>*debunks atheism*

Oh ok, i’m arguing with someone too fucking stupid to understand the basic premise here. Actually read my post, like go back, step by step like a child learning to read, and then respond to it. Because i’ve made it abundantly clear why the font of reality itself logically CANNOT have come to have been, but must by nature of what it is always have been. You’re too dim to understand that time is a condition of matter, of change. Time does not apply to things that preexist matter. There is no coming to be before the material universe.

It doesn’t make any sense to a moron. It made sense to plato.
>we don’t understand how things came to be
You mean the universe? We have a rough idea actually. You’re missing the point because I genuinely don’t think you’re capable of using a priori logic to abstract things. I will genuinely talk to you like an infant so there can be no confusion at all. Look at a man. Why does a man exist? Because he has parents. Why does the material making up a man exist? Because it was derived from other things, like food processed by the mother. Where did that food come from? Animals, who produce eachother in the same manner we do. What about the ground they stand on? It also came to be from prior material states of things. And so we can apply this criteria to literally every single material thing. It is not self causing- it relies on prior conditions. It is not eternal, in fact it is fundamentally bound up in time by the fact it changes, its change is what time is conditioned on. The series of these things is the universe, and so we can apply these conditions to it too. Where are these things deriving their attribute of “realness” from? Since they are all contingent, what is the thing they are ultimately deriving their being from? It can’t be nothing, for one, because nothing cannot have attributes, it’s nothing. Nothing can’t spontaneously gain the ability to create, and more so, if all things are contingent on nothing, both causally (from the start of time) and actively (constantly deriving their existence from), they would be nothing, or collapse into nothing. The “somethingness instead of nothingness” matter is contingent on cannot have the same properties matter does, or else it would be nothing, and nothing would exist. It’s non material, non contingent and non temporal. The source of reality itself, the active force of “the real” all these things depend on, has to have always existed. There is absolutely no sense otherwise

>can you prove any of this
Sure I can. Will a rock into being right now. You infact have far more faculties than literal nothingness does, so if it can do it, should be a cakewalk for you. Will all the laws of physics to be on a whim. Literal nothingness did this, so for a man it should be a cakewalk.
>source
Logic? Common sense? You really believe at the most fundamental level reality itself came to be? From what? Existence itself came to exist? So existence is predicated on non existence. Why the fuck do we exist then?

>It's almost as clever as me asking a Christian to handle a venomous snake because the bible says Christians won't be harmed by them.
Give me that cobra bro I literally give no fucks. I will move on to my master's house.

>You mean the universe? We have a rough idea actually. You’re missing the point because I genuinely don’t think you’re capable of using a priori logic to abstract things. I will genuinely talk to you like an infant so there can be no confusion at all. Look at a man. Why does a man exist? Because he has parents. Why does the material making up a man exist? Because it was derived from other things, like food processed by the mother. Where did that food come from? Animals, who produce eachother in the same manner we do. What about the ground they stand on? It also came to be from prior material states of things. And so we can apply this criteria to literally every single material thing. It is not self causing- it relies on prior conditions. It is not eternal, in fact it is fundamentally bound up in time by the fact it changes, its change is what time is conditioned on. The series of these things is the universe, and so we can apply these conditions to it to
Using "common sense" to form an argument, lol. No anon, there are plenty of scientific facts that are not bound by simplistic causation. What can be applied to one causal chain does not necessarily mean it applies to a completely differently scaled concept like the fucking universe.
>MAN MAKE BABY. GOD MAKE UNIVERSE.
Also please, for the love of verbosity answer the fucking question. How come God exists?
Nothing can’t spontaneously gain the ability to create, and more so, if all things are contingent on nothing
If what you say is true, where the fuck does God fit in that equation. Just answer this one question and stop blabbering like a cretin

Still not answering a simple question anon. How did God come to be?

you know, another option is that everything is eternal, there's simply something instead of nothing. But if there was nothing you would still complain

This is sophistry. It's an argument that is logically sound but has no basis in material reality. And that's what every theist argument boils down to - the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, all of them. It's these pretty-sounding but functionally meaningless logical constructions which have no bearing on the real world. The reality is that there are certain elements of how the universe came to be that we just don't know, and lazily stamping "God did it" onto it is just a lazy cop-out for people who want an easy answer.

