>In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [Genesis]

So even here too.

It would make no difference what religion you are or are not.

The fact is that we are alive and we are real and that our lives were caused by something.

The fact is that there was a creation because everything is created via cause and effect.

Something caused the heavens and the earth and itself, and the heavens and their orbits, the planet we live on and our lives are the effect of SOMETHING.

>>1349540
But who created God?

>>1349692
Whatever did, something created whatever created before that and that before that and something before that

>>1349540
>This is pretty logical and reasonable if you really think about it.

Actually no, it really isnt.

First I want a definition of "the beginning" t = 0 is not a defined point so where in lim t->0 are we talking about?

Next define god; what properties are we associating with this object and why does this particular object get to defy all your other claims regarding "cause"

Now we need a definition of "the heavens", hell its worse than that, in the King James version we get "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The lack of the pluralisation clearly distinguishes from the abstract term used to describe space that is not earth, and returns it to the classical notion of "heaven" as a spiritual location.

>God is abstract

>Science can't go to the very beginning
Hey, it's god of the gaps

>There are events that happened before their idea of "the beginning"
See this is a shifting goalpost; are you claiming that we have probed energy scales up to a certain extent and can theorise beyond that while we wait for more experimental data; then yes you are correct, if you're claiming we have "no concept" then you're blatantly strawmanning.

>The idea here is that God, created the heavens and earth and the earth is one of many objects in the heavens / cosmos.
Again, varies with translation with older translations preferencing the singular while newer preferencing the plural.

>God is the origin, whatever originally created everything that is God. That first thing, the first cause.
Prove that the first cause is singular.

>>1349751
Let's be alot more simple.

If you want to made a bagels you need the ingredients to make the dough, and oven, and time otherwise the bagel would not exist.

The same with Earth and it's people. Of the ingredients were not there, and the energy and time was not put into its development, we would not be existing.

God's characteristics do not need to be defined nor do they need to be limited to "King James Standard" but the reality is that heaven / cosmos and earth / an object in the cosmos cannot exist without a cause

>>1349718
So god is not the first cause.

>>1349776
The first cause is God. And before this cause, there is another cause which would be superior since it is before God, and therefore would be God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HAMk_ZYO7g

>>1349540
>In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
Except earth didnt turn up until billions of years after the big bang

>>1349787
Those billion of years to God could have been like seven days to God's perspective.

The way we percieve time is only because of the conditions of our planet

>>1349540
God is just a delusion!!! In 500 years Science explained most complicated things in this universe.... Wait another 100 and you will get the answer to your question about the beginning.
Moreover I don't think Bible can explain the creation as clearly as Big bang theory can. People just want to believe in Bible because it's easy to understand, no complications just believe what a dumb asshole wrote 2000 years ago, I think Church should publish a scientific version of Bible and should ask for forgiveness for making fool of people for 2000 years.

>>1349764
>Let's be alot more simple.
Let's not, oversimplifying is a way of concealing mistakes in the full argument

>The same with Earth and it's people. Of the ingredients were not there, and the energy and time was not put into its development, we would not be existing.
No, you cannot assert your choice of prior as evidence for your argument; claiming "we exist therefore" is a non argument simply because there exists no alternative. Let me take an example: the moon is round because of all the possible multiverses we happen to live in the one where the moon is not square. Hence the moon is round.

Clearly, this argument is bullshit.

>God's characteristics do not need to be defined
I'm sorry, you started with the premise that all objects had the property "caused", now you're telling me that out of all the objects that exist, you're going to pick one and give it the property "uncaused" with no explanation as to why it gets this special status, then tell me that you dont even need to define it. "Please ignore the man behind the curtain, he is not relevant".

> nor do they need to be limited to "King James Standard"
I'm sorry, you posted a bible quote from one version of the bible that is not consistent across all versions, hence your conclusions from that quote are from a non-universally accepted definition of the christian god. Given that older editions of the bible prefer the singular over the plural, it is more likely that your quote comes from a mistranslation or misappropriation of an older version.

>an object in the cosmos cannot exist without a cause
Spontaneous decay is uncaused and universal, vacuum fluctuation are uncaused and universal.

>>1349810
There is always before the big bang and the cause of the big bang and all the more science can not explain.

Science can prove regular physical things but it's ability to go abstract is very short.

>>1349811
There is not argument. We do not exist without a cause.

God is not exclusive to any religion, but this quote is very reasonable in explaining the cause of heaven and earth.

Spontaneous decay and vacuum fluctuations are both causes that create effects. You cannot create without cause.

>>1349816
It doesn't mean you should believe someone who said all these things without observation. Its better to believe nothing at all than to believe in something you know is false.

File: Artist%E2%80%99s_Impression_of_a_Baby_Star_Still_Surrounded_by_a_Protoplanetary_Disc.jpg (2MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2000px

>>1349540
>the earth and the Sun were both there at the beginning
Nice try
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis#Formation_of_planets

>>1349826
You can prove the nature of God to be true.

If you want to believe something that is false you can believe in nothing.

>>1349827
It may have taken them a long time to appear, but they were created and used as a measurement for the beggining.

