I'm a Christian and I challenge all atheist to a respectful and intellectual debate on the fallacies of atheism. I will be in this thread giving out my rebuttal until the very end, Let's begin shall we?
>>575546385 Alright, answer me one question. Name one single instance in the entirety of human history when the supernatural presupposition ever turned out to be the correct explanation.
And if the answer is never, which it is. Then explain to me what's logical about putting your faith in a hypothesis that, in every instance for which we've gained enough knowledge test such claims (over thousands of years and millions of cases) has never once been the correct answer?
>>575546385 legit question here. not an atheist, but a former christian, now lay Buddhist.
how do you reconcile the hypocrisy of judgement? let me explain the question, so as to be perfectly clear. first, let me state some points so that we're on the same page.
every translation of the scriptures i've read agree on these three points, and it's amazing. A) the almighty created us with free will. that singular ability to choose our own destinies. B) the almighty is omniscient. that is to say, he knows all that is, all that was, and ALL THAT SHALL BE. C) after creating this race of man, he set out one rule, that we not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. yet, eve did.
how could the almighty, in his endless love, judge us for something that he knew was going to happen? and if he didn't know, then he isn't exactly all knowing, is he? but if he did know, but judged us anyway, then is he not simply allowing this little puppet show to continue for his own amusement?
>>575547603 If people were wrong about the theory of heliocentrism, they still experienced the sun and earth and motion. They were simply mistaken in thinking that the motion they perceived was the sun's.
But if God does not exist, what is it that believers have been experiencing? The level of illusion goes far beyond any other example of collective error.
The reason I am an atheist is because I think all religions are wrong. All religions are wrong because they show no evidence of their claims and many of their claims are unrealistic, morally wrong, and just plain stupid.
Now actually answer my question. Name one time throughout the entirety of human history that something we assumed to be supernatural actually turned out to be supernatural once we gained enough knowledge to understand it.
Just one example of naturalistic explanation being overturned by a supernatural discovery instead of the other way round.
If there were no other bits of experience which, taken together with our perceptions of the sun and earth, make it most likely that the earth goes round the sun, it would be foolish to interpret our experience that way.
How much more so here, where what we experience is a relationship involving reverence and worship and, sometimes, love.
It is most reasonable to believe that God really is there, given such widespread belief in him—unless atheists can come up with a very persuasive explanation for religious belief, one that takes full account of the experience of believers and shows that their experience is best explained as delusion and not insight.
>>575549002 If there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other.
Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change.
>>575547604 Christian fag here. Why would god create us, then realize "oh hot diggity darn, I know this poop, imma skip to the end." When you create say, a machine, you know the purpose, and what the machine will do. but when you finish the thing, you still want to see what it does and how it does it, dont you?
If an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God really does exist, then why is there evil? >God gave us free will and let us make our own choices.
But if he knew we were going to be evil, why give us free will in the first place? >There's no way of truly have faith or any kind of loving relationship with God, or with anyone, if it's not of your own choosing. Life would be meaningless without free will; we'd all just be going through the motions.
Is there evil in Heaven? >Ummm...no
So that means there's no free will in Heaven and the eternity we'd spend there would be meaningless?
>>575547604 I may be alone or a minority on this, but I don't believe that God must be omniscient. His knowledge is sufficient, and rather than requiring omniscience, it is more important that a God be omnipotent.
>>575550347 We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies. Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; nonbeing is a real possibility. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything. Then right now nothing would exist. For If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed—literally—nothing at all. But from nothing, nothing comes. So The universe could not have begun. But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. But If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary. Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being.
>>575550251 Well the belief is that true sinner, and those who dont repent, go to hell. All major evils are not found it heaven.
Besides, heaven in the bible is refered to obscurely, and we now refer to it using our imaginations and logic, but when we get there, it can be entirely different from what we imagine it to be. So, though logic may seem acceptable, sometimes putting faith in something is the best way to be surprised by its results.
1) There is significant pain and suffering in the world 2) God does nothing to stop it 3) God is either impotent or an asshole. Anyone who worships a god who is impotent or an asshole is either an idiot or an asshole.
>I'm a Christian and I challenge all atheist to a respectful and intellectual debate on the fallacies of atheism.
If you were a true Christian, you wouldn't be trying to argue with others about Christianity. I'm a Christian, and I can say that God created us with free will. Free will meant we could choose to believe in him or not. According to the Bible, the only beings without free will are the Angels, because due to Lucifer's decision to disobey God, so that no other angels would have the option to do so, they only have the option to believe in God. Think twice before pulling retarded "debates," OP. People have the right to choose any religion they want, and if you judge them, that makes you, sir, an asshole.
Ok. If there is a god, which there isn't. Explain why god would be such a huge dick? Why would he create famine, aids...4chan. And why being an adult would you think he is good on his word? No body believes in him, which he warns will be dealt with by a good ol' fashioned smiting yet i don't see this happening. In fact lots of godless heathens live long lives while christians are getting crucified by Isis. Wheres your argumen
But what does "god" being the factor that created the universe, have to do with Christianity specifically? I can see someone believing in the general idea a god for the sake of having an answer to the question of "What created the universe." That however, does not bridge the gap between simply believing, and being a christian.
And don't pull some bandwagon fallacy shit with Christianity being so heavily believed in. Just because a majority of people believes something does not make it true. Give us solid proof.
>>575547604 God of course transcends the timeline and did know that we would choose to eat from the tree. Ultimately though it was *our* decision to do so and that is what separated us from perfection. God's love really is endless, we were like his experiment, no other creature before was given free will(except for angels I guess but lucifer was not normal either)...and that experiment went horribly wrong. Yet he still loves us so much that he didn't just instantly destroy us and start all over. That's the thing, we spit in the face of God and curse him but it is our will to do so and that's why he truly loves us. If we were forced to do what he said than could he really adore us as much as he has? >were not puppets, which is precisely why we must be judged except through the redemption of Christ which will free us
>>575551284 People say god does nothing to solve the problems of man down on earth, but fail to refer back to even his basic teachings.
