair or piece of clothing you want without paying for it? I am sure many would do it.

>TL;DR
"The human being himself is an appearance. His power of choice has an empirical character, which is the (empirical) cause of all his actions. There is not one of these conditions determining human beings according to this character which is not contained in the series of natural effects and does not obey the laws of nature according to which no empirically unconditioned causality is present among the things that happen in time. Hence no given action (since it can be perceived only as appearance) can begin absolutely from itself. But of reason one cannot say that before the state in which it determines the power of choice, another state precedes in which this state itself is determined. For since reason itself is not an appearance and is not subject at all to any conditions of sensibility, no temporal sequence takes place in it even as to its causality, and thus the dynamical law of nature, which determines the temporal sequence according to rules, cannot be applied to it.

>>2892830

#1. engineers are pretty much retards.
#2. we dont know that everything must be created or destroyed
#3. If it does, it appears that the total energy in the universe equates to zero.

Reason is thus the persisting condition of all voluntary actions under which the human being appears. Even before it happens, every one of these actions is determined beforehand in the empirical character of the human being. In regard to the intelligible character, of which the empirical one is only the sensible schema, no before or after applies, and every action, irrespective of the temporal relation in which it stands to other appearances, is the immediate effect of the intelligible character of pure reason; reason therefore acts freely, without being determined dynamically by external or internal grounds temporally preceding it in the chain of natural causes, and this freedom of reason can not only be regarded negatively, as independence from empirical conditions (for then the faculty of reason would cease to be a cause of appearances), but also indicated positively by a faculty of beginning a series of occurrences from itself, in such a way that in reason itself nothing begins, but as the unconditioned condition of every voluntary action, it allows of no condition prior to it in time, whereas its effect begins in the series of appearances, but can never constitute an absolutely first beginning in this series. "

that's pretty much it.
/Kant

>>2892837
Yeah actually I am.

>>2892839

If the people behind 3d printing open a market system where anyone can copy and distribute data like music and its cheaper for me to buy the fabricating material and machine, of course I would! Fuckers are idiot for doing it.

If it was cheap enough for me to buy a machine and reload any material I wanted to, guess what, a corporation with more resources could produce products faster and sell them for cheaper!

People steal music because the music industry is a bloated cow of a market with greedy fat cats trying to get rich.

They need to change and give us fair prices, not us.

>>2892842
I thought the first law of thermodynamics was pretty well accepted. Where are you getting your scientific theories from?

Also what are you that you think all engineers are retarded?

>>2892661
Pi is rounded to be 3. If you expected an exact value of pi in writing... it is logically impossible, as pi goes on infinitely. Why must it round to 3.14 like you are assuming, 3 is just as good of a place to round to.

>>2892836

Listen "Camy" - Why do you choose to provide sophistry and unprovable arguments as circumstances for the existence of an intangible/untraceable/unmeasurable being that supposedly created "us" - Life was thriving on this planet A LONG time before we entered the game. Entire planets and solar systems lived and died in the earliest moments of existence to provide the necessary materials for us to form. I think its a little ridiculous and shameful to give an absentee presence credit for something they clearly did not do and have shown little to demonstrate such. We as scientists have evidence that suggests what we know. Until you can prove that a metaphysical being did or is doing all the things you claim its best to keep that opinion to yourself. Because thats exactly what it is, an opinion.

>>2892802
non coercion rule

>>2892661
Then Jesus goes on in the new testament to call himself a slave. Why is it that all bible arguments end up at the old testament?

>>2892830

1) take an entry level QM course
2) formulate your argument properly (google "vacuum energy")
3) go unify the fundamental forces of nature
4) understand that in order to assert causality, you need some metric of time.

Or do you actually think that because you go to a number 4 engineering school and post on 4chan, that you have actually created some new understanding of reality, disproved the millions of hours invested in research of QM, overturned the discoveries of people much smarter than yourself and annulled the consequent technologies?

Retard.

>>2892866

I've stated im an engineer. Im proud ot say that all the ones I've met including me, are pretty much retarded. Im just not arrogant enough to sit in my thermo or heat/mass transfer class and think I understand the universe.

Go study some fucking astro or particle physics before you start lecturing those who actually KNOW shit about it, or just design some fucking HVAC.

When it comes to particle physics and origins of the universe, common sense goes out the window. And even if the law holds or there is not a better more elegant law, I gave a possibility that does not violate these laws.

>>2892851

Do you understand that sociopaths are rare?

>>2892830
I don't think your reasoning is sound there.
If there exists something that cannot possibly be created, then the obvious conclusion is that it was not created. It simply exists.
There's no reason that matter and energy couldn't have simply always been here.
There would only be a contradiction if you could prove "nothing can exist without being created at some point". And if you could, then God must've been created by something, too!

>>2892839
>Would it be immoral to download a design for a chair or piece of clothing you want without paying for it?

Of course not. Why would that be immoral?

>>2892892
And then obviously print it.