>>1349816
>There is not argument
Nice way of failing to address any points that have been raised

>We do not exist without a cause.
Prove it, stating the same thing over and over is not actually making an argument for its correctness.

>God is not exclusive to any religion, but this quote is very reasonable in explaining the cause of heaven and earth.
Except as detailed above, it isn't.

>Spontaneous decay and vacuum fluctuations are both causes that create effects.
Naming something isn't stating it as a cause, vacuum fluctuation and spontaneous decay are processes not causes. See here's where oversimplifying gets you; trying to play language tricks to justify your own argument.

>>1349830
Light long predates the earth.

>>1349838
Be simple man. We would not be having this conversation without cause and effect.

Cause you post, the effect is a response, without these, the creation of this conversation would have no existence.

We exist, be-CAUSE of something, we are the effect of a cause of SOMETHING

>>1349841
And that is the beggining, and there is a beggining before that and one before that.

The Earth did not exist first, but the Heavens did. It is a small statement that means way more than "The Earth is the center of existence" when all the things that existed before the earth and the heavens as we know it could have been billions of years which to God, or, the power that created everything those billions of years could have been seconds to its perception

>>1349540
>the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
>and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.
Why did the ancient jews get so crazy after that decent first verse

>>1349780
Either you're incredibly dumb or trolling here

>>1349843
>Be simple man.
Reality is not simple, as shown above you've tried to cover up glaring holes in your argument by

>We would not be having this conversation without cause and effect.
Anthropic principle is not an argument, while I agree that causation is real, it is pathetic that you cannot even make an argument for it without resorting to claiming it as an axiom.

>We exist, be-CAUSE of something, we are the effect of a cause of SOMETHING
Language is not logic, word tricks are not an argument. I define the word "QQQ" to have the same meaning as the word "because" and the word "RRR" to the same as the word something, now I restate what you said above.

We exist, QQQ of RRR, we are the effect of a cause of RRR.

See, just by swapping the words while preserving the meaning of your argument it loses its value.

>>1349851
Who knows

>>1349853
Neither.

>>1349861
Very simple.

Humanity is the effect of a cause.

The Earth is the effect of a cause.

The heavens are the effect of a cause

>>1349866
How much do we know about this cause and what should we name it?

>>1349868
We all know probably the same amount about this cause, or at least we all have the same potential to understand this cause.

It does not need to be named or renamed because we do not want to impose a limitation on it. If we name and define something, we only go so far as to giving it a limited label

>>1349866
You've stated the same thing three times and havent actually presented an argument for it. If you want to use causation then you need to prove it.

There exist proofs for it, but so long as you demonstrate that you dont know them your argument isnt worth shit.

And again, simplicity is not an argument either; it's just a way of trying to hide errors.

>>1349879
No one is arguing.

>>1349876
How should we go about investigating this cause?

I propose we take really big telescopes and try to look really far into space. Any other ideas?

>>1349885
We could use a really big Metaphorically telescope and look really far into space that is inside of us.

As soon as we ask God honestly for guidence on these abstract and complex questions and ideas we can seek it out and the totality of the answers we can recieve may not just be direct answers like we are used to but ones that create more questions and more abstract thoughts.

>>1349881
He presented ideas, I'm challenging him on them, hence that is an argument.

>>1349895
That's code for "take a shitload of shrooms and trip balls, then you will unlock the mysteries of the universe," isn't it? Don't worry buddy, I totally get you.

>>1349898
How are you challenging them?

>>1349904
You can read a variety of religious texts and you could even read book about metaphysical ideas.

>>1349895
Or you could research astrophysics instead of daydreaming.

>>1349911
You can research astrophysics and daydream.

But to pass off these insights as just "daydreaming" is like throwing away a valuable piece of evidence.

What if a guitar had only five strings because scientists believed the six one was "preposterous"

>>1349908
That's not looking inside myself, that's just listening to other people. I have a better plan. I'm gonna go to the desert and smoke peyote until I understand.

>>1349915
They have 6 strings because they create harmonic vibrations, not because God told someone they should.

The world around you contains real information you can learn from, you don't have to rely on poems for complete guesswork.

>>1349915
>What if a guitar had only five strings because scientists believed the six one was "preposterous"
how is this comparable to rejecting day dreaming as evidence when it is literally just your imagination at work?

>>1349908
Im asking him to provide proof of a claim, that is a challenge, he (assuming it is not you) is simply restating his initial position without attempting to support it.
>>1349866

If you attempt to assert something, you must demonstrate why your assertion is correct.

>>1349918
They could have the same amount of harmonic vibrations with 5 strings if they play the same notes as the six string.

No one is discrediting real information, but to discredit deep insight as daydreaming, that is discrediting the way to understanding the effect and the cause.

>>1349919
You can't prove it as only imagination , for the mind has the characteristics of empty space, which is also the same nature as the cosmic space we percieve in between the objects in space.

>>1349920
There is a simple cause and effect, humans are here because of something and so is the earth and all the astronomical pieces.

They would not exist without some cause.

The same way we exist be-CAUSE of something.

