> destroy 2k years of Atheist Philosophy in one frame
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
> destroy 2k years of Atheist Philosophy in one frame
> destroy 2k years of Atheist Philosophy in one frame
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
cool it with the antisemitic comments
why did he do it bros?
>9 am on a weekday
>time to repost a thread that has hit bump limit 30+ times
ecc 1:9
it's still too early for the barry lyndon/sarah gadon/grandma starts raping like eminem thread
>basedtoons
No one looks like this
>
>2k
Try about 200. Atheists rightfully werent taken seriously by anyone until cities got big enough to sever people from their natural instincts
i’m not a fedora but they did exist. lucretius is an example of an early atheist writer. though their thought has literally not evolved at all since him, they tend to repeat the same shit in different ways over and over
There's only so many ways you can tell a moron their imaginary friend isn't real
or you’re just ignorant of the history of philosophy and your ideas aren’t as novel or groundbreaking as you think they are
No one thinks telling you that your imaginary friend isn't real is novel or groundbreaking. People have been telling the religious their imaginary friends aren't real for all of human history. At various points we even had the religious acknowledge that, no, Wolf didn't literally vomit the moon into the sky because Coyote tricked Snake into feeding Cow poisoned grass, its just a story about how the consequences of seemingly small actions can and will be far greater than you can initial comprehend.
and people have been pointing out that materialism is incoherent for all of history, and typically these people are the ones we remember. there’s a reason you know about plato and aristotle and not lucretius. because your ideas don’t rely on any sort of privileged knowledge or reasoning, they can be shat out by anyone, and they have been repudiated by greater minds in their own time. the idea that your own little system is as arbitrary historically as anyone else’s should probably threaten that view, but you’d rather throw out facile redditisms than confront that
>people have been pointing out that materialism is incoherent for all of history
No, that's a very recent evolution of the religious mind virus. But the religious always misrepresent interpretations of reality to better suit their skydaddy. Like talking about how because some scientists were religious, that means religion is scientific. Please consider this a response to your other post,
. Also please put more thought into the structure and formatting of your posts, you're so excited/ESL that they're really hard to read.
>very recent evolution
How the frick is plato recent? Why even bother posting if you’re going to gamble at saying moronic misinformed shit that can easily be repudiated?
>formatting
Frick off back to plebbit. My posts are perfectly articulate, it’s not my fault you don’t have a basic lexicon of philosophical terms and get filtered easily
>plato attempted to refute the big bang theory
damn, plato time travels. what a balla
It’s funny because your lack of education does actually come through again here- he did argue that the universe was eternal. So yes, tacitly, he argued against a finite instant where the universe began. Funnily enough thomas aquinas was one of the first philosophers to argue that the universe must have come to be a certain finite amount of time ago. The big bang doesn’t support materialism at all. if the opposite were true atheists would have a much stronger argument
>plato was proven wrong
yeah no shit. he also believed every animal that exists had always existed.
Just like you got proven wrong and instantly pivoted. In a way i’m grateful, everyone can see how badly you’re getting shat on here
You’re just throwing that out defensively, what part of my posts have been clunky or incoherent? No need to samegay and cheerlead yourself, it comes across as insecure as frick
your post
, is barely even in english, rajesh.
>doesn’t understand terms like “series” or “contingent”
>calls anyone else ESL
Frick, I don’t know what is worse, the idea that you have trouble understanding a straightforward framing of the terms and conditions of this argument and are therefore samegayging or else there are multiple idiots here having trouble following that post.
Idk, we’ve found a lot of funny ways of telling you that you aren’t a woman.
>secular philosophy is more consistent than theology that constantly tries to reconcile mythology with a world of constant progress
They’re both as consistent as the other, and the same argument is basically repeated over and over. But it’s a bit scary for people like you who believe in some moronic telos of “progress” to realise that
Christian theology changes constantly lmao. The trinity didn't exist for hundreds of years until an ecumenical council needed an asspull to reconcile contradictory Bible verses
we were talking about dualist and non dualist philosophy, materialism versus materialism. but that’s too high level for you, so you default to muh christians because that’s what you have a tedious chip on your shoulder about. in any case, our understanding of the structure of the universe changes all the time too, it develops the more people think about it. so either you have an issue with the development of theories of reality or you don’t
We haven't gotten anywhere near dualism yet, unless you think "quantum fields" are metaphysical. in which case lmao.
Dualism = there is material and immaterial reality. Your moronic failure to be coherent about material reality has nothing to do with immateriality, which I only ever claimed conditioned material reality. Nobody has argued that non physical forces are influencing physics. I think you’re genuinely too stupid to formulate actual responses to what you read, you’re just throwing out nonsense that has nothing to do with what is being argued
Thank you rajesh for defining dualism when no one asked, in response to a post that clearly grasps dualism, by laughing at the potential assertion that "quantum fields" are metaphysical.
Nobody said quantum fields were metaphysical, go and quote that. You realise people can see you flailing and inventing moronic claims to avoid honest responses? Is this some kind of therapy for you?
>the potential assertion
There's that ESL reading comprehension again.
You made the potential assertion that you love to suck wiener. I don’t need to prove you did this, because it’s a potential assertion, it’s theoretical.
You are duummmbbb
... how would you feel if you did (not) have breakfast this morning? As you're literally angry right now that someone mentioned a hypothetical situation and laughed at it.
A hypothetical situation is one way to say “completely inventing a claim that nobody else made and then attacking them for it”. And now you’re trying to graft some utterly inapplicable psychological concept about being able to abstract alternate choices to justify it. Again, you hypothetically said you love to suck Black person dick. You potentially, theoretically said it in this thread.
IQ is very applicable if we're talking about religion, rajesh.
the argument about smart people being atheists is nonsense. the argument about smart people being christians is also nonsense. if there's any correlation, it's that stupid people are more likely to just go along with what they're taught, where smart people are more likely to critically analyze and explore other options. but their intelligence doesn't tell you anything about their ultimate conclusion.
because you're always going to come back to the same answer. there might be a god and there might not. there is no way to validate it, either way. you have no choice but to take it on faith because every line of reasoning inevitably doubles back on itself. if it serves any purpose at all, all the theology and philosophy is there mainly to help you believe that you are smart and have shit figured out. that's it.
God's personally done things for me and has turned my life around. That's my proof. But being agnostic sounds tiring and unsatisfying as hell. But you do you bro.
that's faith. and I'm happy for you. but it would be stupid to act like those things god has done for you can be proven to be acts of god and not random things going your way that your observational bias caused you to see god in. at the end of the day we're always taking it on faith. which is why trying to argue people in to a spiritual position is so fricking dumb. they have to find it for themselves.
If God loves me why is it stupid to believe that he did those things for me? The physics of the universe are perfectly set to just the right degree that if it were thrown off, none of this would work or have happened. Look at how complex you are as a human, someone designed that. That's just logical.
I get that and neither God nor I are gonna twist someone's arm into believing, but I'm still gonna jump in that debate because I know it'll do people good. Rather people hear it from me first before they find God at rock bottom, I've seen too many people have to learn the hard way.
someone also designed those fish that swim up your urethra and expand a bunch of spikes.
>If God loves me why is it stupid to believe that he did those things for me?
It's not just stupid. It's a monument to self-importance.
>Look at how complex you are as a human, someone designed that.
There are actually numerous design flaws in the human form, from the laughable head on a stick design paradigm that leads to death by spinal injury to chemical acid digesting our food that also bores holes in our intestinal tract as well as things like cancer. If the entire system falls apart if one integer is off by even a little, why are so many people born with degenerative death sentence genetic defects that are the result of exactly that?
ESL reading comprehension
your tactic of claiming everyone making you look stupid had to learn english to rape you with it isn’t working
You're ESL though. Lithuanian. Hi from KC. Wondered where you ended up.
I’m english and live in yorkshire. I’ve never posted on krautchan. You’re mixing up people who have intellectually sodomised you.
You're an ESL who left KC/int because people saw your countryball and stopped replying to you.
I’m english. I’ve never browsed krautchan or int. Take your fricking meds.
