Annoying Christfag "arguments"

They can't explain shit, so that's the only option they have

Explain how God can create the universe if He is not transcendent?
What problem do you have with what Christian philosophers and theologians do with transcendence?

>>3127215
I think my problem is when people try to create rules around transcendental entities when we don't have any real observable examples. So no one's stance is any more valid than another's. It's basically pointless.

File: c4115df6529df054466baf60e4b3e5b762ef3253a070a650094177813353d622.jpg (8KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x168px

>>3127178
>a creator god exist therefore Christianity is real

>>3127178
Well if it's transcendental what else is there to explain?

>>3127234
>Well if it's transcendental what else is there to explain?
How it interacts with our universe?

>>3127242
It wills things to happen, and they happen. If you think like a religious person, the answers to these questions are pretty simple

>>3127247
This is just like one-upping that children do.
>I shot you
>No, I have a force field
>My bullets penetrate force fields
>My force field is really thick

>>3127256
What's so hard to grasp about the creator of the universe doing whatever he wants?

>>3127256
But if you believe in a God who's all powerful it's a pretty easy answer. It's not really trying to one-up, it just continues the idea that God is an all-powerful being.

you've read the relevant sections of aquinas right?
Or do you trust shitposters on /his/ to give an accurate picture of Christian philosophy and theology?

>>3127268
>>3127266
Than why even bother with saying god is transcendental if he can do anything? Why try and explain it if it doesn't need an explanation?

>>3127275
Just say he can do whatever he wants

>God exists therefore it must be the god of my religion
Alternatively
>Jesus existed so my religion must be true, all those other prophets and saints for other religions that existed don't count.

File: bug-eyed stirner.png (30KB, 837x408px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 837x408px

>>3127273
no but I've read the relevant sections of The Ego and Its Own

>>3127256
How new are you
>I shot you
>No, I have a force field
>My bullets penetrate force fields
>I was a hologram

>>3127275
Because atheists always demand some kind of answer

>>3127291
So we know that saying god is transcendental is really just saying that he can do whatever he wants, he's god. And that's not really an answer, is it?

>"It's a mystery of the faith"

File: I2KmUhq.gif (2MB, 383x576px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 383x576px

>there's no proof so we might as well just say it happened magically
>fuck believing in anything I hate life

>>3127178
nigga got a J in his hand

File: who created god.png (395KB, 709x311px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 709x311px

> literally everything must have a cause
> expect God because he is special XD

>>3127843
God is the uncaused cause, that's what makes Him special.
I'd be an atheist if the universe didn't exist but since the universe does exist, clearly it's possible.

>>3127847
If there can be uncaused cause that means that not everything must be caused, so logic doesn't hold up.

>The universes must have a uncaused cause
>THEREFORE GOD IS ACTUALLY THREE PEOPLE AND THE UNCAUSED CAUSE IS A JEWISH PREACHER OKAY? AND WE NEED TO EAT GOD DUE TO REASONS.

>>3127867
faggot

>>3127847
It is more logical to believe that God is caused by some sort of Super God and so on.
> but muh infinite causation can't exist
As if it is any less realistic than other options like God being the arbitrary special case of causation.

>>3127874
*tips cross*

>>3127874

Hail satan

>>3127862
God has no beginning therefore cannot have been caused, The Universe has a beginning due to the big bang, therefore the universe must have a cause.
If the Universe had always existed then it wouldn't need a cause
>>3127878
God must be eternal, how can something eternal be created?
But in my opinion having an infinite chain of creator God's creating one another is not really a problem since by the ontological argument they would essentially be identical but the above refutation is stronger.
That would also go against the Christian conception of God though so it's wrong.
I'm not a theologian though so please don't assume that I speak for the Church.

>>3127901
> God has no beginning
To exist you need to begin to exist, if there is no beginning, there is no existence.
> therefore, cannot have been caused
Causes aren't necessarily temporal, they can be logical for example.

File: ole71.gif (2KB, 290x134px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 290x134px

>>3127901
> The Universe has a beginning due to the big bang
Not necessarily, time can be open set without any first moment of beginning so to speak.

