Do you believe in God?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Do you believe in God?
Do you believe in God?
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
No.
It's an antiquated concept.
Physics has advanced way beyond the concept of a creator.
Good film though.
Yes
See pic related
Nice meme.
If you cared enough to try and understand the universe you wouldn't base your opinion on memes.
Your enlightenment is blinding me. Teach me about the secrets of the cosmos good sir!
So all our human experience and identity is just a dream preduced by chemical reactions going off in the mass of cells in our brain?
No, that was not my point at all.
What you posted is true, but my point was God was an easy explanation for physics in ancient times.
We have advanced since then and don't need a supernatural power to explain the cosmos any more.
>and don't need a supernatural power to explain the cosmos any more.
Well go on. Explain the cosmos.
I don't claim to understand it, yet.
But I am trying to through studies, instead of reading a 3000 year old book of poems and politics.
>studies
Which ones explain the cosmos?
You're taking those papers on faith, not rationality.
I'm sorry, but those papers are based on years of hard work and peer review.
>peer review
Do you honestly believe that?
I know it wasn't the point, but you confirm what I say which is completely absurd. If you really believed that then why are you even arguing here? Everything is arbitrary anyway in your view, who cares?
I just think religion is a comfortable space of "I don't know nor do I care", which is fine, but I despise the supernatural aspect of it.
Why do you care?
I don't really, maybe this discussion got a bit off tangent.
I just wish people would separate science and spirituality.
>separate science and spirituality.
That's dumb seeing as they both, allegedly, aim at the same goal; discerning truth.
That is a midwitted desire. They're two parts of the same animal felt by blind men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
ITT, this happens:
IQ<80
God is real things are too complicated for him not to be.
IQ<100
God is something we participate in and you feel sometimes
IQ<120
JUST COPING moronS WHO ARE MUCH, MUCH DUMBER THAN ME. I F*cK*ING LOVE SCIENCE DUDE!!!! (but really I just like trinkets, like TVs and phones)
IQ<140
I'm on the fence... concerned about the double-slit experiment
IQ<160
Superposition and entanglement imply deeper realities
IQ<180
Each moment before the last unveils a new informational reality that composes itself according to the pleasure or discordancy of the system itself. God both watches and makes the watch. We ourselves are the gears, the wheel of fortune binding all of time, each of us free to act within the bounds.
How come my IQ is over 100 but I have the 80 IQ viewpoint?
This is my personal opinion but it's likely that despite having lower IQ you have a greater connection to reality.
Not many Harvard graduates can train and ride horses... see what I mean?
That's fair.
Someone has to do the dirty work.
But you're the one who felt the need to respond to this thread so obviously you care. The fact that you value truth is in itself something religious.
> The fact that you value truth is in itself something religious.
No that’s basic survivalism.
>survivalism
Truth and survival have nothing in common.
but there are still things which defy our ability to prove. even in the most basic language systems, there are parodoxes and mysteries that confound reason. an example I always come back to is Pi, math cannot tell us exactly what the ratio of a circle’s diameter to its circumference actually is, we are left with merely an approximation. the most astute and accomplished scientists will also grant that everything we “know” about the world is a product of abstract models that merely resemble reality
>all models are wrong, but some are useful
by George Box. even Einstein wrote about the “mysterious religious feeling” that drives mankind to seek an understanding of the unknown. to step outside metaphysics, I think God is a truly existent thing and mankind discovered when, after dominating all animals on Earth, they still suffered due to ailments that the could not see (pestilence) or a privation of what once was plentiful (famine) or literally Earth-moving catastrophes (earthquakes, volcanos, hurricanes), all things which mankind still fails to predict or control. because mankind is not, and never will be, in control of his destiny. he is a slave to God, willing or unwilling.
>I always come back to is Pi, math cannot tell us exactly what the ratio of a circle’s diameter to its circumference actually is
No, it does.