We all protect our worldview. The onus is on us to rebut an argument, not speculate on why it’s made
>It's not just stupid. It's a monument to self-importance.
You're admitting here that your argument with God isn't logical, it's emotional. The reality is that I, you, and everybody who exists are incredibly important beloved creations of God. If you deny that it's because you want to have a shitty view of the world.
>You're admitting here that your argument with God isn't logical, it's emotional
Your argument is also emotional, so I don't see how that changes anything. Of course my beliefs are based on my own subjective experience. So are yours. Humans are not objective creatures.
>f you deny that it's because you want to have a shitty view of the world.
Correct. I don't base the way I view the world on how I want it to be.
didn't say it was stupid to believe it. said it would be stupid to try to *prove* it. that's not the same thing at all.
having faith doesn't make a person stupid. or smart. faith is faith. what's stupid is trying to use lines of logical argument to trick people in to having faith. that ain't how it works. if someone believes in god, or believes there is no god, you can't change their mind by talking about occam's razor, or the big bang, or anything like that. it's stupid to try.
I'm going to expand on my thoughts here a little. mostly because you seem like a cool person that is actually willing to have a conversation. I don't think these lines of investigation undermine faith, I think they strengthen it. faith is more meaningful, at least to me, if you recognize it for what it is - belief in something better than what we observe, even in the absence of all evidence.
to your point about trying to get people the good word before they hit rock bottom, I hear you, but it's important to recognize the limits of your agency too. what you can and can't do, and the things you can do that have real impact. because other people are on their own journeys. some of them will have to hit rock bottom before their hearts are open. some will be more willing to listen. all you or I can do is live the best example we can, let the light shine out, and be prepared for when people do ask. in the meantime you put as much of god's love back out in to the world as you can manage, and try to focus it on the people who need it the most not just the ones you think deserve it.
As far as the celestial clockmaker argument - frankly I think it's crap, and I never use it. It basically comes down to arguing for ignorance as truth. you don't understand something so it can't exist? cmon. but it's also, to my previous point, kind of meaningless. a god who placed every bone and organ in you like an engineer, versus one who set the initial conditions of the universe so that we'd evolve 10 billion years later amount to the exact same thing. I see every post on here that says
>that's just logical
as being the same thing: a symptom of humans' instinctual need to be right. but just like our instinctual needs for hunger, or warmth, or sex, that instinct shouldn't just be fed constantly and unquestioningly. it serves a role to our animal survival, but it isn't what we really are. If god gave us these inquisitive minds, then he did so with the intent they be used.
Just want to let you know as a third party observer you're getting complete btfo this thread. Before you accuse me of samegayging because the poster count didnt go up, this was my only post in here
>more than a minute apart
rajesh...
I knew this would be your only response but you really did get demolished here
you’re dumb as shit, sorry. it doesn’t have to be like this, you could start reading and getting a better handle on rhetoric, but your arrogance is holding you back from that
I'm a fellow third party observer and I think he's winning handedly against ESL
>we were talking about dualist and non dualist philosophy, materialism versus materialism
Cope. Glance at the thread and the bulk of the posts are about Christianity. The OP is a thinly veiled tradcuck bait post anyway. Pretentious pseud
>they tend to repeat the same shit in different ways over and over
which also describes the religious people. in either case you're just starting from what you feel to be true (there are 0 / 1 / 2+ god(s)) and then constructing elaborate circular justifications to make yourself feel as if you arrived at that conclusion by logic.
I'm a nihilist. A pig once pulled me over. I told him - shoot coward, you would only be killing a man. I could tell my lack of fear rattled him. He gave me a ticket for speeding and let me go. I never paid it.
And you still shitpost here with all us little people. Mighty White of ya, man.
Photoshooping a smile where there was otherwise no smile
Why does this make me laugh so fricking much?
epic joker quote "lets put a smile on that face xD"
>we're not just upright apes on a rock that will rot in the ground for all eternity because like..... you want to live out the rest of your years before you experience the void
this is the logical reaction of somebody who is a staunch hardline materialist. There's nothing after death. Religion is like a cult of death where people celebrate dying. Millions of americans want gazans genocided to fulfill biblical prophecy so they can get raptured to heaven while everybody they don't like rots in hell fro all eternity.
Being glad to die would be the religious option seeing how glad they would be to get martyred and spend an eternity in heaven
>LIFE GOES ON FOREVER AND LIKE WHEN I DIE I GET TO HAVE FUN WITH MY DOG AND GRANDMA FOR ALL ETERNITY YAY
It's just a fairytale the rock santa jesus yhwh isn't real i repeat he cannot hurt you.
When you die you're worm food there is no eternal sunny cult place in the clouds with yhwh jesus. time to rip that bandaid off soon death cultusts.
>Millions of americans want gazans genocided
jews aren't americans they are israelis
Americans overwhelmingly support israel, just click a ben shapirosteinberg video.
american support of israel is based upon it being part of christian mythology's endtimes prophecy.
evangelicals aren't nearly as strong a force in politicals as they were 20 years ago, this shit is left-wing gay cope
go dilate and rant about the christofascists somewhere else
>he’s back
Hi rabbi. This schtick has only ever ended badly for you.
See you in hell, Black person
its hilarious that people are posting jack chick unironically.
there were always people who did. chick ran a steady business for decades selling pamphlets.
>chick ran a steady business for decades selling pamphlets.
the people who bought chick tracts didn't read them, they just distributed them, for free. its pretty much a scam, a way to sell bibles to people who already have bibles, to be given away.
And similarly most Christians don't actually read the bible, or only read certain passages. If they actually read it they'd realize how fricking batty it is.
>men
>disobedient of their parents
>bad thing
huh?
doesn't trump fit like all of these categories? is that why christians love him so much, because he validates their sheep god?
>hardline materialist
>logical
lmfao
you're just moving the "something" in "something can't come from nothing" from "the universe" to "god."
hello brainlet
>universe is the same we give to the series of all contingent things, ie, things which are not self explanatory, parasitic on prior conditions of things, subject to conditions of time and space
>for some reason brainlet thinks giving this series of things a name like “the universe” confers it attributes beyond its component parts
the idea idea is that the necessary reality, the one which doesn’t need to come to be, and isn’t conditioned on anything, can’t be material, because material things are all subject to those conditions. either you’re too dumb to comprehend this or wilfully ignorant and intellectually lazy. look up the principle of sufficient reason
>b-but that’s just moving causality back
no it isn’t. it’s saying a self creating materiality is incoherent, and positing that being itself is immaterial. there’s no need for further regress after that
>nothing needed to create god because god isn't material
yes that’s the whole point of even positing this in the first place. “coming to be” itself is a quality of material things because their changes of state necessitate time. hence, the “something instead of nothing” all reality is contingent upon can’t be time bound, it has to be eternal, so it can’t be material. you don’t even have to call this god, but materialism itself is patently moronic
>god doesn't need to be god because god isn't material therefore nothing needed to create whatever we call it
>i’m too dumb to understand that being made necessitates a condition of time existing
You understand "the big bang" theory isn't literally "something came from nothing," right? Its based upon observations of how all the galaxies are moving away from each other and us. Which stands to reason it was all close together, possibly even at one point.
Basically you've been fed a false/misunderstood version of the theory so the pure gibberish you're spewing would make more sense.
You realise a literal priest theorised the big bang with this in mind because atheists in the soviet union were shilling steady state theory? Don’t try to “acktually” me when you’re blatantly less informed. The big bang is a massive boon to my own views, it demonstrates that materiality had a finite beginning, that time began. Ie, there “was” (is) a state of timelessness conditioning it.
Nobody is arguing against the big bang moron
"something can't come from nothing" is supposed to be a refutation of the big bang.
No… no it isn’t. Holy shit you redditors are dumber than I thought. It’s a refutation to the idea that there is only matter. As i’ve just said and you’ve ignored, the whole reason lematiare was excited about the big bang is because it proved that time was finite- the universe began. From here you can easily argue that the system is parasitic on a state of timelessness which is not material. Again, atheists at the time were trying to argue that the universe had existed forever, the steady state theory, because this precludes any need for an instigating force. When people say something can’t come from nothing, they’re arguing against morons who think matter generated itself.
