That quote rustle my jimmies every time by how moronic it is. That someone could unironically say that genuinely thinking they had a valid counterpoint makes me wanna drop nukes on middle America.
it's a good quote. the argument is terrible, but it's josh's very first argument he makes to the class. he's very anxious and unsure of himself at the beginning of the film, so it makes sense for his first argument to be weak
iirc the movie never has any good rhetoric between him and his professor. Doesn’t the professor get hit by a car and then become a believer as he dies? It’s been years since I’ve seen it.
But it hit a little too close to home when I was a preteen and my parents were taking me to a “nondenominational” Christian rock church. They would send all of the teenagers down to the basement during mass to discuss Jesus, which I liked a lot because there were older hot girls there. But I got in a shouting match with the teacher because I thought it was bullshit that a good person with a different religion, raised in a country where the other religion was the overwhelming normal, had to be dropped into hell. I used Ghandi as an example, and she told me Ghandi probably converted to Christianity as he was bleeding out. Made me so angry that I asked my parents to start dropping me off at the Catholic Church instead
>that a good person
So you're not familiar with the words of Jesus saying >There is none good but God in Heaven. No, not one.
Maybe instead of raging about how unfair God's judgment is and how you shouldn't have to be a witness or spread the gospel, you witness and spread the gospel, and if God wants to drop His mercy on someone you don't reach, leave that to Him.
sure, but "you can't prove it wrong" =/= it should be treated as true or even potentially true. we don't get to just make up any fricking nonsense we want and then claim that it's valid and should be taken seriously because people don't have the means to prove it wrong. that would be moronic.
>we don't get to just make up any fricking nonsense we want and then claim that it's valid and should be taken seriously
This is the core of the Atheist's folly. Engaging with material and concepts that are explicitly immaterial, while demanding an adherence to materialism. You already lost from the first second.
Religion or some form of a belief in a higher power is the only thing that keeps human beings sane. Atheists are mega cringe and very self destructive because all they have to fill a void of existential dread with is drugs, hedonism, and eventually suicide.
What amount of evidence is required to reject the null hypothesis that there is insufficient evidence that God exists?
You run into an empirical problem where there will never be enough (or the right) evidence to prove God exists due to Absolute Skepticism where all evidence, no matter the quantity or quality, must be rejected (Type-2 Error) i.e. everyone in history is wrong/crazy/delusional if they've had an experience of God. Philosophically this becomes an Ad Absurdum position to assume that all documented interactions throughout history were bogus. Epistemically, it only takes one account to be true for God to exist since the Universe can't be "a little pregnant" with God. Thus Absolute Skepticism becomes an irrational but essential position to take for those that to erroneously view the God question as an empirical one through evidence.
Cool. So when you're kid swears there's a monster under their bed that disappears whenever someone looks under there, let me know how many sleepless nights you have because you can't prove their ridiculous statement wrong.
White people are the only ones keeping the lie of racial equality alive. Black folk are only interested in how others treat them, not how they treat others.
The title of this movie is an insult to Nietzsche.
When i came across it I thought it would be a fun philosophical debate about the possibility of faith in the modern world but it ends up being rote American christian propaganda of the lowest caliber.
Frick this, the USSR had better christian movies than this.
>The combined expression “israeli Christian”, made up of two seemingly contradictory concepts, must strike readers not specially trained in theology or religious history as an oxymoron. For how can someone simultaneously be a follower of both Moses and Jesus? Yet at the beginning of the Christian movement, in the first hundred years of the post-Jesus era, encounters with israeli Christians distinguishable from Gentile Christians were a daily occurrence both in the Holy Land and in the diaspora.
>To understand the genesis of these notions, the first point to note is that during his days of preaching, Jesus of Nazareth addressed only israelites, “the lost sheep of Israel” (Mt 10:5; 15:24). His disciples were even expressly instructed not to approach Gentiles or Samaritans (Mt 10:5). On the few occasions that Jesus ventured beyond the boundaries of his homeland, he never proclaimed his gospel to pagans, nor did his disciples do so during his lifetime. The mission of the 11 apostles to “all the nations” (Mt 28:19) is a “post-Resurrection” idea. It appears to be of Pauline inspiration and is nowhere found in the Gospels apart from the spurious longer ending of Mark (Mk 16:15), which is missing from all the older manuscripts. Jesus’s own perspective was exclusively israeli; he was concerned only with israelites.
matthew 28:19-20 >Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Ask, and it shall be given unto you.
Seek, and ye shall find.
Knock, and the door will be opened unto you.
Are you sitting and seething at God for not making you a son of Abraham? If not, if you genuinely wish you were a child of God you can be.
As the prophet John the Baptist said, in Matthew 3 verse 7, >7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? >8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. >9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
Notice > I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
God has no respect of persons. He looks at the individual's heart. And if you want to be His child, you can.
First mover and other cosmological arguments. An effect needs a cause. It doesn't matter if there's no material proof. There must have been something which kickstarted our universe, created the elementary particles, created space, causes space to expand, created the space in which our space expands into, and so on.
an effect needs a cause, ipso facto, God needs to be muscled into existence by an even more potent God. God's God. Who God believes in and needs salvation from. When God dies he either goes to God Heaven or Hell where does that leave us
and so on God's God's God
2 years ago
Anonymous
Shit. Alert philosophy. This anon has busted it wide open.