This conversation is happening be-CAUSE of a reason, and if this thread was not the cause to this conversation, the effect of our debate would have no existence

>>1349932
I'm not sure what you want, try this I guess:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_formation_of_the_Universe

>>1349847
That's nice. Light and the stars are created on the 4th day, while the heavens and earth are created on the 1st. No amount of rationalizing the meaning of a "day" fixes the problem with the order.

>>1349938
Even a graph is a limitation.

It starts off with the big bang

>evolution of the universe staring from the big bang

Using the big bang as point A when the big bang could have happened trillions of years after a bunch of other stuff that we can't percieve because of our limited understanding in science.

The earliest form science can percieve could have millions of other events that caused that first percieve force to happen

If the universe we have now just disappeared and a new one was formed and there was a new "earth" with "humanoid" creatures who could have no proof of anything besides their "big bang" and just say "this is a fact" when they just did not find the evidence of "our" existence just yet

>>1349932
I've already addressed these points.
You're relying on the anthropic principle which is not an argument as it can by applied to any argument. There are arguments for causality which you could have attempted to apply but it is clear that you dont know them and so the argument you are currently presenting is flawed.

As before you're also trying to assert correctness from the language of your argument not the logic, as before I will happily preserve the definition of the word "because" while giving it the syntactic formation "QQQ"

>There is a simple cause and effect, humans are here QQQ of something and so is the earth and all the astronomical pieces.

Your first statement requires that you prove causality for every object in the universe, I have already presented examples where causality does not apply (as above vacuum fluxuations, spontaneous decay and let's add in zero point energy while we're at it, I can add more if I want)

>They would not exist without some cause.
A non argument, if you assert that "everything has a cause" then by definition everything that exists must have a cause; your argument follows the logic:

I assert X
Because of X then Y
Therefore Y

This doesnt actually follow given that you asserted X and didnt prove it.

>The same way we exist QQQ of something.
This argument follows the form

I assert X
Therefore X

Again, until you sufficiently demonstrate the universality of the notion of causation then your argument simply does not follow

>>1349942
Take it from the writers perspective. Imagine being Moses for a second trying to record the majesty of God when the events he was writing about happened hundreds and hundreds of years before he was born on Earth.

>>1349942
>Light and the stars
The sun and the stars, rather.

>>1349953
It is simple cause and effect. You exist be-CAUSE of something.

Be simple.

Living proof of cause and effect exist in front of you. Go ahead and write the next posts response without type. Because you don't type no words show up on the screen.

Because you have the will to type, then you create the sentences to formulate the response.

>>1349956
Even if we allow for that, the clear unreliability of the information means it is of little use to us for determining anything about the actual creation of the universe.

>>1349965
It is of little use to those who don't understand it.

>>1349970
If we can't trust "God did X" in terms of the order, why trust "God didX" in terms of the events?

>>1349964
You are clearly retarded.

You continue to restate the same opinions without understanding the notions of presenting proof. You continue to assert the same premise and continue to fail to understand the notion that it isnt enough to assert correctness, you must demonstrate.

You also continue to fail to understand the notion that causality is non-universal; so long as pure-randomness exists (it does, measurement of quantum superpositions is pure random), not everything is purely causal.

In short, you not only dont know how to debate, you also dont know your own argument and supplement your lack of ability with the capability to simply ignore anything you dont understand.

>>1349976
It is hard to change our conception from linear to "dhwod62jg sksbdkvnb" but this how the nature of the Spirit changes us and molds us into understanding it.

Even if we have a little understanding of it, we might as well use that little understanding to some constructive use.

Genesis 1:1 might mean something very straightforward to one person like "God did it" and to someone else mean "meyaphysically, we could compare this statement to this equation"

Either way, I know some people use the words "it was all made up" but we could at least consider that these texts that mention God were are written thousands of years ago and should be credited as reliable historical sources.

The religious sources are still historical sources and should not be so easily discredited just because it deals with spirituality, a concept we cannot just grasp with only logical mindsets

>>1349987
It isn't about debating.

be-CAUSE I wrote this response, the effect is likely that you will write a response.

If I don't respond, then it is likely you won't respond again.

The creation of the earth, the heavens and humanity are be-CAUSE of SOMETHING. If it had no cause, there would be no effect (humanity, earth, the cosmos etc)

Can't shake the feeling that this whole thread is one samefag

>>1349997

I'm sorry, you continue to ignore any point I raise while ignoring your own errors, so I take this as evidence that you are retarded.
QED.

>>1349991
>that mention God were are written thousands of years ago and should be credited as reliable historical sources.
The Iliad was written thousands of years ago, and contains historical details, but if you want to actually know anything about the Bronze Age mediterranean civilizations archeology is much better suited to it. There is important cultural information about Bronze Age and Dark Age civilizations embedded within the text, but its age does not guarantee its narration of events and facts is accurate. The same is true of many ancient texts, especially when they contradict what we know about reality. When Herodotus talks about wool that grows on trees, we don't take him at his word, we assume he is talking about cotton.