Pi, like e, is just a number that we gave a symbol to because it describes certain geometrical ratio.
Numbers aren't real moron.
Exactly, so why does it matter that the number isn't rational? It is certainly not evidence for or against God.
Damn, can you tell me which number Pi stands for?
No, there is no strict identity between biochemical processes and conscious states. At best you can say there's a correlation, but that's not an identity.
If you're interested in this stuff look for "the hard problem of consciousness".
Clueless take. No physical cosmogony, regardless of how sophisticated it might be, can be relevant when it comes to the question of the truth (or falsity) of theism. Whatever physical causal explanation you posit for the universe, there will always be the question of the origin of that cause.
Im not even saying that theism is true, my point is just that believing that contemporary physical theories are capable of ruling theism out means that you have simply not understood the debate.
The more we learn about physics the more they point to a creator, look into fine tuning
It really doesn't point to a creator.
It's just the incompleteness of our models.
The more complete it is, the more it points towards coherence.
But why would that imply a creator.
In my viewpoint it just implies symmetry and math.
Why would the universe have symmetry?
because math favours symmetry
Filtered.
I believe existence itself is god, so yes.
You sound like someone who’s genuinely hard to be around
If you're a christian, you probably will find me hard to be around.
Otherwise, I'm easy going.
>If you're a christian, you probably will find me hard to be around.
Haha based. We'd be colonizing the universe by now if it weren't for christians and their hatred of Science.
Im not a christian but I still wouldn't want to be around you. You sound like an engineer or someone who works in cs
You’re giving him too much credit he’s just some unlovable reddit homosexual
you worship Black folk huh?
>Physics has advanced way beyond the concept of a creator.
Another one who takes ontological naturalism for granted gets filtered by metaphysics.
>metaphysics
How can you use that term and not feel embarrassed?
Literal conmen selling BS books.
I too hate the foundation of all knowledge.
You're thinking of philosophy, not hairy woman pseudo intellectualism.
Forgive him, he is probably an ameritard. When I visited the US every library I visited had a metaphysics section filled with new age nonsense. The guy you're talking to seems very ignorant, so he probably doesn't know that metaphysics is a rigorous philosophical field.
What’s with this modern moronic thought that religion and science aren’t compatible?
Well, Christian school is pretty big on saying evolution is a lie.
The belief in a scientific consensus is inherently unscientific and outs you as a pseud.
The world is much older than 6,000 years like most Chrisitians claim. The earth was not formed in a week.
Evolution is a much more sound theory than "God did it"
>I learned about Christianity from caricaturs of american puritans, here are my thoughts on it
>no I won't even bother dissecting the different denominations, they're all just "Christians" and they all believe the same thing
So do you believe the Bible is wrong about the earth being formed in a week?
Ah, the good old "I don't actually know anything about the religion in question" spiel.
I was raised Lutheran, but went to Southern Baptist and Catholic schools growing up, so I actually do know a lot about Christianity.
It's a truly miserable way to grow up.
>so I actually do know a lot about Christianity
>"most christians believe the earth was created within a week"
It's what it says in the Bible. Chapter 1
>so I actually do know a lot about Christianity
>"most christians believe 1:1 what the OT says"
>"all translations of the OT are the same"
You can stop embarrassing yourself further by simply not replying.
Well, the Bible says you can't be half-assed in your beliefs. If you want to pick and choose which parts you follow, more power to you, but don't be surprised when other people just don't believe any of it.
Personally, I think more people need to follow the instructions where Jesus said we should forgive all debt every 7 years
>so I actually do know a lot about Christianity
>"there's only one version of the Bible and I think it was written in english"
>"there are no christian denominations that have different interpretations of Bible passages"
Tell me which one says you get to pick and choose what parts you have to follow
>so I actually do know a lot about Christianity
>"every christian denomination and sect interprets (or even includes) every part of the Bible in the exact same way"
You what?? Are you referencing Deuteronomy and ascribing it to Jesus? That displays such incredibly poor knowledge of the religion it’s clear beyond all doubt you do not even have a basic understanding of it
So, no reason the debt forgiveness bit gets ignored? But fair enough, that was OT. There's other stuff in the NT that nobody abides by like Jesus instructing us to hate our family
>There's other stuff in the NT that nobody abides by like Jesus instructing us to hate our family
I think you may be autistic.