>Every contingent fact has an explanation. >There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts. >Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact. >This explanation must involve a necessary being. >This necessary being is God.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm sorry but I believe in my God's God and there's nothing you can do to persuade me i have faith. God's God's not dead hes surely alive.
2 years ago
Anonymous
God's God's God slew God's God.
2 years ago
Anonymous
is-ought on its own blows the entire discipline out of the water in a single sentence
2 years ago
Anonymous
>God needs to be muscled into existence
Not if he's eternal and has always been there and will always be
2 years ago
Anonymous
>tfw when you have been around longer than God or God's God
Prime mover argument has always been self contradictory. Everything has a cause except the prime mover because special pleading. And the prime mover is God because even more special pleading.
The way I see it, if time had a beginning then it must be causeless. Because there is no time prior to the beginning of time in which a cause can take place.
The argument is just "I can't explain it, therefore God", which is the only argument for God. Dude used to be everywhere, until people stared finding explanations for things, and the guy retreated further and further into obscurity. Now he's hiding beyond the beginning of the universe, literally beyond ass possible perception. At least he's safe from any scrutiny there, I guess.
It's funny how the modern interpretation of god is indistinguishable from not existing at all.
Conveniently shunted to another dimension where he can't be observed or exert any detectable influence on the universe.
And you only get to see him once you're dead and can't tell anyone about it.
>if time had a beginning then it must be causeless.
Should we throw physics book to the trash?
What's the point of studying the rules of nature if there's a rule that also says "And some things doesn't have a cause and can happen just because!"
Everything is part of the same process. The water boiling on your stove is the same process as the formation of a star billions of light years away. That process is change itself, and it is causeless
2 years ago
Anonymous
The process just works in mysterious ways...
2 years ago
Anonymous
>and it is causeless
No it's not.
If you don't put water over 100°C it'll never boil.
You need the action of introducing heat to water, for it to boil.
We call that "cause"
2 years ago
Anonymous
>We call that "cause"
That's because you're dividing the totatilty of all there is into manageable bits in your mind for practical purposes, with a starting point and and an end point (turning up the heat and the water coming to a boil). It's an abstraction that only exists in your head. The universe isn't made up of separate parts that behave independently. It's just useful for humans to think of it in such terms. You boiling water is the same as the Big Bang in actuality
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It's an abstraction that only exists in your head.
No it's not, is observable and measurable.
I can measure the exact point in which water changes from one state to the other, no matter if I call it 100° or "frave avergaster".
And it'll never change state without the applied heat.
It doesn't "randomly happens or not happens".
It happens if all the factors exists in this reality and interact in this reality.
If I think of a 100° while holding a cup of water, it'll never boil, that's abstraction.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's nice, but has nothing to do with what I'm saying
2 years ago
Anonymous
has everything to do with it
boiling water is not an abstraction it can be measured and observed, water doesn't live in a constant changing state, it needs an action to make it boil.
If that action never presents, no water on the universe will ever boil.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Your points of observation are arbitrary. The point I was trying make is that distinguishing a process like boiling from everything else that occurs in the universe is something your mind is doing. In the ultimate sense there is only one process, THE process, which is change itself. And change doesn't need a cause, because there is no THING that is changing. You can't snapshot reality except in your mind, and then only as an abstraction. If you set two arbitrary points of observation and define what happens between them as a distinct phenomenon, you are negating the rest of the universe. Which is fine for practical purposes, but not so much for trying to understand the fundamental nature of the universe. Increasing the distance between your points of observation only gives you a larger snapshot, and will never lead to true understanding
2 years ago
Anonymous
>change doesn't need a cause, because there is no THING that is changing
So you won't mind if I pump a couple babies into your girlfriend or mom, don't you? It's just change it doesn't matter if it fricks me or you or my friends...
2 years ago
Anonymous
observations are not arbitrary you idiot, come on. if they were you literally wouldn't even be able to respond to this post, or for that matter navigate your body through the world around you. think for like five seconds before you type this shit out.
Where the frick did all these ostensible Catholics come from, and why are they so needlessly hostile and tribalistic? They had no presence here 5+ years ago, and now we have to endure constant whining about evangelicals and Martin Luther.
I'm not a Catholic, but it doesn't take a genius to see how there's an artless kitschyness to a lot of Protestant American culture. Its something that's only gotten more pronounced over time and in works explicitly dealing with faith.
I don't think the same is necessarily true of Protestant culture in general, European Protestantism still produced some great artists and composers, but even there what hasn't been hollowed out by the secularism of Protestant Europe is increasingly Americanised. So yeah, its definitely a pertinent cultural issue to discuss.
Protestant austerity has a lot to do with Protestants wanting to heavily go back to Judaism for deference on all theological matters, and israelites having very explicit rules against image-making. Protestant israelite-worship is also why they popularized circumcision among Amerimutts, while no European Catholics or Orthos do that shit and for several centuries the Catholics explicitly forbade it.