>>2892830
>I would find it strange that I would be accepted to a top 10 engineering school if I was retarded.

pro tip: The fact that you think that will convince me you're not retarded just further reinforces the idea that you're retarded.

>>2892901

What difference does that make?

>>2892868

My point was that knowing the relation between the circumference and the ratio (f.e.) is very useful information.
So useful that they put it into the book, so when the author died (say 20 years later) other people could still benefit.
Pretty much a similar argument to digitizing libraries - you and I may never be able to visit a specific library and so will never have access to that specific information. But if someone makes that information easily accessible (like on the internet), then we can learn and benefit.

Atheists jizz whenever this strawman is posted

HURR IF GOD ISN'T NICE THEN HE DOESN'T EXIST

>>2892882
Teach me then. Give me an argument.

>>2892902
Well what the fuck is your definition of a retard then?

>>2892915
>complaining about strawman
>posting it yourself
troll harder bro

>>2892885

I am not the person that comment is directed to, but I have also been diagnosed as such.
People with APD are quite common. I suspect that many bankers share a lot if not all of the traits necessary.

>>2892927
It's not a strawman when it's accurate.
>inigomontoya.jpg

>>2892469
While I can see where you're going, the possibility of time travel without paradox seems to indicate free will in GENERAL is impossible in that universe.

>>2892920

Basically, if you think merely being at a particular school is something to be proud of, then you probably don't deserve to be there. Or at least, you're not part of the reason people think the school is good. (If you were, you would have better things to be proud of.)

At most, it might mean something in an argument about engineering, which this obviously isn't. Even a top art history school would be more impressive, since at least those students tend to be well rounded.

Also, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. The strength of the argument does not depend on who is making it.

And finally, being anonymous, any claim you make about yourself may as well be complete bullshit, so it's pointless to make them.

For all these reasons and more, the fact that you're bragging in this thread about going to a decent engineering school makes me think less of you, not more.

>>2892875
I think you are gravely misunderstanding what I am saying. By no means am I suggesting my view on determinism and free-will to be any sort of proof for God. I was simply stating my thoughts, or opinion as you say.

>Why do you choose to provide sophistry and unprovable arguments
What is your foundation such that you suggest that there is anything in science that can be "proven". We observe occurrences in nature as facts. By what means can you conclude a particular interpretation of these facts is correct? Without answering Hume's argument of induction, you cannot deductively prove any inference about past and future occurrences.

My "proof" for God would be the impossibility of the contrary. (transcendental argument for God's existence). Pick any starting point you like. How does that starting point get us to the world we see currently. Things like logic, math etc. are unable to DO anything. I maintain by the time you pick a starting point to describe this world, it is inevitable that my God is that starting point. Anything else will be a contradiction.

If you want me to show what the problem is in your starting point then I must first know what this point is. Until then I need not take any critic of my world-view as serious since your view would fail to account for a future in which the critic as any meaning.

>>2892916

1 Make post
2 Brag about educational status
3 Demonstrated to be wrong multiple times by multiple people
4 Given information to search for in google
Ask to be taught science on image board
5(predicted) resort to ad hom attacks when nobody accommodates your request.

R-T-RD
Want to buy a vowel?

>>2892915
If God is merely powerful than why is he "God"?

Is the government also a God because it is more powerful than you?

>>2892948

Camy, I am not >>2892875, but you are capitalizing god so I assume that you believe a particular god exists.

If this is true, what religion? And how can you be sure this is the correct religion even if it is not the first religion.

>>2892915
Epicurous' argument is a false dilemma, by dilemma I mean the choices present are not all that there are, not that there are only 2 choices given.

It fails to see the possibility that, "God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, while being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. My view on determinism and free-will makes this possibility very apparent.

>>2892966

Where did God get his morals from?

People like to dismiss this argument but in my mind it is undeniable. It really boils dow to 2 question, not mater what mental gymnastics you use to justify your position.

1) Does god know my future?
2) Can I prove that knowledge wrong?

If the answers are 1)YES and 2) NO, then we can not have free will. We MIGHT be able to have the illusion of free will, but ultimately we can only take the path that god already knows we will take. Did we chose this path? To have chosen this path there had to have been another option and there was not, as god already knew.

>>2892959
Religion, Christianity, I am of the reformed school of thought, a presuppositionalist, and Calvinist. I take this starting point on faith. My starting point is the God of the bible. I know this by impossibility of the contrary. What you are asking is "proof" for my starting point, however I maintain nothing can be proven at all with starting with God. Any proof I give you would simply be equivalent to unintelligible gibberish. Before posing a question it is necessary to define your epistemic starting point. Epistemology is first philosophy.
>And how can you be sure this is the correct religion even if it is not the first religion.
Because taking any other religion or starting point will not produce a non-contradictory world-view in which the question can even be asked.

>>2892977

John 1:1 suggests that they were always there.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was with God in the beginning."