Jesus was a vessel of god Moses was a vessel of god (even Mohammed was a vessel if want to get into that shit and get into technicalities) The worlds problems are solved by men all the time. And the people above are just that, men, blessed with gods grace.
I think even today, god does plenty to stop pain and suffering
>>575549703 And this ladies and gentlemen is why debating the religious is impossible.
You dance, you dodge, you do intellectual back flips, anything you can to avoid giving me an actual answer to a simple yes or no question. I will try one more time than I'll accept your refusel to answer as a concession to this
Can you name me one instance wherein the supernatural presupposition ever turned out to be the correct explanation?
>>575550468 >God is all knowing, he must change everything. Dude seriously, think about it for 2 seconds. Let's say he did change reality. If humans still had free will, no matter what that reality was...we would STILL be upset and curse his name. It doesn't fucking matter, that's just the nature of man. Let's say he changes reality so that we no longer have the will to sin and disobey him... Could he truly love us? Think about it.
I'm not saying I know a lot about God dude, on the contrary...it still doesn't make a lot of sense. But I hold this to be true because imo there is nothing that can disprove this reality being created by a higher, almighty being. It's just not possible in my mind
>>575551336 Suppose someone says to you: "All these experiences are either the result of lesions in the temporal lobe or of neurotic repression. In no way do they verify the truth of some divine reality." What might your reaction be?
You might think back over that enormous documentation of accounts and ask yourself if that can be right. And you might conclude: "No.
Given this vast number of claims, and the quality of life of those who made them, it seems incredible that those who made the claims could have been so wrong about them, or that insanity or brain disease could cause such profound goodness and beauty."
As some random internet image I once found said, >belief is like a dick >it's perfectly alright to have one >but it's not okay to go shoving it down people's throats
This applies to all of you. You're either arguing that atheism is legit, or Christianity is legit. Have some values, spare some brain cells. All of you arguing should realize that there is really no point in doing this. Go do something useful, donate a dollar to cancer research or someshit. Don't talk about values if you can't back them up with your own good deeds. Be an innately good person. That's all that matters in society.
>>575551643 1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. 2. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists. 3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist. 4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time. 5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time
If God knows what is going to happen, and he has a master plan, then his plan ultimately includes all of our choice and is written before we are born, so really it's already decided the we are or aren't damned before we even have the capacity to make choices. If it's all part of his plan, free will is an illusion and we'really yo be punished for the decisions he planned for us to make.
>>575552490 Even if you take the universe as a set point and declare that it just *is*. The possibility of it existing in its current state without an almighty being is practically 0. Every single law of physics, the fact that there's not only life but *matter* in this universe is a miracle in itself.
If god is real and he has interfered in our lives the past through great plagues and miracles then why does he not show himself now days? I know they whole Jesus thing happened but that was specifically to "cleanse" us of our sins. He never said that I am going to go on a 2000 year hiatus. The only tangible evidence of his is exsistance boils down to a single book which adds up to nothing but here say. Why worship a god who let's children starve and let's his creations commit mass genocide against each other? If he is good and powerful then why is he not helping anyone? I call that neglect and if he is aware of it and still let's it happen even though he could stop it instantly then I would also consider him to be a no good piece of shit.
>>575551650 Many years ago, at an otherwise dull convention, a distinguished philosopher explained why he had become a Christian. He said: "I picked up the New Testament with a view to judging it, to weighing its pros and cons. But as I began to read, I realized that I was the one being judged."
Certainly he came to believe in the miracle-stories. But it was the character and teaching of Christ that led him to accept the things recounted there as genuine acts of God.
Finding your religion through God is your decision.
>>575546385 OP what is your take on the fact that religiosity has a genetic component? That your genes are somewhat responsible for whether you are religious or not? That your belief in a higher power is probably just the manifestation of your genetic material, meaning that your beliefs are not the result of being certain that a higher power exists but rather that you programmed by chance (recombination) to think that way?
>>575552268 >>575552268 Look at that again man. He doesn't want to change us, because how could be proud of us if he constantly has to change us to fit his ideal image? He's proud of us for what we have done and what we will do. He doesnt want to hold us back from achieving what he KNOWS (hint hint omniscient) we can achieve.
>>575546385 You forget where you are, OP. We are not your atheist friends who can be debated and will refrain from striking low blows because we value your friendship. Every time godfags come to the internet they lose because of four simple words: Lack Of Shared Assumptions.
It really boils down to the fact that this is 4chan, more specifically, /b/. Nothing we don't want to believe is true. We believe that OP is a faggot, but nothing else is real, not even science. All of your carefully-picked arguments can easily be ignored. Throw facts at us, watch us reply with boot-wearing pig and bird-hair Nick Cage. Even if you do WIN a debate, you won't make any converts.
This is the devil's playground, OP. You can't just walk in here with your bible and a degree from seminary and expect to win against antitheistic faggots who jack off to traps and furry porn.
Most importantly, a god that doesn't want us to do anal or watch porn is not a god we want.
Go back to the real world where you can convey god's love through philanthropy. Yours is a fool's errand. Pic related
>>575552830 All knowing doesn't mean all deciding. Yes he knows what were going to do. Yes he transcends time That doesn't mean that our decisions are any less of our own. If God was really "fair" we would have been destroyed a long time ago. That is the logical thing that would have happened. There is no reason for our existence. Our lives continually feel empty, like there's no purpose to it, because we fell from God's grace. In the end that will all be redeemed. Somehow. It makes no sense now. Hell, my heaven self or whatever is probably looking down at me right now and laughing going "look at this moron acting all smart and shit".
That's the point though. None of this shit will ever make sense without God. And in this life we can't meet him
>>575552861 If you found a clock and examined the mechanism within it, you would probably think that this intricate mechanism was not the outcome of mere chance, that it had been designed. Now look at the universe; is it possible that such an intricate mechanism, from the orbits of planets round the sun to the cells in your fingernails could all have happened by chance? Surely, this enormously complex mechanism has been designed, and the being that designed it must be God.
>>575552868 If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us—and like every other link in the chain of receivers.