>First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the israelites, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know. >Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God. >Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.
Protestant countries went on to become irreligious and they drove the industrial revolution and capitalism. They created the shit we have now. They also believe in birth control, they invented eugenics and race science. They're autistic puritans who took everything to the extreme and now most of them are just irreligious and puritanical about Black personloving, homosexualry, shabos goying and vaccines.
Except the part where the whole French Revolution happened lmfao. Somehow it’s always the Protestants’ fault that Catholic France went left wing and orthodox Russia became completely Judaized as well as England and America. Protestants are moronic but Catholics will just ignore everything that contradicts their opinions and scream vehemently
These charismatic megachurch low Protestants are either "in" on the hustle or one day they realize the error of their ways and find a formal and Apostolic parish of one flavor or another.
But a great many of them are "in" on the hustle.
Just watched gods not dead 3 and thought it was a masterpiece. I remember getting stoned and going to the premiere of the first one at my local theater and laughed every time the audience clapped for jesus.
Anyone following the religion they were born into is a brainlet.
You were brainwashed as a child, and never learned to think for yourself.
When doubts start to creep in your body goes stiff and you start mindlessly chanting your programming like the fricking Manchurian Candidate.
That's not the argument. The argument is that atheists take a stance that is inherently unprovable and illogical. That in and of itself disqualifies them in any debate. The only logical stance, as an atheist, is agnosticism or 'I don't know'. Atheists have absolute hubris. This isn't a 'negative proves a positive' fallacy. It's a perfectly sound logical argument that you guys don't even understand. You're literally too stupid for the most basic foundational argument before even something as complex as 'is God real'.
it's just an asinine argument, there are an infinite amount of things that you cannot prove "don't exist." atheism is less about an answer on "does God exist?" and more of an assertion that the question is meaningless and unanswerable.
Anyone following the religion they were born into is a brainlet.
You were brainwashed as a child, and never learned to think for yourself.
When doubts start to creep in your body goes stiff and you start mindlessly chanting your programming like the fricking Manchurian Candidate.
>starts "thinking for himself" >immediately loses the ability to comprehend basic concepts like sex >then starts destroying his own society out of existential angst
oh yeah buddy, you're doing real well over there. I sure wanna emulate that.
You really can't comprehend Christian morality because you have it in your country but you just take it for granted like it always existed. Even atheists in the west operate within a Christian moral paradigm unknowingly
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof is in those with extraordinarily claims, in this case the religious.
Government is also a way to control masses, create divisions, and consolidate power anon
YOUR RIGTH TO OWNERSHIP consolidates power and creates division anon. And if what you own, it's also something masses needs, you also control masses in a fashion.
It's not something exclusive to religion, which is his only claim.
Atheists blindly believe in just as much bullshit and they're increasingly getting involved in really cringy shit like simulation theory which has 0 "scientific" proof and zero prophetic proof. Atheists also take refuge in demanding answers from others on impossible terms while they themselves have literally zero answers to anything This is why they take solace in self help and PUA bullshit now it's so cringe. Do you not see the OCEAN of youtube daddy figures profiting off these atheist losers?
>When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
But God proves Himself to me in my life and heart all the time.
What is this talk about no proof? I don't need to argue with anyone about God. My own life is my evidence. Most "debates" are vanity.
you don't need to spread your faith neither
as you said, those who want it get it and those who don't won't
if you are actively spreading your faith you should expect that question because it's an expected question from someone that comes from a godless background
I spread my faith by being a living witness ready to testify for an example, loving my neighbors as my self, not denying the name of Jesus, and not casting pearls before swine. If the person's heart and mind are closed and set against God it's not my job to open them. Let God judge them.
But spreading my faith to them that are open is my job, and being unafraid.
He knows His children. If a person was meant to wish their heart was open, to stop being angry, to wish to put their faith in God, He will make a way for them.
There is no one unjustly sent to destruction. No one.
>If the person's heart and mind are closed and set against God it's not my job to open them.
Then you shouldn't care about their beliefs. You are not even as much of a religious person as you think you are.
>Then you shouldn't care about their beliefs.
What do you mean by "care about their beliefs"? They're going to judgment without grace, as I understand it they're bound for Hell. I don't want that to happen to them, but I'm not going to cast pearls before swine, as I said.
They can harden their hearts with their relativist nonsense and be destroyed if they want to. God respects our freedom to make that choice.
>God respects our freedom to make that choice >but if you go against his wishes then suffer for it
doesn’t sound like he respects my choice. Sound more like he’s threatening me if I don’t do want he says
2 years ago
Anonymous
You can be the kind of person who is worthy of Heaven or not. Do you want to be? Ask God in sincerity.
Do you stomp your foot at the idea and think you shouldn't have to, think that really you should have been God instead?
Then you're not needed in Heaven.