>>2892993

babby'sfirstphilosophycourse.jpg

>>2892413
If God is omnicient, he can't exist, because the space required to encode the information of the universe, its past, and its future do not fit within the bounds of the universe, the set of all things that exist.

Give a coherent definition of free will.

>>2892977
>Where did God get his morals from?
His is morally perfect by His very nature. That is, morality is not independent from God such that he is bound by it. It is also not independent from God such that he arbitrates it. God cannot act out of His own nature, being God is His only option. All of morality can be summed up by a generalization though for finite creatures. If all actions are done through agape love, it is not possible to something morally wrong. This would be the "spirit" by which your actions are performed.

>>2892993

But no part of your argument mentioned the Judeo-Christian God.

I really don't mean to be pithy, but say that you and I shared almost the exact same belief except for one (perhaps minor and maybe almost negligible) difference.
We therefore have different beliefs. But we can't both be correct and neither you or I would have no way of disproving (...) each other.

>>2893027

Pithy is the wrong word. I need sleep :(

>>2893010
wrong. obviously god can do whatever he wants

>>2893010
>His is morally perfect by His very nature.

The universe is generated by its very nature. That is, it is not required to have an outside creator to generate its apparent reality, but it is also not arbitrating its existence as a probability.

>>2892880

>Why is it that all bible arguments end up at the old testament?

Because everyone (regardless of their beliefs) finds the vengeful OT God to be alpha as fuck. All of Jesus's teachings about loving one's neighbor, etc. are beta.

>>2893027
>But no part of your argument mentioned the Judeo-Christian God.
Yes this is the God I am referring to YHWH.

>>2893004
>Give a coherent definition of free will.
The ability to act in accordance with your will.

>>2892996
God is not physical or nature or confined to the physical universe. You are taking your worldview and applying it as a definition for god. This god that has physical brain structures does not exist. Just a straw-man god that tells nothing about God.

>>2892661
dude, that is an account of a piece of furniture, not a geometrical proof of pi

>>2893061
that "beta" God has the keys to heaven and hell

and He's throwing more people into Hell than He's letting into heaven.

soooooo......yeah

>>2893063

I mean you argument is not contingent upon the Judeo-Christian God existing. See the second part of >>2893027

>>2893051
that's absurd and you know it. that's why i have such a hard time with /sci/; you have to prove every little damn bit of the bible is true repeatedly, but "zomg the universe just created itself" passes itself off as some sort of absolute truth.

oh, that's right, the little crippled fellow threw in "gravity" into the absurdity, so it's all wrapped up neatly in a boy.

nothingness had gravity. yup, yup, nothing to see here, let's move along. that dot that caused the big bang contained everything in the universe, yup, and a black hole is caused by dense ....matter....in a small...space...where nothing...escapes...

?

man, i just cannot get the tenets of this whacky new science cult straight!

>>2893077
EVERYTHING depends on God's existence.

EVERYTHING.

>>2893042
>wrong. obviously god can do whatever he wants
He can do everything He wants, that is in accordance with His nature. God cannot lie for example.

"god" that can do whatever he wants, does not exist.

>>2893051
>The universe is generated by its very nature. That is, it is not required to have an outside creator to generate its apparent reality, but it is also not arbitrating its existence as a probability.
How do you know this? How do you know anything at all? What are the attributes you give to this self existing universe. If those predicates are the same as my God's predicates then you are just saying God without using the term "God".

>>2892666
and the overwhelming evidence from the God of the bible is NO. you are free to make your own choices, AND TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.

to think that God made you crippled, and then mocked you for being crippled, and then threw you into Hell for being crippled, doesn't say anything about God; it says everything about who YOU think is God.

Not the real God.

>>2893106

And God cannot bend free will, which is why he doesn't answer all prayers (ie. he can't give you something that would break the FW of others)

>>2893095

I am not convinced by your argument and therefore picrelated

>>2893113
God can, does, and absolutely will bend, void, and overrule your free will, WITH your permission, or IF you choose to be king over any peoples. then your heart belongs to Him and He can bend you like a river. that is why i KNOW that hitler is in Hell. i don't have to guess. evil things will come, but WOE to them by whose hand these evil things come

IF He lives inside you; is present inside you at the time; i.e., you are full of the Holy Spirit, and are being directed by Him.

contrary to what the non-believer might think, that is the absolute best, most amazing way to experience life that there is.

>>2893125
see, that's just the gist of it. your opinion of God does not change who or what God is. your very existence does not change who or what God is. neither does mine. God would be God even if He never created any of us.

but He did create us, and He knows us, and He knows that He made us out of dirt. He also knows the terrible price He paid to offer us a pardon.

don't think that the "new testament" God is different from the "old testament" God just because you happen to live in an age of grace.

just take advantage of the pardon, the grace, and rejoice

God is not like men, and He does not change

>>2893091


Its only absurd because you want to take things we cannot apply with our common sense logic and stick them to a entity called GOD all so you can feel comfortable with your view of the universe.

Have fun filling every engineering stereotype ever.