>>575553158 Personally, I'm of the opinion that most religious experiences, the ones people talk about where they feel a presence or saw Jesus' face on a piece of toast or in their stool, are just a malfunction of the brain's pattern recognition engine--a misfiring of synapses. Religion itself is both a sweet lie we tell ourselves to spare us the harsh truth of reality and potentially a mental illness for many people.
>>575549703 Because revelation is necessarily first person.
If I wanted to make sure that the earth going around the sun was not delusion, I could repeat the experiment which led me to that conclusion any number of times. Perhaps more importantly, I could provide this experiment to anyone else and have them come up with the same results. It only gets worse when you consider what believers hold up as evidence of experience of their "relationship" with god - things like speaking in tongues, or vague, fuzzy "feelings" - a whole lot of things that self-delusion absolutely explains, and we have no way to access those experiences ourselves, be it via experimentation or personal experience.
If God is omnipotent, and by definition omnipresent, that means he's everywhere right?
So therefore God is in my bumhole right?
Doesn't that make God gay, something specifically not allowed as stated by Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
>He doesn't want to change us, because how could be proud of us if he constantly has to change us to fit his ideal image?
Then why judge us? If he knows it's going to happen, but does nothing, while expecting that you "make the right choice" even though it's written that you won't, it doesn't make any sense to judge.
And this reminds me of an Epicurus quote which we all know.
>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
See. I've read the bible. A few of them. I've even read through the torah. All I read was metaphors and well written stories of fantasy. Especially the story of Adam and Eve. So many modern day Christians still believing she ate a fruit with the whole goddamn story is metaphorical and is actually telling the story how Eve failed in the sins of Lust and Temptation. Had sex with Lucifer, then went back to Adam. Hence having two sons. One who is even fucking stated as the "Son of the wicked one who slew his brother."
Religion is a pretty concept, and it is used incorrectly. In politics it controls the playing field and how many live their lives. "freedom of religion" is BULLSHIT if Christianity is running the fucking politics of today, which is most certainly is when Republicans have control. Religion in general is a mind control. It is a way to make you people stay in line and be good boys and girls. Similar to how you tell your children(if you have any) to be good or Santa won't bring them gifts. Religion, in fact, only works on WEAK minded people or CHILDREN. Give an educated person a talk on religion and he'll either think you're insane or be interested to read the books himself to find an explanation like I did. Religion is unhealthy. "talking to god" about your problems when you can simply go talk to a friend for advice, and many people do. Some people seek help themselves, in serious cases some go to Rehab. And what do they do? Blindly thank the lord they got through it instead of praising their own self control and the people that actually did physically help them.
>Finding your religion through God is your decision.
NO. No the fuck it isn't. When a LARGE amount of children are being brainwashed with this shit day after day, it is NOT their decision. When a person is vulnerable and going through a very hard time and people throw religion at them, it can be psychologically stimulating that it feels like real help. You should do more research.
My question may have been over looked. What do you say to the fact that jesus was more than likely gay and the only thing he probably regretted was not being crucified on a bed of dicks. Show me a picture of jesus where he doesn't look like a gayer version of kurt russel
>>575554176 Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now.
For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist. But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent—but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd.
So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.
>>575554402 >Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. >Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. >Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? >Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
I love this quote. It sums up completely how irrational it is to believe in Gods. And it shows the only defense against it is retards yelling, "BAD THINGS HAPPEN, IT DOESN'T MAKE IT GOD'S FAULT HURRRRR!"
>>575546385 All positions of power, authority, and influence in the world are held by Lucifer worshipping Satanists that belong to a myriad of occult secret societies building a new world order, the kingdom of the antichrist. When you look closely at ALL the proponents of atheism, evolution, race mixing, homosexuality, abortion, feminism, modern art, and communism, you will discover that they ALL belong to Luciferian Secret Societies with the Jews as the vanguard. The jews are the literal offspring of Satan from the bloodline of Cain, the love child of Lucifer and the first woman, Eve. The Jews STOLE the identity of the biblical Israelites and have been impersonating them for hundreds of years whilst actually being Canaanites and Edomites. No Israelite of the Bible was a jew, NOT Jesus, NOT MOSES, not King David, not one. There is only one bible, the 1611 KJV, all others are fakes created by Satanists that change or delete critical verses and scriptures. The wailing wall = part of old Roman Fort called Fort Antonia. Real temple was completely destroyed circa 70 AD by Roman Legions under the command of Titus. Star of David = no such thing = real name Star of Moloch, most powerful symbol in all of Satanism. Christmas and Easter = Satanic holidays from pagan Babylon. Cross = pagan, Jesus was crucified on a living growing tree with a bar for his arms. Jehovah/Yahweh = secret names for Satan that come from the Tetragrammaton, which was inserted by antichrist jews and cahtolics into the scriptures circa 1000 A.D. Jesus Christ is ALMIGHTY GOD.
>>575552139 Nothing can disprove it? Nothing can prove it either.
I'm not saying that there can't be a higher power, but I am saying that it is terribly terribly unlikely. Most religions are arbitrary in origin and their rules, and pervasive only due to circumstance. In particular, what I meant by my comment, is that cursing god's name has nothing to do with what he gives or us or doesn't give us, and everything to do with the fact that the Christian god, by the logic of what is written about him and done in his name, is a horrible entity. He is the cause of all grief, for some fucking reason that only he knows.
I don't even care about the fact that there is so much suffering in the world. I'd like to lessen it but the reason for that suffering is just because. That's the way life is. Believing or not believing in god isn't going to change that, but believing in god is an unnecessary extra amount of effort that gives simple answers to some questions and overcomplicates just as many.
>>575553762 What's there to explain? Provide evidence of your specific god. And while doing so, keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What a lot of people don't get about atheists is that many of us are not first and foremost atheist. We're first and foremost rational skeptics. Our atheism arises from that. We've found no real evidence whatsoever that indicates that a god exists, and tons of evidence that indicates that every supernatural claim so far has either been either unverified (often unverifiable, even in theory) or just straight-up false. And given the scant to non-existent evidence that god exists in the first place... Well, what should I believe? That which is not supported by evidence, and bucks a fairly massive empirical trend? Or should I say "I reject your claim as not having shouldered its burden of proof" and not believe in a god until good evidence is presented?