Creation is a test to sort out humanity. It was all for the benefit of them that love Him.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You can be the kind of person who is worthy of Heaven or not
I wonder about something, feel free to correct me if you feel like it
The way I see it to be a follower of christ you have to praise Christ and follow his teachings
words and acts, to simplify
if you praise God but act in a sinful manner (greedy, envious, lustful, etc) then you don’t truly believe. To ACT as a christian is to truly believe. But where I wonder is; if the acts are so important then how important are the words? If God is great, then there is nothing I could possibly offer him that he can’t offer himself a billion times more. Why does he need my praises then? If I act as Jesus would without praising his name is that so wrong of a sin to be sent to Hell for it?
I say this because I believe in Jesus, but I don’t believe in God. At least not the God peddled by the big churches and certainly not your God of fire and brimstone.
We don’t believe in the same God, yet on paper we should act the same way
so why do I burn for it?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Creation is a test to sort out humanity
this is very much overstating the importance of humans on a cosmological scale. I mean the earth sure, I can see that....but ALL of creation? doubtful.
>What do you mean by "care about their beliefs"?
You literally said what I mean a couple posts ago. >Want it? Got it. >Don't? Don't.
Which circles us back the my first post. IF you are shoving your religion on other people you should expect non-believer questions like "Yeah but how do I know God exists?" because even if you 'understand' God's existence there are people who won't as they are not people of faith and if you can't deal with those completely logical questions it means one or two things
A) Your beliefs are tribalism based and take any confrontation about them as an attack rather
B) You doubt your own faith
2 years ago
Anonymous
>A) Your beliefs are tribalism based and take any confrontation about them as an attack rather
rather than a teaching experience for the people asking the question.*
I didn't say I understand God's existence so why would you put that in quotes? I said He proves Himself to me all the time. I know He is real.
And the problem people have is that cause and effect are reversed. If you want to know God, you can. People who don't, don't. And people who say they want to, but don't, are not being honest. That's a fact.
Faith comes first, and then evidence is overflowing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I didn't say I understand God's existence so why would you put that in quotes? I said He proves Himself to me all the time. I know He is real.
which is exactly why I said 'understand' not "understand" >If you want to know God, you can
What a way to trivialize religion, lol >People who don't, don't.
There's also people that don't want to know God and they still find it. >And people who say they want to, but don't, are not being honest.
This is wrong as well. There's people that lose faith literally all the time.
>Faith comes first, and then evidence is overflowing.
We are back again to the first point. If you can't deal with faithless people and their scrutiny then you are not truly a man of God. Faith is a complex mechanic and you can't just switch it on and off.
Many people meet God before they even remotely believe in Him which is exactly what causes them to believe.
My father-in-law is a pastor and I couldn't hide my power level when he started talking about how great this movie was. I probably sounded like an autistic nutjob ranting about bad logic and terrible characterization and Hercules' cheap death at the end. Any movie that torches straw men and treats it like a victory is just lazy bullshit.
the burden of proof is on the person who made the claim. there's literally no point in arguing further since god can't be proven to exist in the first place. everything else is a distraction from the fact that you're walking a long road from the cradle to the grave.
That quote rustle my jimmies every time by how moronic it is. That someone could unironically say that genuinely thinking they had a valid counterpoint makes me wanna drop nukes on middle America.
it's a good quote. the argument is terrible, but it's josh's very first argument he makes to the class. he's very anxious and unsure of himself at the beginning of the film, so it makes sense for his first argument to be weak
iirc the movie never has any good rhetoric between him and his professor. Doesn’t the professor get hit by a car and then become a believer as he dies? It’s been years since I’ve seen it.
But it hit a little too close to home when I was a preteen and my parents were taking me to a “nondenominational” Christian rock church. They would send all of the teenagers down to the basement during mass to discuss Jesus, which I liked a lot because there were older hot girls there. But I got in a shouting match with the teacher because I thought it was bullshit that a good person with a different religion, raised in a country where the other religion was the overwhelming normal, had to be dropped into hell. I used Ghandi as an example, and she told me Ghandi probably converted to Christianity as he was bleeding out. Made me so angry that I asked my parents to start dropping me off at the Catholic Church instead
it's unfortunate because non-believers seem to think the Catholics are the crazies instead of the protestants.
>that a good person
So you're not familiar with the words of Jesus saying
>There is none good but God in Heaven. No, not one.
Maybe instead of raging about how unfair God's judgment is and how you shouldn't have to be a witness or spread the gospel, you witness and spread the gospel, and if God wants to drop His mercy on someone you don't reach, leave that to Him.
It is factually true though, the militant atheist position is untenable.
sure, but "you can't prove it wrong" =/= it should be treated as true or even potentially true. we don't get to just make up any fricking nonsense we want and then claim that it's valid and should be taken seriously because people don't have the means to prove it wrong. that would be moronic.
>we don't get to just make up any fricking nonsense we want and then claim that it's valid and should be taken seriously
This is the core of the Atheist's folly. Engaging with material and concepts that are explicitly immaterial, while demanding an adherence to materialism. You already lost from the first second.
Prove that god is immaterial.
Matter doesn't exist, so...
only homeless people living out of a shopping cart say shit like this. you should get your head checked
No one believes in God. They are only pretending to because it is in their interest.