>>2893077
Yes it is. God has the attribute that he can make things absolutely known despite our finiteness. This is done through special revelation (The Bible).

In contrast this will not work for the Quaran. The Quaran defines "Allah" as being the greatest deceiver. Such a god is contradictory to the presupposition of my God as a starting point. The faith in the initial assumption would be logically destroyed by following the teachings of said book.

Some good apologists who use this method of argumentation are Greg Bahnsen and Paul Manata

See you're envisioning that a 3 dimensional being can understand or comprehend an omnisceint beings cognitive thoughts/and or thought processes and patterns, we by our 3 dimensional existence can not comprehend or fathom something so far beyond us. While this is an interesting muse ultimately no ground can be gained here since this is all merely speculation

>>2893113
if your kid asked you for a rusty razor blade, would you give him a bag full of rusty razor blades?

that's akin to what most people pray for

defeat my enemies. make me a winner. give me a million dollars.

childish prayers, and not worthy of being prayed for, much less of answering.

no, pray for faith; pray for forgiveness; pray for grace; pray for more faith, for strength, for the Holy Spirit. these things the Father delights in giving His children

>>2893155
isn't praying for faith kind of like digging for shovels

>>2893144

And yet you claim absolute truth of god's nature and flat out deny that someone else could be correct or even concede the point that you could be wrong.

I am not absolutely sure of anything, but I am capable of thinking for myself and deciding what solution fits best with what I now. And nothing convinces me that god exists let alone it is the Judeo-Christian god.

What's next, you will defend creationism because you assume the bible is true?

>>2893132

Incorrect; God can't actually force you against your will to do anything. For the same reason, he permits Satan to tempt man, but does not allow him to forcibly drag you into Hell.

>>2893091

This is why engineers are all faggots. Go learn something about what the big bang actually IS and how it could have started from nothing.

This thread was interesting and full of vibrant discussion until the religious trolls invaded.

>>2893175
>I am not absolutely sure of anything
Exactly and therefore trying to make someone think like you do is nonsensical, since you are unsure if your position is true.

>>2893176
>Incorrect; God can't actually force you against your will to do anything. For the same reason, he permits Satan to tempt man, but does not allow him to forcibly drag you into Hell.
God can, and does change your will though.

>>2893178
>Go learn something about what the big bang actually IS and how it could have started from nothing.
Scientist have no way of knowing exactly what happened at the big bang, let alone preceding it. This "nothing" that it came out of is not the philosophic definition of nothing (what rocks dream about). As non-being cannot become beings. What you are calling "nothing" is actually everything, namely God.

>>2893196

Who exactly engaged in religious trolling? I posted:

>>2892802
>>2892994
>>2893061
>>2893176
>>2893113

And I fail to see what constitutes trolling in those (maybe 2893061 a little bit)

>>2893221

Pretty much when camy asserted absolute truth and proof of something which is, by his own definition, undefinable.

>>2893063
>Give a coherent definition of free will.
>The ability to act in accordance with your will.

That's a pretty poor definition, since even AI in incredibly basic video games would have 'free will'. The aliens in Space Invaders want to destroy you/your planet (the will), so they shoot at you (the action to perform the will). It gives no reference with how the will was formed, and can easily be proven to both exist and not exist within the same being.

>>2893278
I am 100% serious with what I say. You are simply not understanding my arguments.
>by his own definition, undefinable.
?
If you wish to try and understand my argument I would like to refer you to one of the best debates on God I have seen. In it Greg Bahnsen uses the argument I hold to namely the transcendental argument for God. This is the only argument for God Immanuel Kant held to, while refuting empirical proofs for God.

>>2893295
In regards to what that will is, I am a determinist. Libertarian free-will seems nonsensical to me regardless though. If there is no God and the universe arose by chance and operated by the principle of cause and effect, your will is randomly determined. What I call random-will.

>>2893319
Forgot link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW4LXxTZ0S4&playnext=1&list=PL75F2FF36C0ECC4A2

>>2893319

>>2893063 - "God is not physical or nature or confined to the physical universe"
Yet you feel that you can define his using the English language.

And why would anyone need to watch a debate when you say there is proof?
I don't watch debates on special relativity when I can derive the basics of it for myself.

>>2893146
not an engineer

if you were in a crowd of 10,000 people that one guy fed with two hot pockets, would you think that guy is God?

because millions, maybe even billions, of people do

you're surely entitled to your skepticism; but to say that creation infers a creator is not logical, well, is not logical

>>2893174
i lol'd

and yes, it is. and you get more shovels; or more appropriately, a bigger shovel, a better shovel, a shovel that does things you could never have imagined a shovel could do

inb4 useful for shoveling manure

>>2893343
You are just assuming naturalism and applying that to God. God cannot be defined in terms of your presupposition of naturalism. Such a god that is limited to what we call nature, is not God. IF you define god in that way, you are not referring to the same God I am, and thus a straw-man.