(Stupid question really - OF COURSE I SHOULD REJECT YOUR CLAIM! If this was literally anything other than your god you'd understand.)
>>575554884 Except you're forgetting how illogical it is to think something can exist without beginning. Nothing is infinite. Not even the universe.
Listen, I get that there COULD be something else higher than us. In fact I live by a quote that states: "The universe is big, it is filled with endless possibilities. It could be possible that something greater than us, something so great that we as mere humans may interpret as a "God" or "higher power", but as far as religious Gods go? They are illusions. Figments of the great human mind. Creations of control, but more-so hatred and war."
I'm not saying there CAN'T be a "god". I'm saying the idea that a religious God exists is illogical and... quite frankly stupid.
>>575554681 We naturally desire things like food, drink, sex, sleep, knowledge, friendship and beauty; and we naturally shun things like starvation, loneliness, ignorance and ugliness.
We also desire (but not innately or naturally) things like sports cars, political office, flying through the air like Superman, the land of Oz and a Royals world championship. Now there are differences between these two kinds of desires. We do not, for example, for the most part, recognize corresponding states of deprivation for the second, the artificial, desires, as we do for the first.
There is no word like "Ozlessness" parallel to "sleeplessness." But more importantly, the natural desires come from within, from our nature, while the artificial ones come from without, from society, advertising or fiction. This second difference is the reason for a third difference: the natural desires are found in all of us, but the artificial ones vary from person to person. The existence of the artificial desires does not necessarily mean that the desired objects exist.
Some do; some don't. Sports cars do; Oz does not. But the existence of natural desires does, in every discoverable case, mean that the objects desired exist. No one has ever found one case of an innate desire for a nonexistent object.
>>575555140 >All positions of power, authority, and influence in the world are held by Lucifer worshipping Satanists
Stopped reading, and anyone educated should've as well. Satanism has NOTHING to do with Satan in the least. The name of the religion is ironic as it does not believe in a deity, it instead opposes a deity. It is a pun on Religion.
>>575554681 The conclusion of the argument is not that everything the Bible tells us about God and life with God is really so. What it proves is an unknown X, but an unknown whose direction, so to speak, is known. This X is more: more beauty, more desirability, more awesomeness, more joy.
This X is to great beauty as, for example, great beauty is to small beauty or to a mixture of beauty and ugliness. And the same is true of other perfections. But the "more" is infinitely more, for we are not satisfied with the finite and partial. Thus the analogy (X is to great beauty as great beauty is to small beauty) is not proportionate. Twenty is to ten as ten is to five, but infinite is not to twenty as twenty is to ten.
The argument points down an infinite corridor in a definite direction. Its conclusion is not "God" as already conceived or defined, but a moving and mysterious X which pulls us to itself and pulls all our images and concepts out of themselves. In other words, the only concept of God in this argument is the concept of that which transcends concepts, something "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived" (1 Cor. 2:9). In other words, this is the real God.
"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A dolphin wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."
>>575555794 Why is that illogical? Are you aware of anything ever beginning? Can you show any empirical example of anything beginning to exist? We've never seen ANYTHING begin to exist. We've seen state changes, and we've seen *systems* begin to exist (i.e. the system of a person), but matter? Energy? We don't observe it beginning to exist. So how could you possibly say it's "illogical" to say something can exist without a beginning? We have no knowledge of anything actually beginning to exist!
>>575555357 This world is given to us as a dynamic, ordered system of many active component elements. Their natures (natural properties) are ordered to interact with each other in stable, reciprocal relationships which we call physical laws. For example, every hydrogen atom in our universe is ordered to combine with every oxygen atom in the proportion of 2:1 (which implies that every oxygen atom is reciprocally ordered to combine with every hydrogen atom in the proportion of 1:2). So it is with the chemical valences of all the basic elements. So too all particles with mass are ordered to move toward every other according to the fixed proportions of the law of gravity. In such an interconnected, interlocking, dynamic system, the active nature of each component is defined by its relation with others, and so presupposes the others for its own intelligibility and ability to act. Contemporary science reveals to us that our world-system is not merely an aggregate of many separate, unrelated laws, but rather a tightly interlocking whole, where relationship to the whole structures and determines the parts. The parts can no longer be understood apart from the whole; its influence permeates them all. Argument. In any such system as the above (like our world) no component part or active element can be self-sufficient or self-explanatory. For any part presupposes all the other parts—the whole system already in place—to match its own relational properties. It can't act unless the others are there to interact reciprocally with it. Any one part could be self-sufficient only if it were the cause of the whole rest of the system—which is impossible, since no part can act except in collaboration with the others.
>>575552357 I would actually be pretty grateful if my questions were answered. I'm in a serious relationship with a Christian woman that I'd like to marry, and everything is near perfect except for the difference in belief. It kills me that something so important to her is nauseating and insulting to me, and I would like to change that, even though the chances are slim to none.
My theory about god sucking dicks like they're on clearance. Is not to prove god is real or not. But that god is a contradiction of his own word, making god a lying little shit who is not to be trusted. If god exist than my argument is that he's not as great as you think he is.
>>575556256 Aight, but if you want to get into quantum physics, keep in mind that some of the leading theories in quantum mechanics assert that if there were nothing, a universe would form naturally. Or, to put it another way, "nothing" is fundamentally impossible. The universe simply exists. No need for a god.
Since the parts make sense only within the whole, and neither the whole nor the parts can explain their own existence, then such a system as our world requires a unifying efficient cause to posit it in existence as a unified whole.
Any such cause must be an intelligent cause, one that brings the system into being according to a unifying idea. For the unity of the whole—and of each one of the overarching, cosmic-wide, physical laws uniting elements under themselves—is what determines and correlates the parts. Hence it must be somehow actually present as an effective organizing factor. But the unity, the wholeness, of the whole transcends any one part, and therefore cannot be contained in any one part. To be actually present all at once as a whole this unity can only be the unity of an organizing unifying idea. For only an idea can hold together many different elements at once without destroying or fusing their distinctness. That is almost the definition of an idea. Since the actual parts are spread out over space and time, the only way they can be together at once as an intelligible unity is within an idea. Hence the system of the world as a whole must live first within the unity of an idea. Now a real idea cannot actually exist and be effectively operative save in a real mind, which has the creative power to bring such a system into real existence. Hence the sufficient reason for our ordered world-system must ultimately be a creative ordering Mind. A cosmic-wide order requires a cosmic-wide Orderer, which can only be a Mind.