>>1350005
Because you are mad, that is why you insult people. If they didn't give you a reason to anger then would you call them by insulting them?

That is cause and effect in front of you

>>1349952
To be fair information is only relevant in a meaningful way if it has some bearing to you, if it occurred at least within your own universe is the largest possible cut-off point. Anything that hypothetically happened "before" or "after" your universe is impossible to know about.

You keep insisting that these "spiritual matters"
are a special exception >>1349991 but it seems like special pleading.
Ancient myths recorded thousands of years ago are not supposed to be reliable accounts of detailed historical accounts.

What's the obsession with Genesis on /his/ lately?

>>1350018
It's the Creationism Summer Pledge Drive, gotta get those memes hitting the streets hard to rack up those summertime Goodboy Points.

>>1350007
But even with archaeological evidence you could still even consider these texts as archaeological because they are. Side by side you could see them.

How they describe objects back then is different to how we compare them now.

We used to say Pluto was a planet, but the science decided "nah because this is how we classify a planet" when really it is only a select number of people with a limited term for classificication.

3000 years from now will they call Pluto a planet or not? Well in today's day science doesn't but not to long ago we did and we accepted both of the ideas as fact when clearly they contradict eachother

>>1349692
>What came before the time before time
You always ask this without knowing that its an incoherent incomplete question.

>>1350025
>3000 years from now will they call Pluto a planet or not? Well in today's day science doesn't but not to long ago we did and we accepted both of the ideas as fact when clearly they contradict eachother
And someone who existed 3000 years from now would do well to read whichever textbook exists in their time that provides a definition of a planet. If they were to read a textbook from now arguing about it, the most value they could get about it is cultural: what did the people of the early 21st century think about planets? It would do nothing to inform them about the facts of Pluto's classification. In fact, "planet" may no longer even be a meaningful term to their understanding. It would be foolish to use our text for that purpose. And we would he foolish to use the texts of thousands of years before us for that purpose too.

>>1349540
>science
Are you implying science and religion are separate?

>>1350016
The "impossible to know about" isn't impossible because we are actually living in the universe right now. The universe that existed before everything we understand, we are living in it right now.

Isn't that amazing? Can we appreciate this? These ancient "myths" being discredited as such have SOME value that is still beyond our full understanding and can easily be syncopated to culture of historical times. That is beautiful.

>>1350018
People thing the Creation idea is absurd when it is still completely logical to believe that God created the heavens and Earth.

When a non believer says "Creationist" they charge at every Christians thinking all of their present conceived notions about what every Creationists believe because of their own stereotypes they have about people who believe in God.

And when they say God they assume you believe in the "Abrahamic God"

And then they Abrahamic God is different than "The Eastern Philosophy" of God when in all aspects of the word God, you would be talking about the ONE that exists, recognizing lower divinities as well, and a High God, the ONE.

>>1349540
>God is the origin, whatever originally created everything that is God. That first thing, the first cause.

There is no cause, God simply is in eternity.

>>1350034
But who is to say what defines a planet?

If 3000 years from now you don't use a historical sources as evidence for your "claim" or whatever, then you would be discrediting a historical source.

Just because it deals with God everyone nowadays says "well it isn't objective because we can only prove what we percieve with our senses" when we can actually do a lot more than this.

>>1350039
No, all objective truths are objective truths.

When someone says science, like I did, I still used a limited understanding of the word science to point out "secular science" the same way when someone argues against religion they point out "how ridiculous is their claim hahaha I'm going to make fun of this person"

The true parts of religion and the true parts of science don't need to be classified, they are just truths. We don't need to scrutinize every definition when we are at peace with truth

>>1350047
In this cause cause for creation.

God being causeless is even more amazing... zero and infinity.

>>1350041
They have value to an anthropologist but they were invented by creative, imaginative people who were trying to relate to the world using the ideas and vocabulary they had at the time (sky, weather, animals, day, night). That's why the Creation is divided up into "days" like we experience, without knowledge of rotation of planets or any other sophisticated models we have today.
If you are superimposing magical secrets onto these ancient myths, it's your own projection.

>>1350051
>But who is to say what defines a planet?
Scientific consensus at a given time.

>then you would be discrediting a historical source.
No, the historical source does exactly what a historical source does. "At the turn of the 21st century, there was contention over the definition of a planet, and the classification of Pluto." It provides cultural and historical information, not accurate facts about the universe. Aquinas talking about witches causing impotence is not evidence for witches, it's evidence for cultural beliefs at the time.

>Just because it deals with God
And because it is demonstrably inaccurate in many other ways. It's not that it mentions God therefore it's false, it's that it is so wrong about so many things, why should we trust it with this "God" concept.

>>1350066
In this case*

>>1350072
It is a lot more than just allegorical ideas and secrets and myths. This force of God can prove itself to you, and these texts act as a guide as well.

Discrediting them as if they are only this or that, you impose a limited definition as to what they are.

>>1350073
But if classification changes later in 20 years or so, science could say "earth is no longer a planet" and everyone would accept it as a "fact"


Scientific consensus it "true" until they prove it "wrong but this is true instead" .. those aren't facts

Smoking cigarettes used to be healthy in the 50s... now look at what the tobacco industry does and how we can see how bad it is for you.