>so I actually do know a lot about Christianity
>"There's other stuff in the NT that nobody abides by like Jesus instructing us to hate our family"
What do you mean? Ignored by who?
Evolution has been part of the Christian worldview since the 2nd century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationes_seminales
>I was raised Lutheran, but went to Southern Baptist and Catholic schools growing up
Explains why you're a pretentious moron who doesn't know anything about neither science nor his own religion.
Which God?
The israelite one? No.
>believe
Irrelevant. The existence of God has been proven by the Kalam Cosmological Argument..
everything is belief anon. proof is also belief. however i must add that the KCA is dogshite and doesnt prove anything even though i accept its premises and conclusion. in other words, you should believe for the right reasons. not some aopologetic nonsense.
>doesnt prove anything
>accept its premises and conclusion
You don't get a vote then.
To say it proves God is a prettybig leap. The cause could be anything. And in either case, what is the cause of the creator?
>what is the cause of the creator?
Oh no you've got me. No one has ever thought of this before. What is the cause of the Unmoved Mover? Hmmm....
Great answer, you really got him
>Hey you know that uncaused cause? Well what caused it?
I'm specifically asking in regards to that proof. Sure, something created the universe. But if the proof is correct, then something must have created the creator too. The proof does not mention why there might be exceptions. I'm not using it to refute Christianity, merely that specific proof. It is a self defeating argument.
>4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
>5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
There's other steps.
>then an uncaused, personal Creator
This is the leap I'm talking about. Why does the creator not have a cause? Just because he says so? The argument refutes itself. If something exists, then it must have a cause. Sure. The universe exists, therefore it has a cause. Great. So by the very same argument, God either must have a cause or he does not exist.
It just has to stop somewhere or else there would be an infinite amount of causes
Why? Why can't there be an infinite amount of causes, or why can two things not cause each other so to speak?
>Why can't there be an infinite amount of causes,
We'd never have been able to reach the present.
Well that's simply not correct and presupposes that time is fixed, constant, and all events are discrete and completed, which is a pretty huge logical leap. Look at a number line. There are an infinite amount of numbers between one and two, but we can all count to two just fine. And that also ignores the possibility of recursiveness or of two causes causing each other.
But more to the point, I'm not trying to refute the proof, I am just saying that it simply is not a proof of God. Even if a agree with you one hundred percent, there is simply nothing in the proof to explain why God is the exception.
>There are an infinite amount of numbers between one and two
No there aren't. Numbers do not exist.
>am just saying that it simply is not a proof of God
Its not. Its a proof for a uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
>who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
Thats the point I have issue with and I'm just using God as a shorthand. It does not prove that at all. It proves the opposite, that God either has a cause or doesn't exist. Again, it just 'decides' that this being exists and is allowed to be an exception.
Only if you assume the possibility of an actual infinite series of past causes. Which is an absurdity.
How is it more absurd than saying that one thing only is an exception for no stated reason other than to prove the proof?
Because that one thing is a logical necessity.
Only by the logic the guy came up with himself.
Him and about 3,000 years of Western thought.
You have no idea what you are saying. The prime mover is an exception because without it, the universe itself would not exist. It is an exception by necessity, for existence to even be viable. it is not religious dogma. You would have to argue that infinite regress is possible, which you can’t.
Or maybe the simpler answer is that the proof is simply incorrect.
The argument does not presuppose time, it presupposes contingency, which are chains of causal instances, within or without time. Simply saying, there wouldn’t be existence if the causal chain is infinite, since an infinite amount of instances would have no end, therefore our current existence would be absurd and illogical.