>>575555357 Such an ordering Mind must be independent of the system itself, that is, transcendent; not dependent on the system for its own existence and operation. For if it were dependent on—or part of—the system, it would have to presuppose the latter as already existing in order to operate, and would thus have to both precede and follow itself. But this is absurd. Hence it must exist and be able to operate prior to and independent of the system. Thus our material universe necessarily requires, as the sufficient reason for its actual existence as an operating whole, a Transcendent Creative Mind.
>>575556486 No that's not what it asserts at all. You've drawn the wrong conclusion, although I think I agree with your point. The universe doesn't need a God because quantum tunneling allows something infinitely big to tunnel from something infinitesimally small, i.e. the universe tunneling into existence from nothing (although that's a bit hand wavy)
>>575556616 My point exactly. So how could one possibly say that it's "illogical" for something not to have a beginning when one of the fundamental laws of the universe we've discovered is "energy cannot be created"?
>>575555824 >No one has ever found one case of an innate desire for a nonexistent object
Then you underestimate the imagination of the human mind.
Meteors were known as fallen angels. The tides were controlled by God, as were droughts and other such natural occurrences. We pinned the "work of God" on these occurrences and guess what? We have since figured them out.
The desire for a God to exist came with the natural desire of discovery and knowledge. The only problem is God's were poor examples of explaining the world/universe/exist.
In fact, the Old religion that came before the "one true God" silliness which was Rome's religion of the gods of the elements. You're telling me they exist, too? How then is the "one true god" truth then? The short answer? It's not.
>>575555417 Think of a single drunk. He could probably not stand up alone. But a group of drunks, all of them mutually supporting each other, might stand. They might even make their way along the street. But notice: Given so many drunks, and given the steady ground beneath them, we can understand how their stumblings might cancel each other out, and how the group of them could remain (relatively) upright. We could not understand their remaining upright if the ground did not support them—if, for example, they were all suspended several feet above it. And of course, if there were no actual drunks, there would be nothing to understand. This brings us to our argument. Things have got to exist in order to be mutually dependent; they cannot depend upon each other for their entire being, for then they would have to be, simultaneously, cause and effect of each other. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. That is absurd. The argument is trying to show why a world of caused causes can be given—or can be there—at all. And it simply points out: If this thing can exist only because something else is giving it existence, then there must exist something whose being is not a gift. Otherwise everything would need at the same time to be given being, but nothing (in addition to "everything") could exist to give it. And that means nothing would actually be.
Maybe, if its all gods plan, and he already knows everything. Then he used his powers to come back as his son for some free kinky whipping shit while on earth. Maybe hes into getting flogged. Like thats his turn on. It was so good he had to sleep it off for three days.
>>575556106 Except the desire for salvation or eternal life or God are made up concepts and without the idea of God there would not be a desire for it. There would simply be a desire to survive and not die. If that was the case, I would bet you anything our technology would be far more than 100 years better right now. But unfortunately science has been shut down by religion time and time again, and if that doesn't sum up the reason of religion--control--then I have nothing more to say on the subject.
Satanism = the worship of Satan, the Devil, the great dragon/serpent, who is the great fallen angel Lucifer. New age Satanists are so stupid, they don't even understand their own creed, but cloud themselves with pseudo philosophy and live in denial, much like the Wiccans, who are too retarded to understand that Wicca is just a short modern name for Witchcraft.
>>575557068 - Basically everything in Genesis directly contradicts what we know from observation today - The egyptians never had large numbers of hebrew slaves - No evidence of a 40-year migration through the desert - Tower of Babel completely contradicts what we know about the origin of languages - Noah's Ark in particular is one of the most egregious cases of "we can prove this didn't happen" - indeed, name a scientific discipline which might have something to say about it, and it shows that it could not have happened - Numerous internal inconsistencies within the old and new testament (my personal favorite being the answer to the question "who bought the blood field")
>>575556127 Because morality is more like Zeus than like lightning. Morality exists only on the level of persons, spirits, souls, minds, wills—not mere molecules. You can make correlations between moral obligations and persons (e.g., persons should love other persons), but you cannot make any correlations between morality and molecules. No one has even tried to explain the difference between good and evil in terms, for example, of the difference between heavy and light atoms. So it is really the atheist who makes the same category mistake as the ancient pagan who explained lightning by the will of Zeus.
The atheist uses a merely material thing to explain a spiritual thing. That is a far sillier version of the category mistake than the one the ancients made; for it is possible that the greater (Zeus, spirit) caused the lesser (lightning) and explains it; but it is not possible that the lesser (molecules) adequately caused and explains the greater (morality).
A good will might create molecules, but how could molecules create a good will? How can electricity obligate me? Only a good will can demand a good will; only Love can demand love.
>religions were originally a concept for moral guidance >thisworksprettywell.jpg >people became corrupt >religions became a tool for controlling people, power and finances >this has been seen throughout history again and again >found people with other beliefs >nobody wants to lose control over their mindless sheep and moneyz >tfw crusades and other religious wars >mindless sheep actually believing everything blindly >this is why religions still work
btw religions actually rejected innovation >hey I made medicine >BURN THE WITCH
>hey I made an innovation >BURN THE SATANIST
>hey the world isn't flat >KILL SCIENCE!
>i've sinned >you can be free of all sins if you just buy this piece of paper
There's thousands upon thousands of religions in this world. Now, why is this important? You see, they all see themselves as the one true religion. And that's why the existence of "God" can never be an universal truth. Depending on where you are, your god is only as true to you as your imaginary girlfriend is to the next person. So, in the end the existence of a God is irrelevant.
tl;dr Gods are an abstract concept created by your mind. And without religions, we would most likely be further in science than now.