>matter can't be created nor destroyed
>but something needed to create it therefore skydaddy
Energy can however be distributed to the point where it is completely inert, by the laws of thermodynamics. So if the universe was eternal, ie, if matter wasn’t conditioned on other reality, this would have already happened. You either have to argue that energy generated itself from literal nothingness or that energy existed… forever, in a condensed state, until it randomly decided to expand. Which begs the question of why this happened at one time rather than another, or why the heat death hasn’t already occurred.
>energy exists completely independent of matter
Energy is matter, moron. They’re different states of the same thing. You’re now at the point where you ignore 80% of the post to cling to some arbitrary gotcha and even then you still manage to be incorrect.
>They’re different states
that would mean matter can exist without energy and vice versa.
what on earth are they teaching you kids in school these days
I'm asking you if matter can exist without energy or vice versa, if matter can be completely and totally inert, no gravitational pull, nothing. If energy can exist as something other than the properties of a particle, etc. etc.
You're actively avoiding answering this question, which is why this conversation is basically over, and you're doing nothing but jumping up and down screaming now.
What is confusing you here? Matter and energy are the same thing. Matter is a form of energy. How do you not understand that?
>can matter be completely and totally inert no gravitational pull, nothing.
How is this relevant to anything? Everything in the universe is just energy having a relative relationship to other energy. When you describe something, you’re just making an analogy about its relationship with another thing. A gravitational pull is just energy relating to energy in different forms. Are you implying that energy is totally inert and unaffected by physics and so matter must also be this if it is energy?
>How is this relevant to anything?
I'll tell you when you answer the question.
Do insects have feelings? I won’t tell you why you need to know this until after you’ve answered it, and if you can’t I win.
>doesn't answer the question.
Oh well. I'll consider "A gravitational pull is just energy" the answer. You are stating that its possible for matter to have no gravitational pull, because you think gravity is energy. This is incorrect. Gravity is not energy, its a four dimensional divot in space-time, which is provably increased by the amount of energy present in even a single particle (read: velocity).
This means matter is perfectly capable of always existing. That following the heat death of the universe, the matter in the universe will slowly coalesce again. Because gravity is not energy, gravity is the effect of matter on the fabric of reality.
Doesn’t follow
>matter and energy are different states of the same thing
Is not saying
>gravity is energy
Because gravity is not matter either. Because quantum fields exist, this does not mean at all that matter was capable of always existing. You’re thing to argue that certain qualities of space (which didn’t always exist) somehow means matter has always existed. You’re just spouting out random theories in the hopes people will get disoriented, there’s no logical flow of reasoning here
Rajesh, you literally said "gravity is energy" in
. So now you're contradicting yourself to protect your belief that matter was created by skydaddy.
>a gravitational pull is energy relating to energy to energy in different forms
This is literally true, moron. A quantum field is a place where interactions between forms of energy occur. Since mass has a relationship with gravity, and mass and energy can be equally converted, it stands to reason that energy in the form of matter is influential on gravity. You’re genuinely too low IQ to follow any sort of argument because you’re always looking for some absurd gotcha. You’re saying that if energy isn’t subject to gravity, matter can’t be a form of energy, which is nonsense
So, again, you think energy can exist completely independent of matter, instead of simply being a property of matter. That a "quantum field" is just this magical energy that causes things to happen.
No, you’re saying that because you have no other recourse but to pigeon hole at this point. You can convert something into different forms and they can gain new properties and relations which were not configured in their original form. Literally all of physics works on that principle, it tends toward simplicity. You’re inventing some non existent caveat that because energy isn’t “subject to gravity” (whatever that means) then matter cannot be a state of energy. A quantum field is an area of probability in the simplest terms. I’m sorry but your high school tier science isn’t going to save you here
which brings us back to
or the idea that it is possible for mass to not have a gravitational field.
No it doesn’t. Read the post you just replied to. You’re arguing that something can’t have different attributes in a different state, which is false. Again, all of physics works on that principle.
rajesh, energy is a property of matter, not state of matter.
The fricking irony of calling me ESL when you’re making such a moronic blunder here. A property is an attribute of something. So you’re saying energy in its base state has some sort of material extension attached to it, or that matter is radiating energy. Literally how can you call anyone rajesh while saying such moronic shit? Do you understand how physics works on a basic level? You can convert matter into energy and vice versa. It’s how a bomb works. They are different STATES, if they were merely properties of the other, then everything would behave simultaneously as both matter and energy, and nothing would be able to physically occur since nobody would be able to convert the movement of something into kinetic energy. How can you be so confidently moronic?
What is the "base state" of energy?
Energy in its ground state. Are you going to respond to how moronic your post was or just try to memoryhole something people can scroll up and see?
What is "energy in its ground state?"
Are you going to just ask me to elaborate the entire system of physics because you said something stupid you can’t justify? Do you think this looks good to anyone ITT? You can easily just look on wikipedia now and see what that is. Every time you say something incorrect, and I point that out, you ask for endless elaborations instead of just justifying what you said. Please explain how energy is a “property” of matter.
I'm employing the Socratic method in hopes of teaching you that matter has sufficient properties to never need to be created.
You’re not employing the socratic method. He didn’t investigate proven material facts, he didn’t say “but what is breathing air?” to try and dismantle the claim that people need it to live. He wanted people to elucidate metaphysical and moral issues. What you’re doing is making a stupid claim
>energy is a property of matter
Which you can’t coherently defend, and deflecting by asking me to copy and paste a wikipedia article about the base state of energy instead of explaining yourself
The socractic method is a form of teaching by asking questions of a pupil so the pupil will arrive at his own conclusion, be able to answer his own question.
Like "what is the base state of energy?" I already know the answer, but you're avoiding answering. its matter at rest
Again, don’t try to educate people who have demonstrated superior knowledge over and over. I know what the elenchus is, and you’re not applying it correctly or coherently.
>matter at rest
But you’ve just spend the last 10 minutes defending the idea that energy is some sort of emergent property of matter. Now you’re saying matter in its most basic form is energy.
>you’re saying matter in its most basic form is energy.
The opposite, rajesh.
The point is your "refutation" of "materialism" is baseless. if matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and matter has properties that allow it to move even when completely inert, and even create energy simply by having enough of it in one place, then matter didn't need to be created.
>matter cant be created or destroyed
it’s weird how you miss out the fact that the most normal term to use here is energy, as matter is a state of it. energy can’t be created or destroyed
you then go on to say
>create energy
so matter can create energy, lmao. energy can’t be generated or destroyed, but matter, which is a state of energy, can generate energy. thanks for exposing yourself
NTA but do you really not realize that you're arguing in favor of his argument and not your own? If matter can generate energy then there is no external force (like an all powerful deity for example) necessary to create or motivate it.
can you read? matter can’t create energy. matter is a state of energy. he’s the moron saying matter can create energy
>matter can’t create energy.
matter propelled at sufficient velocity literally creates kinetic energy when it impacts something.
It doesn’t create it, energy is converted to different forms of energy. Holy frick i’ve been arguing with honest to God simpletons. Energy can’t be created. The kinetic energy is converted from other forms of energy, of which matter is one.
So the hill you've now chosen to die upon is kinetic "energy" isn't energy. That a rock falling and impacting something isn't "creating" energy. You've also fallen for the trap of arguing against local reversal of entropy, read: the creation of a star from two gas giants colliding.
Holy frick. You dense fricking moron. No, it isn’t creating energy, there is a finite amount of energy in the universe. It generates kinetic energy by converting other forms of energy. No energy is created. These are the atheists calling you anti science, they don’t even fricking understand the basic laws of thermodynamics
>there is a finite amount of energy in the universe
So you're saying when two gas giants collide and reach critical mass, that isn't creating/generating energy. That a chemical reaction doesn't create/generate energy. That dropping something doesn't create/generate energy by canceling inertia.
This is why I'm calling you ESL. Because you can't comprehend synonyms.