Again, a book written 2000 plus years ago should not be so easily discredited because "we cannot understand it fully because it is wrong about so many different things" when we are all wrong about all kinds of stuff all the time

That is when you say "well what are you doing right?" The same for "well the Bible or the Upanishad is right about this particular fact"

>>1350083
>This force of God can prove itself to you, and these texts act as a guide as well.

I can't help it, I'm not superstitious, I'm not religious. I'm not convinced by mystery appeals.
The bible isn't some magic answer book, it's a book like any other, albeit with a long and checked past.

>>1350073
Witches can cause impotence though.

>>1350089
>But if classification changes later in 20 years or so, science could say "earth is no longer a planet" and everyone would accept it as a "fact"...
Yes, which is why it would be foolish to use the textbook that is 20 years old, much less the one that is 2000 years old, especially when it is riddled with errors.

>we cannot understand it fully
You can make anything seem right with a creative enough interpretation. That's not good enough.

>>1350093
It is a book like any other.. like textbooks, like novels, like biographies, like children's books but because it deals with the nature of God (as well as other books not just the Bible) and that is why it gets separated from the others

File: image.jpg (179KB, 1125x896px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1125x896px

Why can the sequence of motion not extend ad infinitum?

>>1350097
We are not talking about textbooks though. We are talking about these historical sources which were still written 2000 years ago. It isn't foolish to read them and understand them, that is why they are still in use today.

We can't understand anything fully, even no matter how much knowledge we have. We think we can with science and hypothesis and this and that but the truth is that we actually can't understand anything full like the creation or about mathematics. We can't even understand people fully or matter fully. There is always more to learn.

>>1350103
It extends infinitely but does not infinitely the same. But it does.

No conditional thing is the same forever, but the continuation of infinity and eternity is without conditions and will always be lasting.

>>1350101
Well whatever you read, read it critically, so you are not bamboozled by impossible claims to divine "spiritual" wisdom that anyone can make up to trick you.

Or don't, whatever, keep asking the same vague questions over and over.

>>1350103
More over motion is relative so the entire argument falls apart on that premise

>>1350115
Another cool thing about nature is the back and forth thingy.

You could say "being bamboozled by spiritual claims mumbo jumbo" and I could say "Why not read these texts critically and with an open mind?"

>>1350116
Motion, and rest. These are facts. There is motion and there is rest. There will always be movement and there will always be the resting of movement.

>>1349828
How can you prove?

Lads, I don't want to create a new thread for this; why are Calendars not renamed after Christians? Is there a calendar that switches names?

Mars -> Jesus

or something like that.

>>1350116
That's deeply flawed logic. Where does the argument fall apart exactly?

>>1350136
I suspect the early church was actually pretty fond of Pagan/Greek/Roman terminology.

>>1350125
Believe that you can.

Follow a prescribed method.

I know it may not be super direct or anything but hope this helps.

> “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. - Matthew 7:7

Just because these are bible quotes don't just discredited if you are not Christian or whatever.

Ask God something in prayer something honest.

> When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. - James 4:3

And if your motive and proof are not aligned with honest intentions then the abive passage serves as an explaination.

>>1350125
Through logical reasoning as to what the characteristics of the Perfect Being are.

>>1350136
That is a good question. Probably has to do with the way they already had calenders set up and they just sort of left it as it is but there are other cultures that percieve the months and times of things a bit differently.

Their constellations too could have had differences then how we see them today.

>>1350149
That's nowhere near proof of anything, in fact it's just about the opposite of proof.
This is absurd. "Proof" isn't a feeling you get when you repeat a mantra to yourself.

No wonder you are stumbling through your "spiritual journey" asking these nonsense questions, finding no answers except in your imagination.

>>1350165
Not really asking questions. That was a method for you to apply to have the force prove itself to you.

If you want to call it absurd you can, then you can discredited as that if you want.

>>1350113
True == True

This is true forever, your argument is bullshit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrcQAYS9JtY

>>1350178
No one is arguing.

>>1350187
The notion of an argument is separate from arguing, I suggest you invest in a dictionary.

>>1350178
Also all that post said was
>"conditional things are temporary"
>"but the constant expansion of infinity is eternal."

You can agree or disagree

>>1350189
Now you are changing the subject

>>1350107
Yes, but you understand them as historical sources, not as sources for fact. Again, Aquinas does not prove witches with actual magical powers exist, just that people believed they did

>>1350159
I remember someone pointing me once to a calendar that had names like "Aquinas" on it, but I don't remember it.

Why is there so much atheist propaganda stuff in the US right now? Much more than just a few weeks ago, there's definitely been an uptick in its prevalence.

Is it because Christians aren't supporting Trump and Zionism anymore?

>>1350199
Belief is powerful, don't discredit that either.

A book is a book doesn't matter when it was written, and anything found from the past is a historical source. They can contain fact an allegories, tools etc, they are all archaeological and are all evidential

>>1350204
It's like being a teenager again always having a counterpoint against religious ideas because it is "cool" to be a "rebel".