>>3127901
> How can something eternal be created?
How can something be eternal, anyway? At this point, it is one mystic quality against another. It isn't like existing without a reason is somewhat more plausible than being created by say, even more, transcendental being.

I dunno, for me it seems too arbitrary to stop the questions of causations on any chosen point, as you can always come with an excuse.

> God can't be created because... he is eternal by definition
Seems somewhat logical.

> Universe can't be created because... nothing exists beyond it by definition.
Also seems pretty logical, to be honest.

>>3127178

Every argument for an uncaused cause can be applied to a pantheistic God

>>3127986
What is your point?

>>3127901
>The Universe has a beginning due to the big bang
you don't know that

>>3127986
Why do you think that?
Many christian apologists, theologians and philosophers believe that the cosmological argument along with the properties of what constitutes a God is, refutes the religions of pagans and pantheists since it is incompatible with the fact that the universe had a beginning and a God by definition is timeless therefore has no beginning.
Unless you argue that there is some pure God transcending the 'God' of the universe who created the 'God' of the universe, it just doesn't work and even then I think that that belief is just as faulty as the last one since the pantheistic God could not possibly be described as God since it wouldn't be timeless and was created.

>>3127375
this is the biggest cop-out and actually made me leave the Catholic church.

>>3128160
What specifically did you want to know that they explained away by saying it's a mystery?
Cause there's a lot of things in Christianity that is actually a mystery, for example why God is a trinity of the father, son and holy spirit as opposed to just the father for example.
But that's exactly what happened to me as well although I've recently been able to view Christianity as being more rational than I did before.

File: 1432675698166.png (110KB, 381x448px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 381x448px

It's funny because Aquinas never actually proves the Christian God existed, and he argued that miracles were impossible. Despite this, he is still used by Christians to prove their God is the one God. Deism and Pantheism make more sense, but as Shoppy and Fedoraich NEETshe showed us, Jesus was a rabbi who learnt eastern mysticism and Buddhist nihilism after the "flight to Egypt" and then tried to synthesise them with Judaism. He was not born in Bethlehem and the Pharisees reject him because there was no evidence he was fulfilling the prophecy. Paul then took Jesus' eastern-nihilism and constructed a pagan-larp religion over it, and ironically, as Luther would later realise, the Catholic priests, with their obsession with tradition, became the very Pharisees that Jesus was rebelling against.

Worst arguments are
>mystery of faith, just accept it
>tradition
>I exist therefore god exists
>things happen therefore god exists
>etc.

>>3128121
> God by definition is timeless
Can you provide so called definition? Seems pretty weak polemics to say that you defined your God to be timeless so other Gods can't be real.

>>3128121
> pantheistic God could not possibly be described as God
It isn't a real God! Real God was never been tried!

File: index.jpg (6KB, 327x154px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 327x154px

This one takes the cake.
Especially, because God himself can break any of rules if he really wants to.

>>3128184
Sorry I should have specified that I meant he is timeless by definition since that is a property that comes with his ability to be the uncaused cause or unmoved mover.

>>3128220
What exactly stops The Universe itself from being uncaused cause by virtue of zero causes existing beyond it? Everything is a part of The Universe by definition, after all. If God is the uncaused cause, then God is The Universe, therefore pantheism is confirmed.

>>3128121

The Universe is the sum total of everything, all conceptions, all reality, and all notions of causality, there is nothing 'beyond' or transcendent of the Universe - as the term is self-redefining. As soon as an object is theorised to exist 'beyond' the Universe: By necessity the definition of Universe must increase to include the (object + original Universe) = Universe ad infinitum. If the Universe therefore contains all, by necessity it contains all causes, and therefore it is the uncaused cause - as there are no causes 'left' to cause it, all other causes are naturally subsumed by the definition of the Universe. Universe = God

Also, it is not an absolute 'fact' that the Universe had a beginning, we can theorise that the conditions we live in came from a singularity, but it stops there, believing that the singularity itself was caused by an external force is not obligatory to accept as an indisputable fact.