No, you’re calling me ESL because you repeatedly state moronic shit and have no other recourse but to hide behind a made up misconception. The only reason you entered into this argument in the first place is because you thought energy could be added to and generated, and that matter was not a state of energy- this argument would NOT have occurred if you didn’t dispute that, because it’s what you’ve been doing for the past half an hour. You said moronic shit and now you’re trying to walk it back.
So, yes or no. Does all energy come from converting matter between states?
Are you seriously trying to 180 and claim the thing you’ve been arguing against for ages is now what you’ve always been saying?
I'm claiming the properties of matter do not necessitate a creator. It can have always existed. that gravity isn't energy, that gravity won't suddenly stop working after the heat death of the universe.
completely random question, are room temperature superconductors possible?
NTA but yeah that does not create energy. Thats basic physics. That is literally the law of conservation of energy. You sre just straight up arguing against high school level physics now
So you're arguing that local reversals of entropy aren't possible.
No I'm arguing that energy cannot be created or destroyed, which is basic high school level physics, which you just claimed it could be created. You are dumber than a 9th grader in my country
created == generated, in english. Not sure what it means in your language, don't know much Lithuanian.
Yes it does actually, and you also literally used the word created yourself in that sentence anyways
>So you're saying when two gas giants collide and reach critical mass, that isn't creating/generating energy. That a chemical reaction doesn't create/generate energy.
I can see why you're getting dunked on because you are fricking stupid
So there isn't an argument in that post.
You asked
>So you're saying when two gas giants collide and reach critical mass, that isn't creating/generating energy. That a chemical reaction doesn't create/generate energy.
I answered = correct. Energy cannot be created. That is grade 9 level physics. You are stupid.
If all energy comes from the conversion of matter, you don't need a god to will it into existence. You've literally spent all this time refuting your own belief system.
>You've literally spent all this time refuting your own belief system.
its glorious isn't it
I literally refuted this here:
You moved past that to focus on some autistic crap (that you ended up being wrong about)
So your refutation is that the unanswered questions of the big bang theory refute it in favor of a theory that is abject nonsense and boils down entirely to "god did it"?
No moron, because as I said, and you’re aware that I said, the big bang theory, theorised by a fricking priest, is a big philosophical victory for the principle of sufficient reason. Again, atheists wanted to argue steady state theory before hand. Actually read the post I linked, i’m saying that a materialistic model is incoherent, GIVEN what we know about the big bang. Can you not read?
>a materialistic model is incoherent
The properties of matter, and how it can generate energy simply by having enough of it in one place, means matter did not need to be created.
>matter can “generate” energy
you’re saying energy can just make more energy basically. you’re wrong. you have such a fundamental misapprehension about physics that you can’t even coherently talk about it
You are saying energy == matter. That the base state of energy == matter. That the second law of thermodynamics also applies to matter.
Thus, matter didn't need to be created.
well done, you’ve finally learned that energy can’t be created or destroyed… under the material system of physics. we are now back to square one where I say that reality itself can’t be conditioned on things which are themselves conditioned on temporal or ephemeral states of being. there is a finite amount of energy in the universe- that does not mean energy existed “eternally”
Thus, matter didn't need to be created. The finite amount of matter in the universe has always existed.
It hasn’t always existed though. If it did, why hasn’t heat death occurred? Why did it expand at a particular, calculable moment in finite time?
So like I said, your argument is that because we don't know what motivated the big bang, it must therefore have been god.
This just comes down to a difference of personal motivation. Your motivation to embrace your given belief system stems from your desire to be provided with a complete and total explanation of all the mysteries of the universe so that you can stop worrying about them. My motivation is to avoid self-deception at all costs, even if it leads to uncertainty and discomfort. Because uncertainty and discomfort, if endured, result in personal growth. Which isn't actually far off from what your book says, but unfortunately your book is also a tome of contradictions that gives you a pass for not practicing what you preach.
none of this is relevant. even if you had the answer to every question in cosmology and physics, even if you had an infinite lifespan and personally went out and mapped and studied every star in the universe, it wouldn't tell you anything about whether god exists.
I started this debate because the properties of matter refute his borderline gibberish "refutation of materialism."
if matter is a state of energy than of course it can create energy because matter, under the right conditions, can change its state.
Yes, but he means generate, literally create, energy. Why don’t you read his moronic posts
Instead of responding to mine which refute it?
I think you're just misunderstanding what he means by "create". He's not saying that energy can appear out of nowhere. You are, hence "let there be light."
No, moron. Actually read the flow of posts instead of defensively jumping in to protect the moron nominally on your side. He doesn’t think matter is a state of energy. His entire argument, in the post I fricking linked which you haven’t bothered to read, is that because matter can “create” energy, it can generate movement autonomously. That is quite literally what he said, in response to me repeatedly saying energy is finite and that matter is a form of energy. You’re now going back to an earlier argument about materialism I already refuted earlier. Dont just cheerlead morons because they agree with you
>autonomously
Gravity creates movement, gravity isn't energy.
Gravity can create movement but is is certainly not the only thing that can do this. That’s a moronic claim
I quoted him directly. You’re defending someone you know is wrong because they agree with you kek.
>and matter has properties that allow it to move even when completely inert, and even create energy
Who said gravity is the only way to create movement? You are now making up completely random claims and attributing to me, to protect yourself from the fact you're refuting your own belief system every time you post
I disputed that matter could compel itself to move and “generate energy” in an inert state. You then said gravity creates movement, to try and get around this. So that is what you are implying obviously. You realise everyone can see you floundering like a moron?
>I disputed that matter could compel itself to move
Except that's now how gravity works. Gravity, a divot in space time, is matter compelling matter to move.
Are you being purposefully obtuse? That’s what his post claimed, I disputed it, he brought up gravity to justify it.
you seem to have lost all ability to read and understand english.
Let's be honest, everyone in the thread has
No I haven’t
>matter can “generate” energy and move itself
>no it can’t
>gravity can move it
>yes but that’s not the only thing that can move it, this doesn’t make you correct
>but that’s not the only thing that can move it
Oh I see, finally. you're saying god can move it too, yes?
but the thing is, god doesn't need to. It will move, even when all the energy of the universe is expended, it will move, and then generate more energy.
You can't "generate more energy". You are simply objectively wrong here about basic physics. Read up, I hope this helps
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
so now you're back to the idea enough mass can't generate enough gravity to generate heat/energy. That simple pressure can't generate heat.
Nothing can generate energy. Grade 9 physics once again. Here you go once more
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
So a gas giant becoming a star is still a gas giant.
Energy cannot be created, full stop. You said it can, which is objectively wrong. You said something objectively wrong. And embarrassingly, this is grade 9 level education.
We're agreeing bro. if matter == energy, neither can be created, and didn't need to be created.
Let me quote you dating something objectively wrong
>it will move, and then generate more energy.
You are an idiot.
You are stating that all energy comes from matter changing state. Thus, once all the energy of the universe has been expended/distributed, that gravity will stop working, despite gravity not being a function of energy, but rather a function of mass.
you are refuting your own belief system. matter didn't need to be created. energy didn't need to be created. God has literally no place in your model of the universe.
And again… if this is the case, why hasn’t heat death already occurred? If energy existed eternally, it should have.
>if energy can't be created nor destroyed why hasn't it all been spent yet
... because it hasn't all been spent yet?
If it existed eternally… it would have been. That’s my point. We can trend heat death occurring. This is something energy does, it dissipates to the point where it cannot interact with itself. This occurs over time. If energy existed forever, it would have happened
>if there was eternal energy, there wouldn't be any energy
LMFAO
literally not what heat death is. stop embarrassing yourself
This is so dumb it approaches Not Even Wrong.
Ok. Why?
And again, you’ve backtracked and now we’re back to the point I made earlier. Within the material system of our universe, yes, but I don’t think that always existed. Within the logic of the series it cannot happen, I believe reality fundamentally superexists material laws.
If you can’t refute me, you can’t refute me.
>I don’t think that always existed.
It doesn't matter what you think, because the properties of energy/matter and spacetime mean our material reality can have easily existed forever. That the big bang was after a previous universe's heat death, and was the result of sufficient inert matter coalescing to a single point, and being subjected to sufficient gravitational pressure to cause nuclear reactions.