>>575556382 What we humans know directly is this sensible changing world. We also know that there must exist whatever it takes for something to exist. Therefore, we know that neither this changing universe as a whole nor any part of it can be itself what it takes for the universe to exist
. But we have now such direct knowledge of the cause of changing things. We know that there must exist a cause; we know that this cause cannot be finite or material—that it must transcend such limitations. But what this ultimate cause is in itself remains, so far, a mystery. There is more to be said by reason; and there is very much more God has made known about himself through revelation.
But the proofs have given us some real knowledge as well: knowledge that the universe is created; knowledge that right now it is kept in being by a cause unbounded by any material limit, that transcends the kind of being we humans directly know. And that is surely knowledge worth having. We might figure out that someone's death was murder and no accident, without figuring out exactly who did it and why, and this might leave us frustrated and unsatisfied.
But at least we would know what path of questioning to pursue; at least we would know that someone did it. So it is with the proofs. They let us know that at every moment the being of the universe is the creative act of a Giver—A Giver transcending all material and spiritual limitations. Beyond that, they do not tell us much about what or who this Giver is—but they point in a very definite direction.
We know that this Ultimate Reality—the Giver of being—cannot be material. And we know the gift which is given includes personal being: intelligence, will and spirit. The infinite transcendent cause of these things cannot be less than they are, but must be infinitely more. How and in what way we do not know. To some extent this Giver must always remain unknown to human reason.
>>575557860 what is good? Jeffery Dahmer was baptized by Father Roy Ratcliffe in a bathtub while in prison for killing and eating 17 people. Is he in Heaven, or Hell? My Atheist, pothead Uncle was a fireman, and saved 11 people and a bunch of cats and dogs before dying trying to save #12. Do Atheist firemen go to Hell?
>>575557564 >Be in theology and philiosophy class >discussion about evil >devil comes up in convo >girl puts here hand up and says"what if the devil is just an agent of god who punishes wicked souls for him" >mfw
>>575557239 It's feasible but I think it's really fucking unlikely. No I believe that the most likely solution is the universe tunneled out of nowhere, along with half the standard model and the bit bout gravity that one day will form the other half of the standard model and eventually the Universe will end with the big rip.
That's a guess based on limited Physics education (not even postgrad) and personal feelings.
>>575548104 >if God does not exist, what is it that believers have been experiencing? vestigial memories of being in the womb. >an experience everyone has in common >contained within this benevolent super-being that provides for all needs think about it.
>>575556481 Which events do we choose? In the first place, the event must be extraordinary. But there are many extraordinary happenings (e.g., numerous stones dropping from the sky in Texas) that do not qualify as miracles. Why not? First, because they could be caused by something in nature, and second, because the context in which they occur is not religious. They qualify as mere oddities, as "strange happenings"; the sort of thing you might expect to read in Believe It or Not, but never hear about from the pulpit. Therefore the meaning of the event must also be religious to qualify as a miracle. Suppose that a holy man had stood in the center of Houston and said: "My dear brothers and sisters! You are leading sinful lives! Look at yourselves—drunken! dissolute! God wants you to repent! And as a sign of his displeasure he's going to shower stones upon you!" Then, moments later—thunk! thunk! thunk!—the stones began to fall. The word "miracle" might very well spring to mind. Not that we would have to believe in God after witnessing this event. But still, if that man in Texas seemed utterly genuine, and if his accusations hit home, made us think "He's right," then it would be very hard to consider what happened a deception or even an extraordinary coincidence.
You are an amateur that has no clue who or what he is even talking to, but you will... When you die all things will become crystal clear, including who it was that spoke with you today, and whose testimony you refused. You are low tier new age fag, every seasoned Satanist knows who I am.
It's not our job to declare fallacies of anything when it comes to belief or spirituality. Not to get too preachy, but condemning your neighbor as an idiot won't help you win any arguments. I don't care what side of the fence you're on. No one has to agree, no one needs to prove themselves right. Whatever you believe just stick to it and be happy about it. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people.
>>575549025 >Apart from the assumption of atheism, there is no compelling evidence at all that [fill in this blank with any imaginary thing you want] is a mere projection. Have you met my friend Russel and his teapot?
>>575558592 another qualification or a miracle is that it is a unique or non-repeating event. This is why it is an error when people say "the miracle of childbirth". birth is not a miracle, and it is something quite common that occurs regularly
>>575557595 Not entirely sure, but here are my first thoughts: -If you're talking about creation story, that is actually consistent with science with an emphasis on the later part of Genesis 1:2. I'd suggest reading Hugh Ross if you're actually trying to sort through belief in general. I typically like what he says, but not always how he says it. -I'm not sure how large your large is nor how many hebrews biblically escaped from Egypt. I'd be interested in looking into this one as well as the next one. -Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence (again, I'd be interested in looking into it sometime) -Not sure about the origin of languages we know of. Sorry for lack of help here. -biblically speaking, the flood covered the "whole world." This phrase wasn't used to necessarily mean the entire world, but rather the world known to the author, which really didn't have to cover much land relative to the whole Earth. -As far as the internal inconsistencies, those are usually small things such as one list of genealogy including someone's name and another skipping that particular generation. As far as who bought the blood field, it is not a logical inconsistency, just an incomplete history of it.
everyone in this thread, please immerse yourself in the philosophy of language. You will immediately realize that *this* argument is trivial, and that neither side of the dichotomy can intelligibly formulate a solution.
>>575547604 There's an argument made by some philosopher (can't remember who it was) that argued that God can be omniscient, but omniscient in the sense that he knows everything that can be known. He knows all that ever happened and is happening, but he cannot know the future because it is not knowledge or something knowable. However, since he is omniscient, he probably has a good idea as to what will happen, but he can never be 100% certain. Also, the Bible never gave God any of the omni-qualities. Those are outside of scripture, but are considered doctrine (for whatever reason). Hope this helps.
>>575558965 Yes and the setting of a supposed miracle is crucially important. Not just the physical setting, and not just the timing, but the personal setting is vital as well—the character and the message of the person to whom this event is specially tied.