Thats a cope
Religion or some form of a belief in a higher power is the only thing that keeps human beings sane. Atheists are mega cringe and very self destructive because all they have to fill a void of existential dread with is drugs, hedonism, and eventually suicide.
He's correct. Believing there is a god takes as much faith as believing there is not a god. Agnosticism is the purely logical choice.
Prove purple flying unicorns don't exist on Ganymede.
I cannot. Magic Mare worship is the one true path.
What amount of evidence is required to reject the null hypothesis that there is insufficient evidence that God exists?
You run into an empirical problem where there will never be enough (or the right) evidence to prove God exists due to Absolute Skepticism where all evidence, no matter the quantity or quality, must be rejected (Type-2 Error) i.e. everyone in history is wrong/crazy/delusional if they've had an experience of God. Philosophically this becomes an Ad Absurdum position to assume that all documented interactions throughout history were bogus. Epistemically, it only takes one account to be true for God to exist since the Universe can't be "a little pregnant" with God. Thus Absolute Skepticism becomes an irrational but essential position to take for those that to erroneously view the God question as an empirical one through evidence.
Atheists BTFO.
this doesnt btfo anyone??? athiests have always agreed certain aspects of the bible are good things to live by. do not kill etc.
LALALALALALALALA I’M NOT LISTENING
t. mature world views
Based, jesus and mohammed were gay together, trust me you cant disprove that they werent gay
show me one pic of mohammed being gay
The clause in the middle is where josh went full moron.
Cool. So when you're kid swears there's a monster under their bed that disappears whenever someone looks under there, let me know how many sleepless nights you have because you can't prove their ridiculous statement wrong.
damn…that’s deep fr fr no cap ima start praying to atheist god
reductio ad absurdum, it's a much bigger question that we really don't have an answer to yet
>reductio ad absurdum
this homie casting harry potter spells lmao
Why are proties like this bros?
do you have the catholic movies vs protestant movies picture? with the jacked doge i think?
>Why are proties like this bros?
your religion is a joke lol
It wasn't catholics that pushed for eugenics and sterilization, and then flipped and fought for integration, that was the puritans
White people are the only ones keeping the lie of racial equality alive. Black folk are only interested in how others treat them, not how they treat others.
The title of this movie is an insult to Nietzsche.
When i came across it I thought it would be a fun philosophical debate about the possibility of faith in the modern world but it ends up being rote American christian propaganda of the lowest caliber.
Frick this, the USSR had better christian movies than this.
The USSR had one of the best Christian movies, period
Reminder that Jesus hated gentiles
>The combined expression “israeli Christian”, made up of two seemingly contradictory concepts, must strike readers not specially trained in theology or religious history as an oxymoron. For how can someone simultaneously be a follower of both Moses and Jesus? Yet at the beginning of the Christian movement, in the first hundred years of the post-Jesus era, encounters with israeli Christians distinguishable from Gentile Christians were a daily occurrence both in the Holy Land and in the diaspora.
>To understand the genesis of these notions, the first point to note is that during his days of preaching, Jesus of Nazareth addressed only israelites, “the lost sheep of Israel” (Mt 10:5; 15:24). His disciples were even expressly instructed not to approach Gentiles or Samaritans (Mt 10:5). On the few occasions that Jesus ventured beyond the boundaries of his homeland, he never proclaimed his gospel to pagans, nor did his disciples do so during his lifetime. The mission of the 11 apostles to “all the nations” (Mt 28:19) is a “post-Resurrection” idea. It appears to be of Pauline inspiration and is nowhere found in the Gospels apart from the spurious longer ending of Mark (Mk 16:15), which is missing from all the older manuscripts. Jesus’s own perspective was exclusively israeli; he was concerned only with israelites.
matthew 28:19-20
>Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Curious how Jesus never said that when he was alive.
Ask, and it shall be given unto you.
Seek, and ye shall find.
Knock, and the door will be opened unto you.
Are you sitting and seething at God for not making you a son of Abraham? If not, if you genuinely wish you were a child of God you can be.
As the prophet John the Baptist said, in Matthew 3 verse 7,
>7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
>8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.
>9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
Notice
> I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
God has no respect of persons. He looks at the individual's heart. And if you want to be His child, you can.
Thomas Aquinas proved the existence of God so long ago and no scientist has ever been able to refute him.
which is?
First mover and other cosmological arguments. An effect needs a cause. It doesn't matter if there's no material proof. There must have been something which kickstarted our universe, created the elementary particles, created space, causes space to expand, created the space in which our space expands into, and so on.
this is actually an argument against God though
how so?
an effect needs a cause, ipso facto, God needs to be muscled into existence by an even more potent God. God's God. Who God believes in and needs salvation from. When God dies he either goes to God Heaven or Hell where does that leave us
and so on God's God's God
Shit. Alert philosophy. This anon has busted it wide open.
>Every contingent fact has an explanation.
>There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
>Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
>This explanation must involve a necessary being.
>This necessary being is God.
I'm sorry but I believe in my God's God and there's nothing you can do to persuade me i have faith. God's God's not dead hes surely alive.