>can’t respond to argument
>instantly goes into futurama tier speculation about infinite universes
So you also believe infinite can't exist in our material reality?
>Ok. Why?
Not Even Wrong is when someone's grasp of the basics so tenuous that you can't pinpoint where they screwed up. According to their own bizarre internal logic they might not be wrong, but that logic doesn't map to the shared world you inhabit.
It's like when a kid asks something like 'why does wood think play dough hot-dogs?' and your brain just shuts down trying to grasp what they think is going on.
do you think this sophistry fools people? you can’t answer my question, so you’re resorting to saying “you’re just wrong” in a more tedious format
it really did take some more reading of your gibberish to understand why you think the heat death of the universe should've already happened.
Again, you aren’t tricking people with this, they realise you don’t have an answer. Energy spreads itself apart over time, eventually it will be the case where energy is completely dissipated and incapable of interaction. This process is always occurring. Given infinite time, it would have occurred.
the answer was "Newtonian physics didn't account for time dilation."
Are you saying that if time is infinite then the odds of you existing at any point before the heat death of the universe is so remote that it could never happen? Or that all points of time within a manifold of infinite time must have already elapsed since any duration of time relative to infinity is essentially zero? I'm really struggling here.
I’m saying infinite time is an incoherent concept, given how energy works. It’s really not that fricking hard to understand. You don’t seem to grasp infinite. It means prior to this moment, OR ANY MOMENT, an infinity of time has passed. Ie, heat death, a time sensitive event, must have already happened, given that time literally goes back infinitely.
And i’m saying time cannot coherently be infinite because according to you we should exist in a gravity void right now. Again, INFINITE, it doesn’t matter where I am in time, infinity means this must have already occurred. But time is clearly not infinite
>time can't be infinite because its infinitely unlikely for me to exist in a period where there is energy
yet... you... do...
Ok so you ARE saying those things. I Judy didn't understand how you were reconciling that with our understanding of the formation of the universe. And it turns out you just weren't.
nta, but there were anons talking about time being infinite. if entropy exists and time is infinite, then heat death happened infinitely far in the past. pretty straightforward (if narrow) line of reasoning.
yeah bruh, gravity doesn't stop existing just because energy gets distributed.
gravity either also gets distributed (if hawking radiation) or ends up in one uniform lump (if not). it doesn't stop existing, it just stops doing anything. what's your point?
yeah, hawking radiation is bullshit.
based on what? your feelings?
on the fact it doesn't need to be a concept. Black holes are just time dilation.
Energy is the only reason mass is capable of escaping/ignoring the gravitational pull of other mass in the universe. So, after heat death, the now "dark," inert matter, coalesces again.
you're just changing the definition. if there's still potential energy (gravitational or otherwise), then you're not at heat death yet. you've got to keep winding the clock forward more.
Gravity is not energy. It is a divot in spacetime caused by mass. Which means there will always be energy, by your definition of "potential energy," thus, the heat death theory is refuted.
at heat death there are no divots. spacetime is flat. nothing can coalesce, because everything is evenly distributed. the net gravitational force on every particle is zero. that's the definition of heat death. there is no energy vector left, anywhere.
if that definition doesn't apply to the system you're describing, then that system hasn't hit heat death yet. it still has undistributed energy in it, in some form.
You are now saying at the heat death of the universe, there is no mass. That all matter and energy are destroyed. This contradicts your ninth grade education.
I mean... you're not giving me a lot to work with lol. I keep reading what you're saying and I just don't know how to arrive at your conclusions - even mistakenly - from a modern understanding of physics and cosmology. Maybe I'd have more luck if you explained your argument in more detail so I could retrace your steps, but I doubt it.
Just stop replying if you don’t have a point to make. Nobody here thinks you are a physics expert, who would, if I was wrong, easily be able to explain why. Just saying
>wow that’s so wrong because… it’s just wrong
Doesn’t trick people into thinking you’re knowledgable. Again
>heat death occurs over time
>time stretches back infinitely
>therefore heat death has occurred
It’s a simple point to rebut
>>time stretches back infinitely
Aha, there's the problem. I get what you're saying now. Nobody claims that this is the case. As far as we can tell time does not extend infinitely into the past. The events of our observable universe did begin alongside the formation of time, and that's when entropy kicked off. Time may extend indefinitely into the future, we don't know, but that's another issue.
Ergo, materiality did not always exist. Energy did not always exist.
>no argument again
Uh, well to put it more clearly - my argument is that we've got good reason to believe, based on empirical observations, that time does not extend infinitely into the past. So your arguments about infinite time are based on assumptions that are demonstrably wrong. Does that clear things up?
I'm stating you're an idiot because you claimed, and I'm quoting you directly here ">it will move, and then generate more energy"
Allow me to state it again: you are fricking stupid
Yes. Stars literally exist solely because enough mass was in one place to trigger nuclear reactions.
You said something objectively wrong and you keep trying to rush the argument away but I'm just going to keep repeating your own embarrassing words and reminding you how stupid you are
>it will move, and then generate more energy - you
Idiot
So basically this entire debate stems from a semantic bullshit argument about the distinction between the words "generate" and "create"?
You stated somdthing objectively wrong. You also used the word "create" so you cannot hide behind the word generate as though you didnt directly use the word create. Generate and create are also synonyms so it doesn't matter what you use. This "debate" stems from you making an embarrassing objectively incorrect statement
create and generate are synonyms. heat and energy are synonyms too.
you're hyperfocused on literal english, like an ESL, because you're defending a worldview that you yourself have spent hours arguing against.
>saying something objectively wrong
>oh my god why are you hyperfocusing on me saying something that was wrong?
Idiot
I'll ask again, why do you think create can only mean create from nothing? Because the argument is only objectively wrong if you interpret the statement that way.
Because that's what the word means
create
1 of 2
verb
cre·ate krē-ˈāt ˈkrē-ˌāt
created; creating
Synonyms of create
transitive verb
1
: to bring into existence
Synonyms
Verb
Generate
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/create
That's also how the word is used in the law of conservation of energy, the basic highschool level ohysics principal you are objectively incorrect about
The only one who made a fool of himself is the guy who said energy cam be created. Keep back bedalling and pretending you didn't mean it though
>fleeing to the dictionary
yep. ESL.
Nope
Yeah, nothing about that definition suggests that it can't be motivated by an external force.
Here's the definition of the law of conservation of energy
>Energy can neither be created nor destroyed
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conser
Heres you saying energy will be created
>and then generate more energy.
Therefore you stated something objectively wrong. You are stupid.
Energy can't be created but matter can convert into energy which means there is more energy. The argument that there isn't more energy because matter is just energy in another state and therefore there's the same amount of energy as before is purely semantic, and again it argues against the need of an external supernatural force and not for it.
I'm just going to call you an idiot a few more times since you've been objectively proven wrong so many times you can only backtrack on your incorrect statements which have been directly quoted.
Idiot
That's called cognitive dissonance.
You're dumber than a grade 9 student
>I'm just going to resort to poo flinging because I don't have an argument other than pedantic hairsplitting about the definitions of words (which I'm also wrong about)
K
>the law of conservation of energy is just semantics
Moron
It depends on your definition of create. Are you creating water when you melt an ice cube? This is the semantic argument I'm referring to.
Here are several posts of you being objectively wrong about the law of conservation of energy, often with rhetorical questions
In many of theses posts you even specify "energy will be created AFTER all energy in the universe is expended" meaning, created, not converted. You were objectively wrong. Not semantically, just objectively wrong. You are stupid.
again, those posts are only "wrong" if you hyper-fixate on the definition of "created" always meaning "from nothing," which it does not.
>those posts are only wrong if you judge them by what I said
You are actually a fricking moron
What he said was "create", which does not imply "created from nothing" simply because you say it does. You are either being deliberately obtuse at this point or you just aren't terribly bright.
What he said was
>when all the energy of the universe is expended, it will move, and then generate more energy.
>when all energy of the universe is expended
>more will be generated
Meaning when there is no more energy, more energy will be created, which is wrong. You are literally an idiot.