>why would anyone need to watch a debate when you say there is proof
Because people other then myself are better at articulating what the argument is. The proof is not something that can be defined empirically, but precedes empirical thought all together.

>>2893175
it doesn't matter what i know, believe, think, or feel

it only matters what Jesus Christ said, does, did, and will do

and it matters to everyone, whether you believe in Him, or you stand condemned already by not believing in Him, and then are condemned again for breaking His laws

the universe is not about you, or me. it is about Him. always was, and always will be.

i thank God (lol) that God is a good God, and shudder to think of what the universe would be like under you, or me, or satan

>>2893176
God has, does, and will force people to do anything He wants them to do, if they rule kingdoms. it is the price you pay to wear the crown.

think of the pharoah of Egypt; every time he thought about letting the Hebrew slaves go, God hardened his heart, and the pharoah act with a hard heart towards God's people.

and i'm pretty sure all of the people who see Him before He convicts thems of violating His laws and dying in their sins would, of their own free will, not be thrown into hell, but into hell indeed they go.

just try to make sure you're not one of them

>>2893178
not an engineer

sucks when people attack your god, huh

imagine how much it sucks if you actually had the real God on your side, and people still attacked Him, at the cost of their soul

you just worry about an esoteric philosophy containing information regarding the start of the universe; you're miles away from where you should be. light years. across an unspannable gulf, actually.

don't be the smartest person in hell; be the dumbest person in heaven. like me!

>>2893380

The greentext was a quote - your quote.

I have no belief in *any* god because I have seen no evidence of the existence of *any* god.


>The proof is not something that can be defined empirically, but precedes empirical thought all together.
So let me get this straight - you have proof, but it cannot be defined?

>Because people other then myself are better at articulating what the argument is
Oh, so now it is just an argument ...

facepalm.jpg

>>2893221
the truth is trolling to reprobates; roll with it. it's their defense mechanism for keeping out the truth. when more than one believer is in a thread, good things happen.

keep praying.

>>2893393
>every time he thought about letting the Hebrew slaves go, God hardened his heart, and the pharoah act with a hard heart towards God's people.

Jesus what a dick

>>2893278
you're being trolled by the truth? lol

doesn't that make you like, a negative vampire or something?

>>2893410
that's what i said at age 11

heyooooooo!

I'd rather spend an eternity in hell than spend another minute in this thread.

Also, everyone knows that hell has a better soundtrack.

>>2893404
what would you consider evidence?
a man walking on water?
a man calming a storm?
a man feeding 10,000 people with a few loaves and fish?
a man healing a leper? a dozen lepers?
a man turning water into wine?
a man raising the dead?
a man who walks through walls?
a man who walks out of His grave three days after He was killed? just as He called it?

at what point does it start dawning on you that if this man, this Jesus Christ, actually did the things that are recorded in the most faithful historical record known to man, that maybe, just maybe, that might be evidence that Jesus is God?

know this; there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE

>>2893424
And better sex, Hitlers cock in my mouth, oh yeah!!!

Why do these threads get so many replies?
The practical difference between God, Jehova, Jesus, Allah, Satan, Xenu, Montehzuma, Vishnu, Shiva, Imaginary skyfriend, The Xzorblaxian simulator, XzLipp the ^230° and whatever else you can make up is NONE WHATSOEVER.

I can generate a list of all positive(or negative) attributes i've ever known and claim any of the above have them all, or make up a random word or number and claim the same for it. There's no verification of any claim so it all comes down to empty words and tricky/retarded formulation of arguments that still doesn't change anything.

It's nonsense in the end, there's no practical implications, there's no theoretical implications, no one changes his beliefs due to it.

Whenever you hit reply to one of these threads, realize your mistake, close the tab, grab your dick and go masturbate instead, because it's a better use of your time.

>>2893424
weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth?

that might be a cool album cover, but to do it forever in a lake of fire, not so cool

yeah, i'll pass.

>>2893427

>>2893432
one huge difference

>The practical difference between God, Jehova, Jesus, Allah, Satan, Xenu, Montehzuma, Vishnu, Shiva, Imaginary skyfriend, The Xzorblaxian simulator, XzLipp the ^230° and whatever else you can make up is NONE WHATSOEVER.

God/Jehovah/Jesus real, and He became a man like us.
allah/satan reals but is evil, and was never a man like us, and hates us, and is doomed to a lake of fire

the rest don't real

>>2893404
>So let me get this straight - you have proof, but it cannot be defined?
... Instead of ignoring the argument and staying ignorant why don't you try to understand the argument in the first place. The transcendental argument is about the foundations for truth, knowledge, morality, rationality, logic, etc. Empiricism takes place after establishing these foundations (falsely). So the argument cannot be defined in terms of empiricism because to precedes it altogether.

>Oh, so now it is just an argument ...
Prepositionalism is a starting point. Transcendentalism is the proof or argument for God by using prepositionalism as its foundation to do this.