God's God's God slew God's God.
is-ought on its own blows the entire discipline out of the water in a single sentence
>God needs to be muscled into existence
Not if he's eternal and has always been there and will always be
>tfw when you have been around longer than God or God's God
Prime mover argument has always been self contradictory. Everything has a cause except the prime mover because special pleading. And the prime mover is God because even more special pleading.
The way I see it, if time had a beginning then it must be causeless. Because there is no time prior to the beginning of time in which a cause can take place.
The argument is just "I can't explain it, therefore God", which is the only argument for God. Dude used to be everywhere, until people stared finding explanations for things, and the guy retreated further and further into obscurity. Now he's hiding beyond the beginning of the universe, literally beyond ass possible perception. At least he's safe from any scrutiny there, I guess.
It's funny how the modern interpretation of god is indistinguishable from not existing at all.
Conveniently shunted to another dimension where he can't be observed or exert any detectable influence on the universe.
And you only get to see him once you're dead and can't tell anyone about it.
The way I see it, anyone believing in causeless things may as well be on the same page
>if time had a beginning then it must be causeless.
Should we throw physics book to the trash?
What's the point of studying the rules of nature if there's a rule that also says "And some things doesn't have a cause and can happen just because!"
Everything is part of the same process. The water boiling on your stove is the same process as the formation of a star billions of light years away. That process is change itself, and it is causeless
The process just works in mysterious ways...
>and it is causeless
No it's not.
If you don't put water over 100°C it'll never boil.
You need the action of introducing heat to water, for it to boil.
We call that "cause"
>We call that "cause"
That's because you're dividing the totatilty of all there is into manageable bits in your mind for practical purposes, with a starting point and and an end point (turning up the heat and the water coming to a boil). It's an abstraction that only exists in your head. The universe isn't made up of separate parts that behave independently. It's just useful for humans to think of it in such terms. You boiling water is the same as the Big Bang in actuality
>It's an abstraction that only exists in your head.
No it's not, is observable and measurable.
I can measure the exact point in which water changes from one state to the other, no matter if I call it 100° or "frave avergaster".
And it'll never change state without the applied heat.
It doesn't "randomly happens or not happens".
It happens if all the factors exists in this reality and interact in this reality.
If I think of a 100° while holding a cup of water, it'll never boil, that's abstraction.
That's nice, but has nothing to do with what I'm saying
has everything to do with it
boiling water is not an abstraction it can be measured and observed, water doesn't live in a constant changing state, it needs an action to make it boil.
If that action never presents, no water on the universe will ever boil.
Your points of observation are arbitrary. The point I was trying make is that distinguishing a process like boiling from everything else that occurs in the universe is something your mind is doing. In the ultimate sense there is only one process, THE process, which is change itself. And change doesn't need a cause, because there is no THING that is changing. You can't snapshot reality except in your mind, and then only as an abstraction. If you set two arbitrary points of observation and define what happens between them as a distinct phenomenon, you are negating the rest of the universe. Which is fine for practical purposes, but not so much for trying to understand the fundamental nature of the universe. Increasing the distance between your points of observation only gives you a larger snapshot, and will never lead to true understanding
>change doesn't need a cause, because there is no THING that is changing
So you won't mind if I pump a couple babies into your girlfriend or mom, don't you? It's just change it doesn't matter if it fricks me or you or my friends...
observations are not arbitrary you idiot, come on. if they were you literally wouldn't even be able to respond to this post, or for that matter navigate your body through the world around you. think for like five seconds before you type this shit out.
You choose the most peculiar things to latch on to, ignoring the context completely
this homie has been alive 20 years and babbles with absolute confidence about "star formation" because he saw some CGI with a black narrator
So this is science
why is the Christian God the prime mover?
You converted to Catholicism two weeks ago.
The pretence that American Christians are 'oppressed' is ludicrous.
Any measure of criticism is oppression
I can't argue with this, I've reconverted to being a Jehovah's Witness now.
catholics are even more cucked than protestants, wtf is this brown cope?
how?
>Worship a israelite
>Hate israelites
What did they mean by this?
Because Jesus stood up against the israeli establishment of his time, he laid out the way to be, and they had him killed.
Where the frick did all these ostensible Catholics come from, and why are they so needlessly hostile and tribalistic? They had no presence here 5+ years ago, and now we have to endure constant whining about evangelicals and Martin Luther.
Tradcucks are larpers who think it's hecking based to be a Catholic. They will convert to Islam before long.
It's the new big grift. Have you not noticed all the gay e-celebs jumping on the bandwagon?
Name 3
I've been Catholic my whole life and I see the big grift online being Orthodox larpers these days.
I always get a laugh when someone asks for proof from some homosexual typing moronic shit and then he doesn't reply
Always been here. Always will be. End of.
no you haven't you whiteboy summer gaylord
More Latinxs have internet access now
I'm not a Catholic, but it doesn't take a genius to see how there's an artless kitschyness to a lot of Protestant American culture. Its something that's only gotten more pronounced over time and in works explicitly dealing with faith.
I don't think the same is necessarily true of Protestant culture in general, European Protestantism still produced some great artists and composers, but even there what hasn't been hollowed out by the secularism of Protestant Europe is increasingly Americanised. So yeah, its definitely a pertinent cultural issue to discuss.