I understand the atheistic counter culture because I was there, but when you start to get into God consciousness and stuff like this, you see why people encourage a godless and atheistic lifestyle to attempt to seperate us from truth.

Sure, spiritual truths are not the same as what we consider "truth" is today which is only "truths" we can percieve with the five senses or limiting definitions. These truths have a different nature you need to be open to in order to recieve.

>>1350205
Yes, they're evidence of historical information, but that does not imply the contents are accurate. Try designing a plane using Aristotle's physics and see how well it flies. Useful as a source of information for the historical period, not a great source for facts about the universe.

This is such a simple distinction I don't know why you are having so much trouble grasping it. At this point, I should probably just assume you are trolling.

>>1350222
They are pretty accurate facts and aspects you can apply to life and they are useful throughout all time periods.

True teachings of self realization are eternal.

Everything we find from the past is historical.

>>1350230
Okay good, progress has been made. At least now you're not claiming that every single tidbit of information found in a source of a certain age must be true because it is old.

>True teachings of self realization are eternal.
What does this actually mean?

>>1350214
>you need to be open to in order to recieve.

Translation: you need to already buy this bullshit to buy this bullshit.

>>1350214
It's prevalence has its source in Jewish subversion.

>Sure, spiritual truths are not the same as what we consider "truth" is today which is only "truths" we can percieve with the five senses or limiting definitions
We can come to spiritual truths through reason and logic though.

>>1350232
Whatever teaching proves itself to be true is eternal in all time periods. Those ones.

>>1350233
You don't need to be mean for no reason.

The tao is a better explanation on every front since it gets around all the theistic idiocy by having the prime mover simply represent an abstract force that's necessary for all things to be.

>>1349540
>>This is pretty logical and reasonable
No it isn't. Not just because of the what created the creator question, but also because you are assuming that there must be only one creator.

>>1350235
Reason and logic are steps but the mind is capable of going above both reasoning and login a transcending form of thought that is both reasonable and logical.

>>1350233
No not at all, you just need to be fair-minded and be prepared to read a lot.

>>1350237
>You don't need to be mean for no reason.

There is a reason and the reason is simple: that's exactly what the reasoning boils down to. Any truth that has no power to convince on its own is not a truth. This whole "you have to open your heart to it" thing is basically saying you have to be willing to buy it, which means on a certain level you already believe it or something approximating it; you've already accepted its fundamental premise and are now just hammering out details.

>>1350237
>Whatever teaching proves itself to be true is eternal in all time periods. Those ones.
Give examples. I'd be interested to see if any of them don't fit this stretched definition of "truth" you are trying to push. Though, if they don't fit the contemporary definition of truth, that must mean they aren't eternal and universal.

>>1350244
Nah, you have to already accept the fundamental premise for it to work, all that's happening beyond that is just ironing out details.

>>1350242
Our possessing logic and reason are what makes us images of God. Irrationality is for animals.

>>1350241
God is the origin, there is no need to limit God as one distinct deity, but there you see the "angels" the multiplicity of God / God's created beings that have a different nature of life than humans do.

God as one, whatever force all of this goes back to, that one and beyond.

>>1350202
?

>>1350248
Why deny "open up your heart" and "believe"? So simple, and to deny it's power is as foolish as "buying into it" because you aren't being scammed by realization of the soul, you are being reminded

You think it is "logical" to seek out all the details on an image forum

>>1350252
You don't have to accept God's existence in order to fairly and honestly consider arguments for His existence.

>>1350250
->>1350149
It is up to you

>>1350263
>you are being reminded.

No I'm not. I'm being deluded into putting more importance into physical processes than they deserve. Find me one scrap of evidence of this soul, one fucking scrap.

>>1350254
It is above logic and reason without being irrational.

>>1350265
You have to accept the premise that there is a theism to even consider the notion without evidence. Otherwise that whole "there's no fucking evidence" thing slams the door in the face of the notion.

>>1350266
So you don't actually have an answer. Figures, they never do.

>>1350270
You gotta find it on your own ->>1350149... a staircase is a staircase and you have to consciously make the effort to go up the stairs or down the stairs, but if you spend your whole time saying "are there really any rooms up those stairs" without ever going up them, what are you doing?

You can be smart in everything else, but you don't want to go upstairs? Why deny this one thing but accept everything else?

>>1350252
Just read without being a smartass. Be open-minded and fair - consider the arguments carefully.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm

Also interesting:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608x.htm

>>1350275
Exactly, you don't want to apply a teaching that will prove itself to you.

Ask and you shall recieve. If you doubt God the whole time then you really aren't even trying to utilize this teaching at all. That is foolish "they don't ever have an answer, figures" you can't blame people for not having answer you need to find for yourself

>>1350277
So in short, you've got to willfully delude yourself.

Again, a truth that has no power to convince on its own isn't much of a truth. Pretty pathetic show there boy.

There is no force more powerful for turning people away from Christianity than its apologists. It was you bloody fools that pointed out the inherent absurdity of the notion to me, and you that reinforce it.