>>2893435
you'd see all that and walk on by?

yeah, didn't think so. you'd be pushing your way to the front of the crowd like everybody else.

even people that just touched His clothes were healed.

even people that believed in Him whose shadows crossed the sick and the lame were healed.

miracles, miracles everywhere!

>>2893449
ooooh, i like you. unless you're persian. lol. no, even if you're persian. but not armenian.

>>2893453
Wow sounds like a pretty cool dude

>>2893457
the froodiest

>>2893453
>even people that believed in Him whose shadows crossed the sick and the lame were healed.

Do your shadows heal the sick, if not when did that shit stop happening?

>>2893427

Yeah pretty much. Go replicate those and come back with some reports.
Also, don't you know about the fundamental law in nature - the Conservation of Fish?


>>2893433
Isn't hell the place where my soul will go? Well, when my soul develops a central nervous system I'll start giving a shit.

>>2893466
i wish i were a giant of faith like Peter; i pray for more faith, and wonderful things do happen. for instance, my grandson was born deaf, and jaundiced, and well premature, and we prayed over him. the next day, his ears opened, his eyes opened, he was alert, and stayed awake for the first time in his little babby life. the next week his hearing checked out as perfect.

so, yeah, my God is pretty awesome, and watching Him do His thing is freakin' sweet

>>2893473
Yeah great, what year did believers stop healing people with their shadows bro

>>2893471
my Lord is Lord of all; His works are mighty, and are absolutely not contained by anything you would consider the law of conservation (although you seem to give the universe popping from nothing to something a pass).

no, your soul will have a new body, an eternal body, and if you are going to hell, a body that will be able to feel agony and not die, not ever, without respite, not ever.

all for crimes that you yourself committed, but were too stupid to apologize for, and too proud to take a pardon when offered by the Judge of the world.

really, really dumb to choose hell over heaven.

>>2893466
Miracles were always used to establish the authority of the person to show that what is says is from God in the new testament. Jesus taught wherever he went. They stopped occurring when the revelation was complete needed for the foundation of the early Church.

>>2893449

pic related.

>>2893478
doubt that it ever stopped; it would be the faith of the sick, the faith of the righteous man, and the faith of anyone who had to place the sick in the path of the righteous man that would cause that effect. the prayers of a righteous man are effective.

so it hasn't stopped; you're just not there when it happens.

>>2893479

Right ....
Will this new body look like me? Do I get to customize it like an MMO?

If people like you and camy are in heaven, I would gladly take a dip in some fire whilst listening to ACDC. Then afterwards sit in the shade and have a chat with Einstein, Feynman and your mother.

>>2893482

Just wondering: Are you a Mormon?

>>2893473
>my grandson was born deaf
The startle reflex to sound is not present at birth, there's no real other way to check hearing in infants.

>and jaundiced
Neonatal jaundice, look up what physiological means. Or wait, you don't trust any book other than the bibel: IT MEANS PERFECTLY FUCKING NORMAL.

>his ears opened
WTF AM I READING?

TL;DR EVERYTHING WAS PERFECTLY FUCKING NORMAL FOR A PREMATURELY BORN, THEREFOR GOD EXISTS.

TL;DR I JUST OPENED A BEER: THE XORBLAXIAN SIMULATOR WORKS PERFECTLY AS INTENDED.

ALL MY RAGE

>>2893494
So you're saying that if I walked in the shadow of the right man, my crohns disease would go away, that's what you're sayin?

>>2893495
well, neither camy nor i will be as we are here, so you're safe in going to heaven and not recognizing us; we will be neither male nor female, but like the angels. the new body will be eternal, obviously, and will do everything Jesus showed His people; i.e., eating, appearing at will, walking through walls, ascending into the heavens; i think it will be infinitely customizable in that regard.

after all, we have an eternity to fill, and to fill it with the guy that made dinosaurs and dragons in the first place

mfw 4chan /sci/ board and we have people saying they have proof of god.

>>2893503
ah, but here's the rub; it was either what you would call "normal", or what would be called "miraculous"

either way, my Lord did it, and did it as an answer to prayer

:)

God is omnipresent, that is, present in all places and in all times. Omnipresence is also implied by God's knowledge, power, and perfection. A Kantian argument shows that in order to be self-aware, apply concepts, and form judgments, in short, to have a mind, there must be objects that are external to a being that it can become aware of and grasp itself in relationship to. There can be no external objects for an omnipresent God, so he cannot have a mind.


God is mindless

>>2893509
i'm saying that all things are possible with God

so yes, your disease, which seems far less serious than leprosy, could be cured by my God in this life, or you could follow Him to the next life and get a completely disease-free body that will never know pain, or suffering, or sorrow, or death

your choice

>>2893515
God is proof of God, and God witnesses for God

shutting your ears and saying lalalalalalalalalalala as loud as you can does not drown out God calling to you to come home

>>2893511

>>2893502
No

>>2893523
what if the objects were contained on the earth, and in our two heavens, and God was in a third heaven?

which He is?

kind of knocks that theory into a cocked hat, doesn't it?