I'm an idiot because you not only misunderstood what he was saying but have since been clinging to that misunderstanding regardless of how many times it is addressed and re-addressed?
>when all energy is expended
>more energy will be generated
>meaning energy will be generated when there is no energy
>meaning energy will be created
>which is wrong
Idiot
You and your coworker are being clowned on so hard right now that you might actually get fired.
His fault is he thinks "heat death of the universe" means "there's no longer even any potential energy." That the mass of the universe will be so spread out that it no longer has any gravitational pull.
Took a while to get there.
you are fixated on this idea that, somehow, all mass in the universe will be zero or too distributed to have a gravitational effect. We've proven that even the smallest mass we can measure will still be subject to gravitational influences between each other in micro-gravity.
Because you for some reason think that the word "create" can only imply "created from nowhere", as if the word somehow has it baked in that there isn't any discernible cause for it.
well, also that he needs to protect his worldview that matter can't exist without god creating it. so if he can "win" this then that is protected, despite the fact he's spent... almost three hours arguing against the necessity of god to create matter/energy.
I'm not that original anon, I hoped in only when you said matter could be created just to tell you that you're stupid
>matter could be created
where'd I say that?
In this post
Idiot
okay, so you're someone completely different, but also doing the matter==energy, "create == from nowhere" thing. got it.
>when all the energy of the universe is expended, it will move, and then generate more energy.
You are a moron
Yeah, that's literally how stars work. Enough matter in one spot to ignite nuclear reactions, just from gravitational pressure.
But hey, keep making a fool of yourself by focusing on hyperliteralism, something only ESLs do.
I did read the posts and that's not what he said. You just have godawful reading comprehension.
Its funny how I'll say a thing, an objective and, as far as we know, immutable fact, and then you'll repeat it back to me, backwards, as if that is what I said.
Energy is a property of matter. Stars are formed simply by there being enough matter in one place. We have a bunch of failed stars in our own solar system, and frick if jupiter catches enough comets/asteroids, it'll ignite.
you literally don’t understand what matter is, and you’ve just claimed something utterly absurd in saying matter can create energy. what you’re saying is standard physics, at all, it’s on the fly headcanon because you lost an argument
>The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. This means that a system always has the same amount of energy
you fricked up in your last post
>and matter has properties that allow it to move even when completely inert, and even create energy
you don’t understand what energy is
>matter and energy being different states of the same thing means they always have the same qualities
Doesn’t follow either
uh oh, better accuse someone clearly more coherent than you of being ESL again pablo.
The harder you samegay the more desperate you seem to be to avoid answering a simple question. Can matter exist without having any effect on reality, zero energy, zero gravitational pull, nothing. Is completely inert matter something that can exist?
This guy assuming people of samegayging lmao:
Go on, link two of the posts so I can screencap it and show there’s only one (you).
>you’re desperate
>starts argument insisting materialism is true
>gets backed into a corner of moronic positions, repeatedly gets proven wrong on his ideas about the big bang and philosophy
>finally just tries to pivot the entire conversation away from the materialism debate into one explicitly about theism
>it fails again
>makes a moronic gotcha about how matter and energy aren’t the same thing
>it fails
>is now trying to railroad an argument which started on the premise “is materialism true” into hinging on some nonsense question about how matter can’t be energy because energy is apparently unaffected by physics
No it wouldn’t, moron. That’s like saying ice can exist independently of water
There’s no argumentative point in this post, you’re basically just insulting me and calling me wrong
Point out specifically what you don’t understand and i’ll dumb it down for you
if you needed any proof that fedoras are fricking moronic and don’t even understand the soience they harp on about, here it is
Please explain how matter having a beginning means that it came from a conscious being that remains active in the world and can read your mind and gave laws to stone-age israelites and not through an intersection of multidimensional membranes or some other wholely mechanical process that we simply can't mathematically explain at this point in time.
Here’s where the argument started:
Explicitly about materialism. Note that you’ve been btfo on that, so now you’re pivoting to an entirely different point. You’re even at the stage where you’re taking about “multidimensional membranes” as if this is some sort of coherent rebuttal to simply pointing out a flaw in the claim that everything is matter.
>I know it makes no sense, but have faith that it will be proven with… math
Yes, if you make certain assumptions about the universe and its contents and follow that logic to the conclusion that something must exist that is unlike anything we can or will ever observe, and if you then claim that this unknowable thing is a specific god, then you can also claim that this specific god's nature and teachings about the afterlife etc. etc. are also true.
At what point is this supposed to persuade anyone, though? At most you've given me a reason to think there was some kind of first cause. Sure, maybe. So what?
op btfo
Atheism isn't nihilism
don't know anything about religion or atheisim, but I hope I turn into a ghost when I die. get to mooch off of other people and just watch tv in their house or free movies at the theater. would be even cooler if I could possess people and shit so I can play vidya
Nihilism has nothing to do with athiesm moron
I don't believe there is a god but I enjoy being alive.
Thus I do not want to die.
there thread over, have a nice day come up with something original homosexual
namegay who cares
Anyone whonhas watched that show is a pedophile who should be killed.
>he saved the version with the hair covering the barrel
you're the only person who's ever clicked the thumbnail
>Atheist Philosophy
"There are no objective meaning to reality! You choose what is meaningful!"
"Why would what you choose to be meaningful inherently mean it's meaningful?"
"Shut up."
You don't understand how subjectivity works, do you?
its funny that its always ESLs raging against nihilism/atheism.
if an ESL is raping you this badly in your own language that just makes it more embarrassing. either way the bite sized way you post in is way more ESL
At best you are performing a complex interpretive dance, in your mind (read: mental gymnastics) in response to prompts.
Women and non-whites are statistically more likely to be religious. What a shock
Nilihists who don't kill themselves. Hypocrites or cowards?
why would I want to stop experiencing anything?
Just curious. I've got nothing better to do. It's not like I live forever if I don't end it.
i’ve seen this image so many times i forgot that it’s an edit
It's not about atheism or nihilism, it's about shitty people who act like dicks to everyone else because it makes them feel some semblance of control over their sad, pathetic lives, and there's no consequences to making other people feel like shit.
where's the "thou shalt not hurt thine neighbor's feelings" commandment? on the tablet abraham dropped?
There's nothing in the bible saying I shouldn't sew human feces into the seats of strangers' cars, but I don't do it because the bible shouldn't have to tell you how to use your common sense.
>the bible created morality
>but I don't need it to know right from wrong
whoops.
>morality is basically the basic extension of empathy, codified
>the bible invented empathy
You're not very bright are you
Hey, christians will literally say that morality can't exist without the bible.
Nowhere did I say that the bible created morality.
But since you're all for being a complete moron, I'm reconsidering my stance on sewing shit into strangers' car-seats.
>bible created skydaddy
>skydaddy created morality
>thus bible created morality
Ah damn it.
I fell for the bait.
So basically, you can discern common sense morality without the aid of the bible. Therefore the bible is useless. Glad we settled that.
Without the Bible, how would you know when to stone your children for disobedience? Or that homosex is just as bad as eating shellfish and wearing polyester blends?
"Love thy neighbor as thy love thineself"
where is this from?
I don't know every single piece of media released in the west, buddy.
Americans really tell secrets to a dead middle-eastern man before bed
Yeah somehow that dead middle eastern man's message spread through the whole world and is still going strong as the biggest religion in the planet. But I'm sure it's just a big fat coincidence
lots of people believe in the mandella effect too. does that really mean we're getting shuffled around timelines and not that our memory is pretty shit?
>comparing the meme Mandela effect to an established religion that's been around for a long time
>shuffled around timelines
Bro you gotta stop watching rick n morty. It's ruining your brain.
Pedophilia has been around since ancient Greece.
Tell me, does that somehow lend it more validity as a practice?
>the number of people that believe in a thing gives it more validity
>what about this silly thing that tons of people believe in
>w-well actually it's how long the thing has been around, not how many people believe it
Blatant goalpost moving
if you actually took the time to research and understand the cultural and societal impact Christianity left on european culture (and even the Earth for that matter, civilizing south american savages), you would begin to analyze the at if the thing would actually insert of itself in the synonymous inherent absolute if which the does happen
The Mandela effect didn't civilize and change the world though. Like you're comparing meme stuff to an established religion. This is some lazy bait.