>>1350279
Make the argument yourself, you lazy sop. I didn't come to 4chan to get directed to some potentially virus riddled mystery websites.

>>1350255
Ah yes I almost forgot the other problem, you have no verifiable evidence for the existence of one creator or many.

Look, faith can be a nice thing to have, but don't go around pretending that the existence of a deity or group of deities is somehow logical or reasonable when the the amount of non-hearsay evidence for the existence of said entity/entities is precisely jack and shit.

>>1350279
Radioactive decay is not caused by an external agent. Aquinas is not a valid argument and has not been for a long time.

>>1350285
>an online 1906 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia
>virus ridden
Read it, I can't do as good as a job as the monk who wrote the articles.

>>1350282
The only delusion is trying to seperate yourself from the eternal existence as if it were all a lie when you don't even make an honest attempt to reach out and look within.

The only force turning people away from Christianity is their percieved inability to honestly seek out God because they think they have everything figured out for them

You can't change unless you believe you can.

You want some more cheesy meyaphysical quotes or no? Because the message is simple

>>1350280
Yes, how convenient that when actually pressed for answers all apologists can do is say "you have to figure it out for yourself. :^)". Really beats actually having to back up concepts like "eternal truth."

>>1350292
Radioactive decay is caused by the physical characteristics of the decaying material.

>>1350288
>pretending

That is why you can test and watch it prove itself to you. It may not be a tangible condition.

But how can you say it is unreasonable and made up without evidence? That is also pretty foolishness just like "blindly accepting it"

Is there another planet in out solar system anon? One no eye has yet seen? Yes or no?

>>1350302
But the change/"motion" is not triggered by anything external. It is completely random. A thing causing change/"motion" in itself.

>>1350292
This is a prime example of atheist illogic, ignorance and arrogance.

>>1350299
>Because the message is simple

Idiotic things often are. Away with your spooks. You failed, be sure to tell the construct in your head that you did so, I'm sure he'll forgive you; he's you after all.

>>1350301
If you take a psychology class and don't study and apply the lessons you learn, then you are missing out on the truth of the meaning.

If you learn spiritual ideas you must apply them otherwise they are only words.

No one wipes your ass for you, you have to do it yourself. No one is responsible for you, you are.

You can blame everyone else for not giving you an answer you aren't even fully willing to go find yet

>>1350307
>But how can you say it is unreasonable and made up without evidence?

There's no fucking evidence. How can you be this dense?

>Is there another planet in out solar system anon? One no eye has yet seen? Yes or no?

Maybe. Evidence such as the actions of certain bodies that enter our visible range in the solar system seem to suggest so.

>>1350312
Are you that fucking loony born-again?

And again, what kind of truth has no power to convince on its own?

>>1350312
>yet
What really bothers me about this whole thing is the implication that everyone must come to the same conclusion as the speaker has, otherwise, they either didn't try to find an answer or were dishonest about it.

>>1350311
Failed what exactly?

The simple things are easy. You don't need to be complicated.

Love your neighbor like you love yourself. God bless you anon.

>>1350308
It's an intrinsic "built in" characteristic. What ever "built" the radioactive material is what caused the radioactive decay. I'm not a physicist, but aren't radioactive elements "built" by some type of nuclear fission inside of extremely dense stars?

>>1350318
>Failed what exactly?

As a proselytizer.

>Love your neighbor like you love yourself.

I'll love whoever I want, however I want. Not on some sort of dehumanizing mandate that turns them into an idea and strips love of its meaning, you twisted fuck.

>>1350314
You consider evidence as things you can only percieve with your 5 senses.

>Maybe

MAYBE.

You can not disprove or prove it because of VISIBLE RANGE.

the visible range is a limitation, and with limited range you cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven.

>>1350315
Here is a truth. You are breathing. Isn't that cool man? You are aluve! A real life living being! Isn't that great? You exist! You are a reality... whuuutttt

>>1350317
No where does it say that

>>1350329
What is a proselytizer? Do you like using big words? Do you like acting smarter than others?

>>1350320
Certai types of nuclei have a balance of protons and neutrons that are essentially stable, while others have a balance that are unstable. The way a particular nuclei is built can differ (for example, radioactive potassium vs radioactive carbon.) However, the moment at which a particular nuclei decays is random and not triggered by anything external. You might say that whichever mechanism originally created the unstable nuclei is responsible for the nuclei being radioactive, but it is not responsible for the actual radioactive event, which is truly random.

>>1350332
>You consider evidence as things you can only percieve with your 5 senses.

That's all I have with which to perceive.

>Here is a truth. You are breathing. Isn't that cool man? You are aluve! A real life living being! Isn't that great? You exist! You are a reality... whuuutttt

Are you fucking retarded?

>>1350345
Your mind is above the 5 senses, and the mind is not the exalted sense either. There is intelligence, false ego, and even senses above.

Either way. That is a real truth. You are alive. A living being, breathing, a soul inside of you. That is beautiful man. That really is.