Honestly, this just sounds like Zeno's paradox to me, and again, not one comment has mentioned the possibility that two things can cause each other at some beginning point. And again, it presupposes a 'completed' infinity. Time could also be cyclical, which some scientists have posited with the big crunch after the big bang. There are plenty of other explanations that this proof simply ignores.
You are literally saying the Avicennan metaphysics. Contingency is not time, and an infinitely cyclical universe does not imply its non-contingency, and a Cause requiring the caused does not negate the existence of the Cause. Read his argument from contingency. His argument is that the if there is indeed an infinite regress, the aggregate infinity that is the causal chain is itself the prime mover, the important thing is that the universe itself is contingent due to it having the interplay of cause and effect. And since the cause is infinite, the infinity (in terms of time) of the universe is not absurd but it being self-subsisting is.
Bad analogy, numbers are given simultaneously, rather than in a temporal succession.
For there to be existence, one initial cause must Be, or it simply wouldn’t happen. The uncausedness of this prime mover is not arbitrary doctrine, it simply a necessity to explain existence itself. In philosophy and metaphysics, we start with existence and deduce from there.
>dude, reality should make sense, like, to me
It is under no obligations to make sense.
>And in either case, what is the cause of the creator?
Inherently flawed question, like asking who is the creator of a video game world is by looking at the code of the game itself.
I agree, I feel like a being that purportedly created the functions of time would most likely be outside of time itself, and not dependent on its laws.
Creation is dependent on time.
>Creation is dependent on time.
Merely your observations of time, your perception and memories are what define the world. No memory, you lose the world and the information connected to what you perceive. Memory exists outside of time, able to recall events and distant places.
The fundamental question that humans have is "why does my internal world" simultaneously affect and NOT affect the external world?
Even Einstein himself is scared when confronted with non-local action.
Where does primacy come from?
I would say God.
What would you say?
Some things are better as ideas as opposed to statements.
>what is the cause of the creator?
This kills the godgay. All they can do it repeat the argument/name of the argument and then whinge and ridicule.
The creator is an infinite always already existing being that provides the ground for being --
>who created God
Dissolves, God is always already, has always been, is the uncaused cause.
The infinity of causal chain implies infinite instances to reach the present. The “present time” is currently experienced. For there to be a “present time”, infinite causal chain is absurd. Therefore, there is one initial cause.
>believing the universe has a beginning
Yes but i hate him
yes. but i ate im
Reminder that sciencetrannies have yet to refute this.
Yes
Yeah.
Either the universe had a beginning, which in that case, it's probably God.
Or the universe always existed, which I don't buy. Something made us move, otherwise we wouldn't be moving.
Even though time doesn't exist, the functions we call time had to be created.
Basically, I find it moronic to not believe some kind of God exists.
Science has failed to prove much.
I don't believe in God himself, and if he does exist as described, I do not believe he is worthy of worship. But I do believe in some soul or spark of life that probably is supernatural in some way. Thermodynamics, medicine, statistics all point to the fact that there's something special about being alive.
Yes. I even believe that God made himself a man so that we could be lifted up to His glory. I think it's hard to deny the thematic truth in the Christian narrative once you fully understand it. So I wait for His second coming and the resurrection of the dead.
I am genuinely too intelligent to believe in God. It's a fun little sideshow though, I guess.
No. I went to Christian school for a long time. By the time I was an adult, the trauma from a life of indoctrination combined with actually reading the Bible led me to see it was all made up.
I feel better knowing that I'm not letting Sky Daddy down for not honoring traditions I always found dumb.
>Do you believe in God?
I'll accept the possibility of a supernatural deity along the lines of what the Deists believed, but I reject the god of the Bible/Koran just like I reject the Norse Gods or Greek Gods or whatever they believe in the East or on islands.