>The Mandela effect didn't civilize and change the world though
Neither did religion.
Yes it did. Like I stated before, Christians founded the earliest universities. There would still be people in Mexico ripping each other's hearts out so the sun would rise everyday.
Christianity changed the whole world for the better. Cope with it however you want and knock it off with the red herring fallacies. I'm done with all this low iq bait.
Look up the difference between correlation and causation for me.
So God also likes Buddha and Mohammed?
It's not the biggest religion on the planet. Hindi is.
Hinduism is 4th on the list. Look it up.
>that image
It's really weird that people think this makes atheists look bad and christgays look good
I'm sure it's also a coincidence that the majority of the human population has a sub 100 IQ
>the majority of the human population has a sub 100 IQ
that's not how IQ works.
Yeah, actually it is.
50% isn't a majority.
What do you think average means?
Christians founded the majority of the earliest colleges in Europe in the middle ages. Such low IQ behavior right?
>hitler drank water
>waters bad!
Use some logic.
>Christians founded the majority of the earliest colleges in Europe in the middle ages. Such low IQ behavior right?
More blatant goalpost moving.
>hitler drank water
>waters bad!
Oh! So commonality is not a strong indicator of validity? So the fact that lots of people are Christians doesn't actually make it any more credible or plausible? Well, I'm sure glad we sorted that.
Please explain how the fact that animals have an instinct towards self-preservation is evidence that god exists?
>haha u dont want to die that means atheism is wrong
huh?
This. Shit's completely backwards. It makes perfect sense for atheists to be terrified of death because they view it as the end of their existence. If anything, the religious should have no concern for their mortality since death isn't the end and their soul is eternal. Their only concern should be getting into heaven.
>Atheist
nilihism is not inherently an atheist thing
>40 IDs
Boy oh boy it's another off-topic thread where literally one israelite keeps spamming anti-Christian nonsense and everyone falls for the bait.
Christianity is israeli tricks to turn goyim into slaves, christgay
Nice try, israelite.
kek
You're literally legitimizing israelites by saying that modern israelites are the same people as the ones that lived during Jesus times. It's the most golem line of thinking possible, it's directly supporting everything modern israelites stand for.
Your book is based on their book. How does that not legitimize them?
It was never their book. Modern israelites are an invading tribe, they have nothing in common with the "jews" 2000 years ago.
Topkek
Reminder to all christgay that these morons are on your side
and people who don’t understand basic high school physics are on yours?
and in the post I linked you ignored again, when we first started this discussion, I repudiated that
feel free to ignore it again
again, you're stating that after the heat death of the universe, gravity will stop working. considering the solar system is orbiting a supermassive mass 26,000 light years away, this does not hold.
>you say something incoherent and moronic
>that’s wrong
>so you’re saying [moronic statement emerging from his broken understanding of physics]
You replying to yourself because literal mouth breathers who don’t understand physics are on your side isn’t going to convince anyone
meant for
No it isn’t. You can read the post I linked and see explicitly that this isn’t what i’m saying. I am saying it is incoherent for a contingent series of things to be the grounds of reality. You ignore that, and embark on a paragraph of pseudo psychological cope trying to attack me instead of the argument. You’re dumb, dude. It’s okay to accept it.
It's actually the opposite. It's incoherent for a series of things that *aren't* contingent to be the grounds for reality. Which is besides the point really since both arguments are contingent, they're just contingent on different things.
I'll also add that it's a little disingenuous, and again hypocritical, to accuse me of "attacking you instead of the argument" and then just blatantly call me dumb in the very next sentence.
>aren’t contingent
Do I just need to copy and paste the post? You’re saying that it’s incoherent for reality itself to be founded on something that is necessary, uncaused and self sufficient. That makes no sense. I’m saying that “energy” is still contingent, it is still parasitic on other elements of reality to exist. Back to what I said, if it wasn’t, if it did exist unconditioned and eternally, then the heat death of the universe would have already occurred, because infinite time would have elapsed. We know this isn’t the case. Therefore, material reality is contingent on a reality which is not bound by constructs of time or space, ie, immaterial, atemporal. See how I actually make points and don’t spend half the post psychoanalysing why you made a point instead? My insults are brief and come at the end of an actual argument, moron
The points you make are pure nonsense, so I don't see how that's superior to my choice to analyze why you are the sort of person who makes impassioned nonsensical arguments to convince strangers that you're smarter than they are.
I'll try this one more time. Your theory of existence is also that reality is founded on something uncaused because you believe god existed without cause. Either the big bang theory existed out of nowhere or god existed out of nowhere. Same difference.
Your argument that if infinite time exists it would have elapsed already is also pants on head moronic and makes absolutely no sense. It's a blatant contradiction.
>your points are nonsense
not an argument
>reality is founded on something uncaused
yes
>or god existed out of nowhere
no… Black person, learn to read. I cannot fricking state the same thing 50 times. the ENTIRE point, is that this terminus, this necessary, self justifying, ETERNAL thing that is somethingness instead of nothingness, cannot be material, because material things are contingent, and not self justifying. ergo, the universe came from something, because of its fundamental structure of causality and temporality, which necessitates that, and whatever caused it, must necessarily NOT have those limiting qualities.
>it’s blatant contradiction
Why
once again you’re moving goalposts. all i’ve done is argue against materialism, you’re inventing a stance for me because you can’t rebut it. I don’t believe materialism is true, i’ve demonstrates why.
You've spent three hours arguing that mass == energy, cannot be created nor destroyed, thus, is eternal. Thus, God isn't part of the equation of the physical universe.
>all i’ve done is argue against materialism
>I definitely wasn't going to use that as a springboard to justify a bunch of other nonsense just like every other nutbar who brings up this tired argument
kk my mistake
>not an argument
I didn't say it was.
>cannot be material, because material things are contingent, and not self justifying. ergo, the universe came from something
So we're back where we were an hour plus ago. You think that because we can't currently run causality all the way up the chain of contingencies, they must not exist. That because we don't know what caused the big bang, that can only mean that nothing caused the big bang, which means god must exist. Well first of all, the argument that an answer must not exist because we don't have it is inherently disingenuous, and second, who is to say that the chain of contingencies is not infinite if time is also infinite? You're holding the cosmos so arbitrary entirely human standards of reality and think this somehow argues in favor of your belief system being self evident rather than purely human, which is what it actually is.
It's not ad hominem for me to suggest that your reliance on recursive arguments stems from your belief in a religious system based entirely on recursive principles.
Can you stop putting words in my mouth?
>because we can’t run up the chain of contingencies
WE CAN, we HAVE. We know the properties of energy and matter well enough to say they aren’t completely self explanatory and eternal components of reality itself- they are a fundamental part of how the material universe is configured, the material universe which we know began to exist at an instance in time.What caused the big bang does not matter, the fact is that every element of the big bang is adherent to rules which cannot coherently be generated by it. The force of existence all this is parasitic on cannot be “within” the system itself. It’s similar to how mathematics works, there’s always a contradiction in a closed system that needs an additional super system to justify it. I’m saying that immaterial laws are this super system, the ideal laws of non contradiction which govern the remit of matter.
>time is infinite
I don’t believe it is, as i’ve stated before, because it was heat death would have occurred. You don’t actually respond to arguments, you just repeat yourself endlessly
Okay, so you're basically saying the heat death of the universe should've already happened via Newtonian physics. Of course Newtonian physics don't account for time dilation.
Time dilation is just time relative to an observer. You could theoretically stand outside of time and see everything occurring at once in some incoherent undifferentiated blob of relations. But there is still contingency within that blob, and we know energy will dissipate to a point where it becomes inert eventually, given enough time. If it existed forever, this would have happened
You realize the giant ass black hole at the center of our galaxy is dilating time, right? The velocity of our orbit around the sun is as well. Also the velocity around the center of the galaxy. Also the velocity from the center of the universe/everything else.