Take, for example, four or five miracles from the New Testament. Remove them completely from their context, from the teaching and character of Christ. Would it be wrong to see their religious significance as thereby greatly diminished?
After all, to call some happening a miracle is to interpret it religiously. But to interpret it that way demands a context or setting which invites such interpretation. And part of this setting usually, though not always, involves a person whose moral authority is first recognized, and whose religious authority, which the miracle seems to confirm, is then acknowledged.
>>575559591 but when you think about it, a religious persons ideas shouldnt change or evolve, because the word of god hasnt changed. homosexuality is a sin yesterday, today, and tomorrow. peoples beleifs on fundamental core beleifs shouldnt change if they are calling themselves christians
>>575552931 >>575552490 >>575551662 >>575550793 >>575552931 For the ancient predecessors of flying squirrels to attempt gliding, during the transitional millenniums that necessitate the formation of rudimentary webbing or wings, would be suicidal. Countless generations of squirrels with death wishes would be required as triggers for the millions of evolutive changes, of the childishly vague Darwinian/Sumerian/Lamarckian model, to be realized.
>>575559009 Not sure where you're taking this debate, I didn't even start talking about dark matter but I'll go with it. I think you're talking about dark energy which is causing the expansion that, if greater than Hubble's constant times that mass of the universe or some shit will cause the great rip.
Well the universe is accelerating. That's a fact that we absolutely know and have for years. Something is accelerating it. That's an assumption but one that is so obvious, (if there is an effect it logically needs a cause in our universe) that is as irrefutable as the fact it is accelerating. We have defined that "thing" that is accelerating the universe as dark energy.
A lot of people think that because we don't know a lot about it, dark energy is a "made up" thing by scientists to get rid of a problem. It is. What a lot of people are ignoring is that EVERYTHING is made up to get rid of a problem, gravity, momentum, mass. These are all the logical description of a physical observation. Saying that dark energy is accelerating the universe but we don't really know much about it yet is identical to saying X is accelerating the universe but we don't really know much about it yet. It's not wrong, just not fully explained (so far).
>>575559862 The ontological argument was devised by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), who wanted to produce a single, simple demonstration which would show that God is and what God is. Single it may be, but far from simple. It is, perhaps, the most controversial proof for the existence of God. Most people who first hear it are tempted to dismiss it immediately as an interesting riddle, but distinguished thinkers of every age, including our own, have risen to defend it.
For this very reason it is the most intensely philosophical proof for God's existence; its place of honor is not within popular piety, but rather textbooks and professional journals.
Truly for you "soldiers" (who face no meaningful organized opposition, no enemy ships, no enemy planes): it's good to be home with your families after you've destroyed the homes of Arab families with highly radioactive "depleted" uranium.
>>575560114 If the Darwinian theory has shown anything, it has shown, in a general way, how species may have descended from others through random mutation; and how survival of these species can be accounted for by natural selection—by the fitness of some species to survive in their environment.
In no way does it—can it—account for the ubiquitous order and intelligibility of nature.
Rather, it presupposes order. To quote a famous phrase: "The survival of the fittest presupposes the arrival of the fit."
If Darwinians wish to extrapolate from their purely biological theory and maintain that all the vast order around us is the result of random changes, then they are saying something which no empirical evidence could ever confirm; which no empirical science could ever demonstrate; and which, on the face of it, is simply beyond belief.
>>575559452 >It should be noted no, it shouldn't. that line of argument is only considered noteworthy by those with an emotional interest in vindicating theism - it is not taken seriously by scientists who actually know what the word 'pathology' means. atheism correlates much more strongly with intelligence than it does with any diagnosis in the DSM.
>>575546385 Your God's existence relies on the concept of free will. Anyone with any intelligence understands the impossibility of free will. Your God is dead, you're an idiot but you dont have a choice, no one does.
>>575560621 Everyone admits that religious belief is widespread throughout human history. But the question arises: Does this undisputed fact amount to evidence in favor of the truth of religious claims?
Even a skeptic will admit that the testimony we have is deeply impressive: the vast majority of humans have believed in an ultimate Being to whom the proper response could only be reverence and worship. No one disputes the reality of our feelings of reverence, attitudes of worship, acts of adoration. But if God does not exist, then these things have never once—never once—had a real object. Is it really plausible to believe that?
The capacity for reverence and worship certainly seems to belong to us by nature. And it is hard to believe that this natural capacity can never, in the nature of things, be fulfilled, especially when so many testify that it has been.
True enough, it is conceivable that this side of our nature is doomed to frustration; it is thinkable that those millions upon millions who claim to have found the Holy One who is worthy of reverence and worship were deluded. But is it likely?
It seems far more likely that those who refuse to believe are the ones suffering from deprivation and delusion—like the tone-deaf person who denies the existence of music, or the frightened tenant who tells herself she doesn't hear cries of terror and distress coming from the street below and, when her children awaken to the sounds and ask her, "Why is that lady screaming, Mommy?" tells them, "Nobody's screaming: it's just the wind, that's all. Go back to sleep."
As we iterate through generations of human beings, we will never reach a point where we are not Eukaryotes/Chordata/Mammalia/etc.
Structure builds upon pre-existing structure. You have a very poor understanding of Darwinism.
Additonally, "order" is not a property of things, but rather, a relation between an observer and something observer. "Order" presupposes judgement, which presupposes a human observer. Same with intelligibility.
Start by doing some semantic janitorial work, then work your way up to formulating arguments.
>>575560046 I would like to point out to the thread that the KJV Bible was assembled by Irenaeus by his own admission to have 4 main Gospels because flat Earth only has 4 corners, and the purpose of the Religion is to eliminate Gnostics and their pursuit of knowledge. This religion will be Universal(Catholic), and its members shall think straight(Orthodox). Anyone who exercises choices(Hairesis) shall be killed as a Heretic. Blah Blah Kill Kill...