>>2893526
>far less serious than leprosy
Fuck you brah
But anyway you didn't answer, would it be cured if I walked in the shadow of a believer?

>>2893535

Why not?

>>2893532
i can't help it! i get so excited about hanging out with the guy that not only took a bullet for me, but who made the duck billed platypus that i just have to shout HOSANAH!

>>2893542
ah, you're not much of a reader, are you.

1. all things are possible, so yes.
2. it would depend on your faith, the faith of the believer, and the faith of any person who brought you to the place of healing.
3. you're not a leper. be glad of that. what do you do, shit in a bag? a leper has his dick fall off. lepers win the worst incurable disease contest.

>>2893549
cause it is better to go to the real heaven than one of three made up heavens? and really go to hell instead?

that would be my guess

Deerp Thought had it right - all these different beliefs about your gods when there is no evidence that your god even exists.
Just big words and convoluted ideas when the solution that he doesn't exist is far simpler and contradicts nothing known in reality.

How you idiots don't stab yourselves to death at the dinner table is beyond me.

>>2893539
God is above everything he is by definition a perfecting being.

If god is all things in heaven or earth then he cannot look towards us, because he would just be looking at himself

Therefore it is impossible for there to be anything "external" for god to reference

Christfags - can you prove that the devil isn't more powerful than your god and has deliberately tricked you into believing some ridiculous bullshit just to pack out Club Hell every night of the week?

I didn't think so. Have fun in hell.

>>2893563
I do not shit in a bag fucker,
so now the standing in a shadow has conditions, ok I don't believe whatever, but my aunt who has cancer and talks to her priest every week after mass isn't healed because of what exactly? 'cos she has definitely stood in his shadow.

>>2893571
my God came to earth, lived a perfect life, performed many miracles, was killed (for my sins, btw), and was raised from the dead on the third day.

eyewitness accounts. historical documents. archeological evidence. the fact that we're still talking about a jooish carpenter 2000 years later.

look, i'm not worried that you will never have proof that my God rules, i just worry that i did not do enough to convince you of that fact before He proves it to you, right before you get thrown into the universal incinerator.

my God rules. literally.

>>2893579
uh, first you say He is perfect, then all things, then everything, but everything is not perfect, so He must not be

you sound a mite confused to me

>>2893580
yes, i can. the devil wants me dead, dead, dead. he wants to torment me. he goes every day in front of my Lord with reports on what a piece of shit i am, and how much he would love to sift me like flour.

but my counseler, the Lord Christ Himself, tells the Father that all my sins are covered by His blood, and that i am one of the redeemed, and therefore beyond satan's reach, and outside of the jurisdiction of the law

he who the Son has set free, is free indeed

>>2893568

But haven't you heard of the Golden Plates? God told Joseph Smith where they were buried, and lo and behold, there they were, meaning Mormonism is legit! Have fun in hell, nonpolygamist.

>>2893598
No it further serves to prove my point, god HAS to be all those things, god is a walking contradiction

>>2893583
i have a few spiritual gifts, and i will pray for you and for your aunt. i am, i hope you understand, no fan of the catholic church, none whatsoever.

i would counsel leaving it quickly and finding a group of christians in your area who are able to discern their own gifts. find a christian with the gift of healing, and do what the bible says needs to be done.

i will pray for you two, not only for the physical suffering you both are now experiencing, but for spiritual enlightenment and a closer look at Jesus Christ, the Healer.

>god
>194 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>2893609
dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

>>2893628
hello my little aspie friend, how are you doing today? controlling traffic on 4chan are we? and how's that working out for you? good i hope?

>>2893627
Pfft I don't care if that bitch dies but you raise a good point by 'counselling' leaving the catholic church, which christianity sect is the right one? The catholic church is by far the biggest, why should anyone listen to you rather than them?

We always assumed the need for an unmoved mover. But the universe, universes, could be eternal, banging and crunching and merging and splitting forever. But then the universe itself becomes the unmoved mover.

>mfw the universe is God, and God is the universe
>mfw when all sapient life is the "brain of God", the universe itself gaining self awareness
>mfw we God now

it makes me happy to see so many followers of old myth in this modern day and age

they take the glories of man and replace them with some old god.

ah but that's what it means when you are a atheist, it means you are the adult in a room full of children.

>>2893622
well, okay, for starters, let's separate the creator from the creation, shall we? i mean, a creator puts part of himself into his creation, but they are two separate things, yes?

the easiest way to see this is to see that God preceded the universe, in whatever way a God can precede time, and that God will endure beyond the life of this universe, which, i might add, is pretty soon. like, scary soon. maybe only 1,007 years away.

aside from that, you err in thinking that God created things poorly; He did not. He made things and declared them to be good. those good things then staged a coup against Him in heaven. then other good things disobeyed Him in an effort to be more like Him, but without the power. and the good creation was cursed by God, to show mankind that something was wrong, and something needed to be righted.