Protestant austerity has a lot to do with Protestants wanting to heavily go back to Judaism for deference on all theological matters, and israelites having very explicit rules against image-making. Protestant israelite-worship is also why they popularized circumcision among Amerimutts, while no European Catholics or Orthos do that shit and for several centuries the Catholics explicitly forbade it.
Are you actually fricking asking?
>First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the israelites, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.
>Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
>Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.
Protestant countries went on to become irreligious and they drove the industrial revolution and capitalism. They created the shit we have now. They also believe in birth control, they invented eugenics and race science. They're autistic puritans who took everything to the extreme and now most of them are just irreligious and puritanical about Black personloving, homosexualry, shabos goying and vaccines.
France
Except the part where the whole French Revolution happened lmfao. Somehow it’s always the Protestants’ fault that Catholic France went left wing and orthodox Russia became completely Judaized as well as England and America. Protestants are moronic but Catholics will just ignore everything that contradicts their opinions and scream vehemently
Veggie Tales does a better job at reaffirming faith than this trash
GODS NOT DEAD HE'S SURELY ALIVE
HES LIVING ON THE INSIDE
These charismatic megachurch low Protestants are either "in" on the hustle or one day they realize the error of their ways and find a formal and Apostolic parish of one flavor or another.
But a great many of them are "in" on the hustle.
That's why Evangelicals unironically have the right outlook.
>UHH LIFE JUST SPONTANEOUSLY BEGINS JUST BECAUSE.....OKAY?
Love Christian kinos.
Just watched gods not dead 3 and thought it was a masterpiece. I remember getting stoned and going to the premiere of the first one at my local theater and laughed every time the audience clapped for jesus.
ironically clapping for Jesus is pure kino
>Theists say that no one can disprove the existence of god and they are right, but i say no one can prove that god exists.
It's just a wordplay
it makes sense within the film
God is a language game
That's not the argument. The argument is that atheists take a stance that is inherently unprovable and illogical. That in and of itself disqualifies them in any debate. The only logical stance, as an atheist, is agnosticism or 'I don't know'. Atheists have absolute hubris. This isn't a 'negative proves a positive' fallacy. It's a perfectly sound logical argument that you guys don't even understand. You're literally too stupid for the most basic foundational argument before even something as complex as 'is God real'.
Bub you should know about basic logic before posting
it's just an asinine argument, there are an infinite amount of things that you cannot prove "don't exist." atheism is less about an answer on "does God exist?" and more of an assertion that the question is meaningless and unanswerable.
He's not making an argument, he's justing pointing out the fault in your argument.
Just get an Alan Watts audiobook and stop having these arguments
you should have outgrown Watts once you turned 18.
We should have outgrown Cinemaphile once we turned 18, yet here we are
Anyone following the religion they were born into is a brainlet.
You were brainwashed as a child, and never learned to think for yourself.
When doubts start to creep in your body goes stiff and you start mindlessly chanting your programming like the fricking Manchurian Candidate.
You're the same
>learned to think for yourself
Absolute meme of the neoreligion
>starts "thinking for himself"
>immediately loses the ability to comprehend basic concepts like sex
>then starts destroying his own society out of existential angst
oh yeah buddy, you're doing real well over there. I sure wanna emulate that.
>I don't like trannies
>therefore god
christian philosophy has really taken a nosedive in the modern era
You want to think for yourself because you want to be a selfish lazy piece of shot and not feel bad
You really can't comprehend Christian morality because you have it in your country but you just take it for granted like it always existed. Even atheists in the west operate within a Christian moral paradigm unknowingly
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof is in those with extraordinarily claims, in this case the religious.
It's not all protestants. It's just the low church ones who play guitar during their services.
>I don't like trannies
>therefore god
i really want to fling him over a table and lick his butthole. burppp.
I sure hope there is a god , he owes me answers
Chudbros, how do we refute this...
Government is also a way to control masses, create divisions, and consolidate power anon
YOUR RIGTH TO OWNERSHIP consolidates power and creates division anon. And if what you own, it's also something masses needs, you also control masses in a fashion.
It's not something exclusive to religion, which is his only claim.
Chudbros, how do we refute this
>Protestants are suc-
Atheists blindly believe in just as much bullshit and they're increasingly getting involved in really cringy shit like simulation theory which has 0 "scientific" proof and zero prophetic proof. Atheists also take refuge in demanding answers from others on impossible terms while they themselves have literally zero answers to anything This is why they take solace in self help and PUA bullshit now it's so cringe. Do you not see the OCEAN of youtube daddy figures profiting off these atheist losers?
Dont ask how but I have the casting announcement for this movie
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
>When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
But God proves Himself to me in my life and heart all the time.
What is this talk about no proof? I don't need to argue with anyone about God. My own life is my evidence. Most "debates" are vanity.
southern baptist schlock vs catholic kino
you can't disprove I didn't frick your mother therefor I fricked your mother
i can, THOUGH
no you can't
I literally fricked your mother
Again... why do I need to "prove God exists" to someone who hates Him and doesn't want to know Him?