>>575561070 Believers and nonbelievers both experience the same universe. It is this which is either designed or not. And this world of our common experience is a world of pervasive order and intelligibility. That fact must be faced. Before we speculate about what will be in the future or what may be elsewhere in the present, we need to deal honestly with what is. We need to recognize in an unflinching way the extent—the overwhelming extent—of order and intelligibility. Then we can ask ourselves: Is it credible to suppose that we inhabit a small island of order surrounded by a vast sea of chaos—a sea which threatens one day to engulf us? Just consider how in the last decades we have strained fantastically at the limits of our knowledge; we have cast our vision far beyond this planet and far within the elements that make it up. And what has this expansion of our horizons revealed? Always the same thing: more—and not less—intelligibility; more—and not less—complex and intricate order. Not only is there no reason to believe in a surrounding chaos, there is every reason not to. It flies in the face of the experience that all of us—believers and nonbelievers—share in common. Something similar can be said about the future. We know the way things in the universe have behaved and are behaving. And so, until we have some reason to think otherwise, there is every reason to believe it will continue on its orderly path of running down. No speculation can nullify what we know.
>>575561070 And, anyway, exactly what sort of chaos is this question asking us to imagine? That effect precedes cause? That the law of contradiction does not hold? That there need not be what it takes for some existing thing to exist? These suggestions are completely unintelligible; if we think about them at all, it is only to reject them as impossible. Can we imagine less order? Yes. Some rearrangement of the order we experience? Yes. But total disorder and chaos? That can never be considered as a real possibility. To speculate about it as if it were is really a waste of time.
>>575559591 This is dawkinsish redefining atheism. Atheism makes an assertion -that there is no god. That assertion is no entirely in logic and reason, as there is far from sufficient evidence to support it.
That's what I meant. You can poke holes in the argument that positively states there is no god. But the logical result of "winning" that debate isn't converting an atheist to christianity, its converting them to agnosticism.
>>575560394 Show me one passage of the Bible that actually states God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipresent (being everywhere). If you cannot give me any passage with any of those claims, then you sir are a liar. If you happen to find only a couple, then you greatly exaggerated. Either way, you're still a faggot.
>>575560183 I am not a physicist. If motion along X axis causes X axis to elongate toward infinity as that motion approaches the speed of light, then does all motion in the universe not cause the expansion of the universe? Is the real question what is causing the increase of motion? Also, is simple motions the basic definition of the smallest measurement of life?
>>575560985 >those who refuse to believe so tell me why you refuse to believe in Osiris and Horus and Thoth. tell me why you refuse to believe in Zeus and Apollo and Odin and Thor.
when you are an embryo in the womb, there absolutely is an ultimate being, which has existed for a span of time that is incomprehensible to you, which protects and loves you, which provides you everything you need by processes you cannot begin to understand. this being is called your mother, and these experiences linger at the edges of our awareness and consciousness all our lives.
the human experience of the numinous or the transcendent or the sublime is available to all people, whether or not they have been bullied by peer-pressure into espousing belief in one (or more) imaginary beings called god. the fact that you think such experiences belong only to people who agree with you about god is simple egotism. there is 'what seems far more likely' to you, based on what you want to believe and your current level of knowledge - and then there is 'what is actually true,' which plenty of honest people have diligently studied, finding that there is no statistical basis at all for your faith-based claim that atheism is pathological.
>>575562405 They implicate each other. Something is not nothing. Nothing is not something. Distinction is a name and an operation.
Draw a circle on the plane. The circle cleaves the space in two. On one hand, we consider the circle to denote "the inside." We also see that in the act of drawing the circle that we have turned "the unmarked" space into "a marked" space.
>>575550793 Necessary in philosophy and necessary in everyday English mean very different things. It's important to say that philosophical necessity means in layman's terms that it will never cease to be. it will always exist, has always existed and exists in every possible reality.
>>575555492 >He is the cause of all grief, for some fucking reason that only he knows.
But he's also the cause of all goodness. See the human race takes a lot of things for granted and complains when the world is evil. God doesn't want evil but if he took it away life for us humans would suck. we would be brain dead.
If you had the choice would you be:
brain dead but never feel pain and only feel the good things like love/happiness or be smart, intellgent have the same as above in terms of happiness/love but also have all the bad/evil in the world as well.
I know I would choose the latter. And so does God.
>>575559754 Are you honestly saying that religion doesn't fall into the supernatural? Talking snakes, women turning into pillars of salt, demons, devils, angels, spirits, souls, Jesus rising from the dead, god creating the world out of nothing, oceans parting, burning bushes talking, afterlife, heaven, hell, demon possession, exorcism... etc. etc.
That shit doesn't fall under the category of the supernatural? Really? That doesn't qualify. Religion IS a supernatural explanation for the world around us. It certainly isn't a naturalistic one. We call that science. So yes sweetheart, religious explanations are supernatural explanations.
Not to mention that this yet another dodge of the question I keep trying to an answer too. So let me ask for a fifth time.
Has it ever happened once in our entire history that a supernatural presupposition (of which was once our explanation for everything) ever actually turned out to be the correct answer?
>>575551650 Faith is not science. Science is not faith. Science needs evidence to be substanciated, but faith is not science. Faith does not need evidence because it is a choice to believe something without evidence. You choose faith, you do not choose science. It's like oil and water, they do not mix very well.
>>575563469 Satan/devil/etc. is not the source of evil.
God is both life and death. Satan holds no power over death. Thus Satan is not evil nor is he the source of it.
Why doesn't God destroy evil then? Because he gave Humans Free will. this is why evil exists. God doesn't directly cause evil (humans cause that usually) God just doesn't destroy it because that would eliminate our free will
Assuming that a god exists outside of space and time being the doesn't exist in this universe as we perceive it, that implies he exists in a dimension that we don't understand. A veritable 4th dimension. So what's to stop there from being a 5th dimension and god having a god? And so on and so on. Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean in couldn't happen.
Just look at the fucking Norse or Greeks. They had religions and sacrificed goats before there were any Christian assholes to dismiss them as pagans and kill them. Religion has been around so long that you can't just question the ideals of Christianity, you have to call all religion into question. Since before civilization there has been religion and its prime purpose was to explain things that could not be fully explained and to give hope and a feeling that we are not alone. None of the stupid hierarchy and crusades and idiots shoving christ up peoples dickholes
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.