God is not a contradiction; our understanding of Him is just limited, and will be, until we cross over into His realm, and see Him as He sees us.

>>2893657

Of course, god could have easily made his creations in such a way that they would not rebel, no?

>>2893646
i preach Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God

claim Jesus Christ as your King, and know that God raised Him from the dead; believe that in your heart, and you will be saved.

once saved, it is a chore to find a body of believers, and that chore is getting harder and harder all the time. pray to find a good bible believing church in your area, and make sure they're not just telling you things you want to believe, but preaching straight out of the word of God.

in short, trust no man; trust Jesus Christ, and fellowship with other christians, so that you are harder to pick off.

we are, after all, sheep :)

>>2893649
stop thinking about God and start thinking about the real life, living and breathing, dying and resurrecting Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by Him.

>mfw "god" includes flying spaghetti monsters

christfag out.

>>2893666
>we are, after all, sheep
Speak for yourself sunshine

>make sure they're not just telling you things you want to believe, but preaching straight out of the word of God.
Who taught you that made you so sure they're not just telling you what you want to hear, oh wait you felt it right, just like over a billion catholics

>>2893594
My god created your God. Impersonated jesus so he could dupe fish and bread for shit and giggles(and later made a movie of it through some other dudes, he called it Life of Brian). He invented time allowing your god to do his shit. In fact he invented time only so that he could reverse the flow of it and make up the past of everything as he watches it move backwards, you don't understand it because you're just a normal guy beliving a minor subroutine diety is something to worship and call god.

He carefully configurated the cosmological constant to allow planets and stars to arise.

The best part of all? He's so fucking sure of his omnipotency that he doesn't need any fucking book. You see he communicates to his belivers by influencing the coincidence factors and makes them self-discover him, he doesn't need any priests or churches, those who follow him come to the conclusion of his boundless powers and never proved existance from inside, naturally, and the best part is you know he is the absolute authority, divine is a too weak word for describing him, omnipotent is an insult. He is beyond mere words, his might extends beyond comprehension even at its weakest incarnation, if there was a holy book you could not read it by definition.

Enjoy your amateur diety while I have mindgasms from the Xzorblaxian Simulator!

>>2893653

>they take the glories of man and replace them with some old god.

He thinks man is his own god.

>ah but that's what it means when you are a atheist, it means you are the adult in a room full of children.

>Dawkins
>not an overgrown manchild

Pick one.

>>2893709
>He thinks man is his own god.

Man IS his own god, he IS his own master, anything else is just slavery


>Pick one.
how about I pick none of those options, being a adult means not to fall for childish false choices.


Now let me add, anyone ever notice how following god is akin to how leftists want people to follow society.

Damn, /sci/ really is the easiest board to troll.

>>2893741
Yet it's always leftists who rally against god, the fucking retards

Didn't feel like reading the whole thread, but this seems pretty sound to me:

>Universe is (or so we assume) governed by unbreakable laws (gravity won't reverse, etc.)
>Ergo, all interactions have only one logical outcome, IF you factor in every single part of the universe to reach your conclusion
>Though we have no way of predicting it, there is only one way the universe can progress from this point, since every particle will always behave according to its laws
>There is no free will, but you will always make the decisions you want to

>>2893741

If we're the biggest thing in the universe, then I'm very scared.

>>2893657
hiding behind "we cannot understand god" won't help here

1. A being with higher consciousness possesses two abilities A) the ability to discern between the object and a representation of the object, and B) the ability to apply concepts and form judgments about objects.

2. If a being has the ability to discern between the object and a representation of the object, and the ability to apply concepts and form judgments, then that being must be able to grasp the difference between the self and not-self.

3. A being is omnipresent when that being occupies or is present in all places, far or near, in all times, past, present, or future.

4. There is nothing that is not-self for an omnipresent being by definition of omnipresence.

5. So an omnipresent being cannot grasp a difference between the self and not-self.13

6. Therefore, an omnipresent being cannot possess higher consciousness.

7. In short, God cannot have a mind because omniconsciousness is impossible.

>>2893764
We're masters to the only thing that matters, ourselves
I do not ask you to bleed for me, let me ask the same for you

>>2893792

Hey, you can believe that all you want because every time man thought he could be his own god, all that happened was that the state or a dictator became god and people suffered.

>>2893816
>>2893816
Ah yes the same argument that all slave owners use

"We can't let xxx be free, they cause too much chaos/can't help themselves, we need to babysit them in order to protect them"


Whenever its leftists or theists they all advocate the same master/slave dynamic that has put men in bondage for centuries.


You want to know what happens when a man takes his own destiny, he makes his own company, sets his own hours, hires people only he wants to work WITH, not control.

Only free men with the sweat on their own brow can make humanity progress, not the church or state

>>2893792
>>2893874
maximumtrolling.jpg

>>2893874

So you're an anarchist. That's not exactly a viable system either, is it?

Wtf this thread is still alive.

It's Friday night ffs - a trolls favourite time to hunt.