Go and make a super model wife for yourself right now. If nothing did it surely a conscious physical being, literally infinitely ontologically superior to nothing, can make this happen

No spacetime yet? What was there? Something, or nothing? How are you too retarded to get this? If it was nothing, there’s no reason something like yourself wouldn’t be able to alter laws like that at will, since you are ontologically superior to nothing.

holy shit nagger that’s a given. this whole time you’ve been defining “nothing” as 3 dimensional space with various properties? no wonder you retards think nothing is the substrate of everything, you don’t know what nothing is

Because you’re talking about NOTHING. Retard. NOTHING. If nothing changes depending on relations to laws, it isn’t nothing. Nothing has no qualities. It’s nothing

What makes god's worth anything?
I am a man, all I can do is try to make the world a better place in my own subjective way, and I'm not going to let some random homosexual threaten me into obeying him. The biblical god does all kinds of stupid petty arbitrary shit, he'll send you to hell for wearing pelts from two different animals, and he sees murdering a dozen kids as forgiveable but not insulting him once.
>On whose standard, redditfrog tourist? Yours? Why don’t we consult ramses II or ungo the caveman on their standards? They mean as much as yours.
Well they're dead, thats why. If I was running some company in africa i'd expect them to do shit like cut off the hands of thieves or have dudes with aids bang their 13 year old daughters because thats their culture, its how they've been raised and indoctrinated to be. I don't agree with it or like it but if that was all they knew i wouldn't torture them for literally eternity for not knowing any better.

Your god shows himself to be spiteful and inconsiderate and I, apparently his creation, see this as wrong. Why would he create people in the far reaches of the world who for generations never heard anything of christianity and christian morality and were doomed to burn in hell because of it? Stillborn babies, not baptized go to hell, they are literally created for the sole purpose of being tortured for eternity. I can not and will not respect and WORSHIP a being that does that. It is simply wrong, by any definition.

>world a better place
Whoops! Better in relation to what? When we talk about progress, we must assume a destination, betterment means nothing without best to strive to. So what is best? What you personally think? But that standard, as you have said, will alter, once you die apparently. So really doing better becomes a nonsense statement. What’s so hard for you to get here? Either there’s an immutable standard, or there’s a human one, which is really no standard at all

>near universal
Near doing a herculean amount of heavy lifting for you here pal. Because the fact that it’s “near” (it really isn’t but okay) means it isn’t objective or immutable, or at least fails to conform to an objective or immutable standard. Think for a second. Like when you said “better”. I’m not perfect. What does this mean? Think about what you mean when you say that. If you aren’t perfect, you have some distinct idea about what perfection might be, and you don’t live up to it. If you don’t have a distinct idea about that, you’ve just spoken nonsense. You are actually perfect if you don’t believe in such a scale, because you simply are uniquely what you are without comparison to anything. You assume objective good and evil when you fucking talk, and then try to convince me there is no such thing

I mean for one thing anyone who reproduces does this, since existence is non consensual and also filled with suffering, and we mostly seem okay with that. And secondly, i’d say existence necessitates the possibility of suffering, and the afterlife necessitates the possibility of suffering indefinitely. To distinguish yourself from things around you, to exist as a being, you need limitation. You fundamentally need that amount of suffering to be aware, to make value judgments of more preferable or less preferable states of things based on their concomitant suffering, to make choices and be free we need to be able to abstract that. And just as our choices here can bring us suffering, our choice to exist in the cramped space of our ego, to reject God and totality and love for our own tiny self, makes us suffer here and I see no reason why continuing to exist in that spiritual state after life would suddenly preclude you from suffering it. You are free to reject God and gain everything that comes from that rejection. Live evilly and expect to continue evilly

It’s not being a sperg, it’s someone being an insecure showboat talking about how well studied they are (an appeal to authority) and then someone knocking that authority down by pointing to an embarrassing mistake nobody learned would make. Keep coping, lil midwit

Just give it up bro. You already look like a massive retard. Go home before you make a even bigger embarrassment of yourself

>evidence
Such as?

>trite non sequitur
Yeah... this is why I can't take you tards seriously

How about this, post your age and disprove you are a not a non-human.

It has no need to be proven. The lord loves us. No question.

Oh ok cool. You mean the standard of marcus aurelius surely, since he said this after all. The man who had no ethical issue whatsoever with slavery and genocide and homosexual pedophilia. So a God that loves all that would be just then, if you agree with marcus here? Or are you confessing that human standards of morality are mutable and corrupt, and alter depending on time and place? Because I don’t think a gods morals should. A gods morals should be absolute, we conform to their truth, and not them to our ever changing one. To even talk about truth, or morality, or something being more or less true or moral, we assume some immutable perfect standard of the thing. If this lies with humans, it doesn’t exist, because its aperture is oscillating back and forth constantly. So either marcus is the god, and you bow down before his morals, or you are the god, and have the perfect moral system. Or perhaps a better man 200 years from now is the god, and us prior gods were all wrong?

This is sophistry. It's an argument that is logically sound but has no basis in material reality. And that's what every theist argument boils down to - the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, all of them. It's these pretty-sounding but functionally meaningless logical constructions which have no bearing on the real world. The reality is that there are certain elements of how the universe came to be that we just don't know, and lazily stamping "God did it" onto it is just a lazy cop-out for people who want an easy answer.