Basically you're touching on a way to calculate the earth's objective velocity via the difference between how old the universe is, when the heat death should've occurred, and the difference between. its fricking relativistic
you don’t understand relativity either lmao. relativity is not saying time doesn’t exist, it’s saying your point in time is relative to where and how you observe it. it doesn’t mean that essentially processes of matter can be delayed indefinitely. either heat death will occur given time, or it never will, which is what you’re arguing. you’re stating there has been infinite time, it doesn’t matter what angle I perceive that time from, these processes will still occur
No, its really down to you not being able to really express yourself well or comprehend what others are saying.
People have already, exhaustively, described how a heat death of the universe isn't "the end of time," because gravity works no matter how energy/matter/mass is distributed.
>I’m saying that immaterial laws are this super system, the ideal laws of non contradiction which govern the remit of matter
Like I said, in the absence of a better answer you go with a cop-out answer, because you can't accept that we don't presently have the answer. Oddly enough this means you are ironically unwilling to have faith.
>I don’t believe it is, as i’ve stated before, because it was heat death would have occurred
Which makes no sense. I have to repeat myself because you continue to repeat yourself. Your argument that "if time was infinite it would have reached its finite end by now" is just pure gibberish.
It’s not a cop out. I think your mind is genuinely incapable of wrapping itself around this. I’m not appealing to knowledge we don’t have- I have not once done this. I am saying logically, from what we already know, the system is not self justifying.
>if time were infinite it would have reached its finite end
You’re the one claiming time is infinite, i’m saying it cannot be, because then, from laws we can observe are true, it would have ended
You are doing the opposite of appealing to knowledge we don't have. You're claiming that knowledge we don't have simply cannot exist, as evidenced by the fact that we don't have it. This is an argument that is at best disingenuous and at worst just plain stupid.
>You’re the one claiming time is infinite, i’m saying it cannot be, because then, from laws we can observe are true, it would have ended
Infinite things don't end, genius.
No i’m not. Quote where I did that. I said, what we do know about matter makes it incoherent to call it self generating or justifying. I’m not appealing to what we don’t know, because what we do know is enough. Nothing we can learn about material reality is going to change that logically, it is bound to rules that superexist it, and that it itself is contingent on several existing conditions. Nothing we could ever learn would contradict that. You don’t understand what a priori means, there are essential logical rules that are not derived empirically
>what we do know about matter makes it incoherent to call it self generating or justifying.
Explain.
>there are essential logical rules that are not derived empirically
All of which directly contradict the need or presence of a supernatural force.
>infinite things don’t end
well done refuting yourself- heat death exists, so infinite time cannot exist
>i’m an ape who literally cannot comprehend that your placement in time does not fricking matter if you’re talking about infinity
no matter where i am, time goes back forever ahead and backward. but there are time sensitive processes that will result in nothing being able to occur, so this isn’t the case
your placement in time automatically matters, if you're talking. You are placed... in time.
You are genuinely too moronic to follow this. If time is infinite, and heat death occurs in a certain remit of time, no matter where I am, it has already happened
see:
Claiming that a supernatural being exists that makes all contradictions make sense because he wills them to is just exchanging one incoherence for another.
except you clearly and objectively exist in a period of time where the universe has not undergone "heat death."
Unless you're confusing infinite and super positioning, of course.
The heat death paradox can be addressed a number of ways and only the dumbest one is "because god said so"
you should really stay on kc bruh, you can't seem to follow conversations without countryballs. of course you can barely follow them there either.
People thinking that the religion that persecuted israelites the most throughout history (even more so than Islam) is somehow a "puppet" of said israelites is hilarious.
Did they write your book or not?
They didn't. See
bro I'm not reading all that shit
Yeah I can tell that you don't read a lot in general.
I figured you would say something like that. Your responses are so predictable. The fact that my taste is discerning enough that I'm not willing to waste precious minutes of my life reading a chain of lofty, wordy shitposts is actually evidence to the exact opposite. You seem to be willing to take in any nonsense because reading words is still some kind of novelty for you.
>jews get fricked in the ass by christians for almost 2000 years
>some israelite comes up with an idea
>"yeah we're gonna tell everyone that we're actually the origin of it all and we totally wrote their book!"
>golems fall for it
Like I said, your line of thinking is in direct support of modern Israel. It's fine if you don't like Christianity, but the argument you're using is directly supportive of the lies that israelites are spreading to control people.
The Old Testament is just the Tora. You claiming that it's not true and is actually some kind of israeli conspiracy theory is just classic copium.
>yeah I'm totally opposed to israelites and their lies and tricks
>w-what do you mean they would attempt to trick their literal greatest enemy?
I'm not opposed to israelites. I don't have a prosecutorial complex that leads me to create a convenient scapegoat for all my problems because I'm too devoid of integrity to take any personal responsibility for them. Now go ahead and call me a israelite or a troony and let's take this to its natural endpoint.
>the mask slips and the anti-christians expose themselves as israelite lovers
Every single time.
And the christians reveal themselves as antisemitic sociopaths. It's like poetry.
I'm not anti anybody. I think their beliefs are just as nonsensical as yours. Obviously I do, since their beliefs are largely identical to yours as far as I'm concerned, as are the beliefs of the Muslims.
I don't despise anyone who I disagree with. This is because I'm an adult.
>I'm not anti anybody
You’re anti-white, israelite.
I understand that it is convenient for you to view me that way because otherwise you don't have any arguments.
Like I said.
I'm gonna keep replying because I'm morbidly curious how massive your own da jooz image folder is
>da jooz
And the New Testament overrides the old one, often directly contradicting it and saying that the israelites in it were stubborn and moronic, so now there will be a new chosen people. Maybe you should read it sometime.
Why not simply throw it out entirely rather than trying to retcon it? Why create an inexorable, permanent link between you and your most despised enemy when you could just have easily avoided it completely with even a modicum of creative autonomy?
Because Christians are moronic, that's why.
because every change made to the bible over the centuries was political in motivation.
this isn't some big mysterious thing, anon.
Crazy how a perfect God just kinda shit the bed when it came it to choosing a chosen people. Imagine knowing that you're your God's second choice kek
Imagine being so stupid and evil that God gives up on you and instead chooses better people. 🙂
>tried to get Christians as being "cucks" for "bowing to the israelites"
>is now crying because you're heckin antisemitic :((
Hahahaha!
You hate the israelites while stealing all their ideas, yes. This is the contradiction I was highlighting.
>Imagine being so stupid and evil that God gives up on you and instead chooses better people. 🙂
I think God should've seen that coming from the beginning. At least you got the israelites spiritual sloppy seconds
biblical god doesn't really have his shit together a lot of the time.
which is fine, in general terms most of the gods throughout human history that we have records on have not had their shit together by any stretch. gods get up to all kinds of shit, often without much of a plan. that's fine.
it really only becomes a logical roadblock when you start to try and claim god is infinite / omniscient / omnipotent, and start bending over backward trying to explain why an entity with infinite foresight seems to frick up so often. but that's not really in the bible anywhere, it's just something youth pastors use to try and avoid answering questions about birth control.
>btw I'm totally against israelites, that's why I defend and support them at every turn
Because it's God's plan and not moronic political fiction like you imagine it to be.
>moronic political fiction
That's exactly what it is. Couldn't have said it better.
Valhalla is forever closed off to pseudisraelites like you
Reminder that this the israelite that kept spamming these dumb memes when The Northman came out.
This. Only a matter of minutes until he starts spamming the gay pastors again.
>be larpagan
>go against your gods' teachings
many such cases
Nihilism is an inherently self destructive and selfish worldview, that if people actually believed we have progressed at all, and the people who spout it unironically are fricking parasites that leech off what people who give a shit have done
>/pol/gays simultaneously support Palestine when it comes to Gaza and Israel when it comes to christianity
lol
It always used to puzzle me why people so quickly get fired up by these kind of discussions.
Not really. It just showed what a fake nihilist would do in that situation. A real, actual nihilist wouldn't have cared.
This thread in atheistic thought
>jews are actually based! it’s the white christians we hate!
>matter can create energy (???)
>jews are actually based! it’s the white christians we hate!
>I think their beliefs are just as nonsensical as yours.
Why are you lying tho?