>>1350149
Lad it might have worked in olden times but this trick is not applicable nowadays!! You can pray with complete devotion and still you won't get anything except a false hope that smhow you will land in heaven because of this.....
Its the mastery in the field of Mathematics and Physics I seek and I don't think I will be able to achieve it by going to the church or to any of those silly places, but I'm sure I will achieve it by going to good college. Hence it's not the God that will give me what I seek but I myself have to do hard work to gain what I seek!! God is there just to take credit of people's success who believe in him.
Your God can't match the hard work of people, and by your I mean each and every religion's God. Each person in this world is better than God. After all every person in this world gives something to this world whereas God is there to make fool of people.
FUCK HIM EVEN IF HE EXISTS.

>>1350356
You can ask and you can recieve.

Hallelujah.

>>1350341
There's likely some physical phenomena that has not been fully identified yet. There's got to be a trigger of some kind?

>>1350315
Ignore the Protestant

>>1350362
Not that guy, but as far as we've been able to determine, the behaviour of subatomic particles is often literally random. It's thrown a bit of a wrench into the notion of hard determinism.

>>1350364
What is a protestant? Why do people still believe there are different forms of Christianity? Why is everyone so quick to label someone?

>>1350362
Nope. It really and truly is completely random. Quantum physics is weird like that.

Aristotle and Aquinas work really well in a universe that operates according to the intuitive understanding we have from everyday life. Hell, they still work pretty well I'm a Newtonian universe. But that's not how it actually works.

>>1350337
Good fucking grief, you don't even know what a proselytizer is. You're not helping and you're not educated enough to properly engage atheists. Don't just jump into arguments that you're not prepared for.

>>1350377
I'm not arguing with anyone. Was asking a question I don't know the answer to. Nothing wrong with admitting you are not sure of something man like the definition to a word.

You don't have to be mean about it, you could have shared the definition of you wanted to but no you made fun of me but that is okay man I hope you have a good night and at least try to ask God in full faith sometime in your life

>>1350360
Have you tried?

>>1350383
> at least try to ask God in full faith sometime in your life
I'm a theist and I pray daily. Do you seriously not know what proselytism or Protestantism are? I'm not being mean, I'm actually a bit concerned...

>>1350383
Dude, he's not me. You're on the internet, just google that shit.

>>1350390
Have you tried?

Your realization is for you.

>>1350391
I don't really care for useless definitions people argue over all day, they are have no purpose.

And "if" you are a theist why have you been so mean throughout the whole discussion?
->>1350311
->>1350270
->>1350282
>Show me one scrap of soul

>>1350393
Why Google it? Everyone is so eager to trust Google and not religious texts like the Upanishads or the Bible.

>>1350404
You're on an anonymous forum, you boob. Did you consider that you're talking to multiple people?

>>1350411
I did after I posted haha

>>1349540
This thread is getting interesting!!!

>>1349540
>implying

>>1350408
Because religious myths are untrustworthy, since they rely on emotional and authority appeals.

File: 6XanYie.jpg (62KB, 498x650px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 498x650px

>>1349776
>>1349780
>>1349853

Guys, In your discussion here, God is being defined the same way infinity is. Infintity isn't the largest number, rather it is simply the idea that you can always have a larger number than the one you're thinking about.

Same with God, you can always have an origin more remote than the one you're considering. You can never blame all of exitence on one even because there's one before that.

This version of God is semantic, but logical.

The other ones depend upon cultural notions of salvation, or the idea of an anthropomorphic God.

Then there's Pantheism.

God is simply a word over which people will never find a satisfactory definition. It is the etymological crux of many important fights.

File: apocalypse.jpg (484KB, 1024x884px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 1024x884px

>>1349885
>I propose we take really big telescopes and try to look really far into space.

This is how we discovered red shift, blue shift, calculated the speed of light, and found out the size of the observable universe.

We can only see about 13billion light years away because light has only had that much time to travel since the B.B.

That's the upper limit. usually we can't see that far.

>>1351336
There untrustworthy to people who would pass them off as "not worth anything"

All forms of archaeological evidence should be analyzed not just every piece of arachlogical evidence besides religious texts because "we don't know what they exactly mean"

>>1351466
It is also too, looking within. We are taught to look for God outside of ourselves which is another thing wrong with the way we are commonly taught.

Sure God is everywhere not but why not right here with you

>>1349692
You do realize everything needs a starting point right?

>>1351614
It's a rhetorical question, something of a turnabout.

>>1350103
You can easily refute this because our senses are limited. We are not omniscient. We see rocks not being able to move and talk cause when we watch them, they don't talk or move. But what if our senses are just not acute enough to listen into their conversations?

>>1351689
We have sophisticated instruments that can accurately measure any kind of physical phenomena we know about.

So really this is a matter of defining an agree upon meaning of "talking", then conducting a test to detect information, and approaching some conclusions based on the findings.

You can suppose cute anthropomorphic philosophical questions all day long, but they don't get you closer to truth. Blaming others for not being "honest" because they don't become infatuated with the same myths as you are, that's not convincing, it's a self-serving contrivance.

>>1351744
Of it were not for questions no one would search for truthful

>>1351689
This.

We only usually percieve with the five senses which is only a limited perception.