It’s the literal opposite. You assume causality in your day to day life. It couldn’t be further from abstraction to a human being. You pull a door handle and expect the door to move, don’t you? You don’t think babies apparate out of thin air I assume? Then why do you think nothing conditions everything?

>the universe suddenly stops having the essential component that defines every single thing in it (of which it is identical to, and not a category above) because I just say it does, okay

I see, so your argument is that God exists because he just does, okay. Interesting argument, I've never heard it before.
>will things into existence bro
What a strange non-sequitur. I suppose you thought that was terribly clever. It's almost as clever as me asking a Christian to handle a venomous snake because the bible says Christians won't be harmed by them.
>Logic? Common sense? You really believe at the most fundamental level reality itself came to be? From what? Existence itself came to exist? So existence is predicated on non existence.
You wrote all these words and yet there's no content behind them. No meaning. You're saying that everything you believe is true because it's just common sense, but when asked for proof you just appeal to common sense. This should tell you that you have nothing, no arguments, no proof, no nothing. At least make an effort.
>Why the fuck do we exist then?
You exist because your parents FUCKED. This is a fact you can take to the bank.

It was clever enough that you didn’t give an argument in response but just some stupid crap about a snake. I think you missed the point. You are ontologically infinitely more existent than nothing. If nothing can make the universe, why can’t you make ten?
>no meaning
A clear one actually. You don’t believe nothing is a causal factor in day to day existence, and you’d never assume it in any serious matter ever. It only becomes relevant when we reach the limit of what you’re willing to think about

And it’s also not my argument, lol. Causality is one component of it, but you’re attributing some cosmological shit to me when what i’m saying is more fundamental than that. I’m saying the material state of things cannot compose absolute reality, change and mutability being the foundation of all that exists would cause it to collapse into nothing. It’s like building a house in quick sand. Change proceeds from changelessness, time from no time, matter from no matter. We actually agree on those points. You just don’t like it being phrased with things like “immaterial” which frighten yoi

Lmfao and there’s the “I pretend to take hypotheticals literally like a cartoon retard” cope.
Again. Consider nothing. Not a quantum field, not space, nothing. It can apparently, according to you, make everything despite having no attributes or properties whatsoever. If this was the case, clearly a being with infinitely more (literally) attributes could manage this? The idea is that the notion of nothing creating is absurd, and if it’s the case, what i’m saying hypothetically should not be absurd. Are you legit 80IQ? It’s like the “but I didn’t ride the subway today” nagger

>You mean the standard of marcus aurelius surely, since he said this after all
Nope, The standard of me because I'm saying it now.
>Or are you confessing that human standards of morality are mutable and corrupt, and alter depending on time and place?
Yep, therefore an unmovable being that takes no consideration of this either flawed in his treatment or flawed in his creation of his subjects. Imagine if some random fucking politician from the modern day travelled back in time and started throwing eskimos in jail for not following proper building codes for their igloos, it'd be fucking stupid.

I DON'T GIVE A SHIT about Marcus Aurelius, you don't seem to get that. He's just a guy that said something I agree with at one point. Can you just not comprehend the idea of not worshipping anyone?

no they don't. they don't live today.

i didnt post the frog

You got BTFO bro.

There's a problem here old bean
>time doesn't exist
>therefore no actions can occur, because to go from a state of an action not occurring to a state of an action occurring requires the passage of time
>therefore without time nothing can happen
>therefore a "timeless being" cannot act
Now I understand that you will ignore this by saying that the rules don't apply to God, but that's just another case of you special pleading.
I'm sorry but that's all you've got. You accept a whole bunch of rules existing but then when it comes to God you ignore them. You're playing Calvinball basically

I see, so actions can occur without time because... they just can, okay?

>Actions occur in time and space
Yes. We are in agreement.

>no logic
Says the “stop thinking about it” guy. They do agree the big bang is as the beginning of space and time, go ask them if you don’t agree with me on that. Which of course implies, no space and no time.

astronomers you mean unless einstein was a genius because he was a capricorn. and it’s not semantic. time is literally a condition of matter, of things changing state. time without matter is nonsensical
>multiverse
nvm i’m talking to a moron

>massless objects like light are timeless,
But then the photon can never move from one place to the next

No. In order for light to move from spot A to spot B, there has to be a change, and change occurs within TIME.
I refuse anything else. I reject it.

But there's still the relative distance between the individual photons

I’ll watch it thanks

meant for other guy

Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Israel, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, NZ, Australia, etc. Happiest countries. Check their religion stats, see a pattern?

What? Half the ones you listed aren’t ranked that highly for happiness at all, or have massive suicide rates