He makes Himself known to them that love Him.
Want it? Got it.
Don't? Don't.
you don't need to spread your faith neither
as you said, those who want it get it and those who don't won't
if you are actively spreading your faith you should expect that question because it's an expected question from someone that comes from a godless background
I spread my faith by being a living witness ready to testify for an example, loving my neighbors as my self, not denying the name of Jesus, and not casting pearls before swine. If the person's heart and mind are closed and set against God it's not my job to open them. Let God judge them.
But spreading my faith to them that are open is my job, and being unafraid.
He knows His children. If a person was meant to wish their heart was open, to stop being angry, to wish to put their faith in God, He will make a way for them.
There is no one unjustly sent to destruction. No one.
>If the person's heart and mind are closed and set against God it's not my job to open them.
Then you shouldn't care about their beliefs. You are not even as much of a religious person as you think you are.
>Then you shouldn't care about their beliefs.
What do you mean by "care about their beliefs"? They're going to judgment without grace, as I understand it they're bound for Hell. I don't want that to happen to them, but I'm not going to cast pearls before swine, as I said.
They can harden their hearts with their relativist nonsense and be destroyed if they want to. God respects our freedom to make that choice.
>God respects our freedom to make that choice
>but if you go against his wishes then suffer for it
doesn’t sound like he respects my choice. Sound more like he’s threatening me if I don’t do want he says
You can be the kind of person who is worthy of Heaven or not. Do you want to be? Ask God in sincerity.
Do you stomp your foot at the idea and think you shouldn't have to, think that really you should have been God instead?
Then you're not needed in Heaven.
Creation is a test to sort out humanity. It was all for the benefit of them that love Him.
>You can be the kind of person who is worthy of Heaven or not
I wonder about something, feel free to correct me if you feel like it
The way I see it to be a follower of christ you have to praise Christ and follow his teachings
words and acts, to simplify
if you praise God but act in a sinful manner (greedy, envious, lustful, etc) then you don’t truly believe. To ACT as a christian is to truly believe. But where I wonder is; if the acts are so important then how important are the words? If God is great, then there is nothing I could possibly offer him that he can’t offer himself a billion times more. Why does he need my praises then? If I act as Jesus would without praising his name is that so wrong of a sin to be sent to Hell for it?
I say this because I believe in Jesus, but I don’t believe in God. At least not the God peddled by the big churches and certainly not your God of fire and brimstone.
We don’t believe in the same God, yet on paper we should act the same way
so why do I burn for it?
>Creation is a test to sort out humanity
this is very much overstating the importance of humans on a cosmological scale. I mean the earth sure, I can see that....but ALL of creation? doubtful.
>What do you mean by "care about their beliefs"?
You literally said what I mean a couple posts ago.
>Want it? Got it.
>Don't? Don't.
Which circles us back the my first post. IF you are shoving your religion on other people you should expect non-believer questions like "Yeah but how do I know God exists?" because even if you 'understand' God's existence there are people who won't as they are not people of faith and if you can't deal with those completely logical questions it means one or two things
A) Your beliefs are tribalism based and take any confrontation about them as an attack rather
B) You doubt your own faith
>A) Your beliefs are tribalism based and take any confrontation about them as an attack rather
rather than a teaching experience for the people asking the question.*
I didn't say I understand God's existence so why would you put that in quotes? I said He proves Himself to me all the time. I know He is real.
And the problem people have is that cause and effect are reversed. If you want to know God, you can. People who don't, don't. And people who say they want to, but don't, are not being honest. That's a fact.
Faith comes first, and then evidence is overflowing.
>I didn't say I understand God's existence so why would you put that in quotes? I said He proves Himself to me all the time. I know He is real.
which is exactly why I said 'understand' not "understand"
>If you want to know God, you can
What a way to trivialize religion, lol
>People who don't, don't.
There's also people that don't want to know God and they still find it.
>And people who say they want to, but don't, are not being honest.
This is wrong as well. There's people that lose faith literally all the time.
>Faith comes first, and then evidence is overflowing.
We are back again to the first point. If you can't deal with faithless people and their scrutiny then you are not truly a man of God. Faith is a complex mechanic and you can't just switch it on and off.
Many people meet God before they even remotely believe in Him which is exactly what causes them to believe.
My father-in-law is a pastor and I couldn't hide my power level when he started talking about how great this movie was. I probably sounded like an autistic nutjob ranting about bad logic and terrible characterization and Hercules' cheap death at the end. Any movie that torches straw men and treats it like a victory is just lazy bullshit.
And you ignore the rest of my response? I need to go to bed anyway. Goodnight
wow i never thought about it like that . you know what op you are right. praise allah
Prove that he does then.
nta but i can give you a crackhead explanation for god
we don't. we admit defeat. we worship morb now... only morb can save us
>YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT
Bro this is exactly how the Prehistoric Planet shills argue. This isn't just religion, this is half of science now too.
the burden of proof is on the person who made the claim. there's literally no point in arguing further since god can't be proven to exist in the first place. everything else is a distraction from the fact that you're walking a long road from the cradle to the grave.