>I'll trust gay freemasons
What could go wrong?
This was such a stupid pretentious movie
Filtered
>Thus, fundamental as a man’s fear in the face of existence may be, though he has chosen from his earliest years to deny his presence in the world, he can not keep himself from existing, he can not efface the agonizing evidence of his freedom. That is why, as we have just seen, in order to get rid of his freedom, he is led to engage it positively. The attitude of the sub-man passes logically over into that of the serious man; he forces himself to submerge his freedom in the content which the latter accepts from society. He loses himself in the object in order to annihilate his subjectivity. This certitude has been described so frequently that it will not be necessary to consider it at length. Hegel has spoken of it ironically.
>In The Phenomenology of Mind he has shown that the sub-man plays the part of the inessential in the face of the object which is considered as the essential. He suppresses himself to the advantage of the Thing, which, sanctified by respect, appears in the form of a Cause, science, philosophy, revolution, etc.But the truth is that this ruse miscarries, for the Cause can not save the individual insofar as he is a concrete and separate existence. After Hegel, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche also railed at the deceitful stupidity of the serious man and his universe. And Being and Nothingness is in large part a description of the serious man and his universe.The serious man gets rid of his freedom by claiming to subordinate it to values which would be unconditioned. He imagines that the accession to these values likewise permanently confers value upon himself. Shielded with “rights,” he fulfills himself as a being who is escaping from the stress of existence. The serious is not defined by the nature of the ends pursued. A frivolous lady of fashion can have this mentality of the serious as well as an engineer.
>There is the serious from the moment that freedom denies itself to the advantage of ends which one claims are absolute.
what are you quoting from
The Ambiguity of Ethics by Simone de Beauvoir.
>Simone de Beauvior
Why quote a pedophile?
?
I am agnostic, I don't really know what is going on out there.
Kinos for this feel?
>I am agnostic
>I stopped believing in God when he stopped believing in me
> homies ITT can't comprehend that there has to be one thing uncreated to start creation
"But WHY?!"
>Because how the frick did it start without one?
Why would I
I have a very weak Christian faith filled with doubt. But there are moments when I genuinely believe that God is there.
>it's another "mommy forced me to go to church on sundays but then I read Jesus, Interrupted which empowered me to get my pseudo-intellectual revenge on those people while being an embarrassment to both atheists and theists myself" episode
Mere surmise, sir.
I used to but after some much pain even if I want to, my heart won't accept His presence. I just want peace bros, it isn't supposed to be this hard.
I not only believe in the lesser God of material things but the higher God of the spiritual realm. Daily reminder: reject the demiurge, embrace the spirit.
>LoveGod
>Love your neighbor as yourself.
>Forgive others who have wronged you.
>Love your enemies.
>Ask God for forgiveness of your sins.
>Jesus is the Messiah and was given the authority to forgive others.
>Repentance of sins is essential.
>Don’t be hypocritical.
>Don’t judge others.
>The Kingdom of God is near. It’s not the rich and powerful—but the weak and poor—who will inherit this kingdom.
These are the teachings of Christ as written in the Bible.
If you do not follow these teachings in your everyday life you are not a Christian.
If you cherrypick parts of the old testament to undermine these teachings you are not a Christian and are guilty of vanity.
teachings of Christ take presidence over all other types of knowledge.
"....One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
Mark 12.28
for the love of GOD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME THE EXACT SONG USED AT THE END OF THE MOVIE PLEASE
NOT WHAT THE SONG IS CALLED
I MEAN THE EXACT VERSION!!!!!!!!
please...
>oh bro its the original bro
no it isnt
>oh bro its just this, first result on youtube
no it isnt.
why do we have this thread every single day?
prove it
Several reasons. Some of them are made by 14 year old favela monkeys who have no concept of "off-topic", some are made by the people described here
, some are made by trolls fishing for (You)s and some are made by actual israeli bots to demoralize and sow dissent.