atheists, this is your last chance to refute this.

atheists, this is your last chance to refute this.

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    If time travels infinitely fast (relative to our time), then the past can go infinitely far back.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      It doesn't make sense for time to travel like it doesn't make sense to say that a road travels. A road has a length, and a road is traveled upon, but the road itself is not moving, is not traveling.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      i believe in higher power i.e. god. i just dont believe in your god, or any religion's version of god

      Saying "God did it" doesn't answer any questions, it just creates more questions about where God came from. God is not a useful theory.

      >WHY DOESN'T THE ANSWER TO THIS EXPLAIN THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING ELSE?! I NEED TO KNOW EVERYTHING NOW, NOW, NOW!!!!!!

      OPs image doesn’t even make sense, he’s refuting arguments he himself made up with answers that make zero sense.

      Time, space and matter were all created simultaneously. This created a medium in which form/data was now allowed to exist. The past is always happening as is the future and present. It’s that simple

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >OPs image doesn’t even make sense, he’s refuting arguments he himself made up with answers that make zero sense.
        >
        >Time, space and matter were all created simultaneously. This created a medium in which form/data was now allowed to exist. The past is always happening as is the future and present. It’s that simple
        Everyone knows this were all just in here furiously jerking off mentally. It's not like you can actually argue with a christgay to the point they'd change their mind.

    • 6 months ago
      DEDZERO

      i believe in higher power i.e. god. i just dont believe in your god, or any religion's version of god

      Saying "God did it" doesn't answer any questions, it just creates more questions about where God came from. God is not a useful theory.

      >WHY DOESN'T THE ANSWER TO THIS EXPLAIN THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING ELSE?! I NEED TO KNOW EVERYTHING NOW, NOW, NOW!!!!!!

      The experience of time is an exercise in limitation. Limitation of knowledge. Not knowing what/when/where/why/how + not knowing what it feels/felt like in vivid detail, not knowing what it felt like “the first time” (having only experienced it once in memory), etc. There’s a million reasons why the past does exist always, and when we question why we aren’t stuck in it infinitely it always comes down to the inherent limitations within the human condition.

  2. 6 months ago
    Onanymous

    i believe in higher power i.e. god. i just dont believe in your god, or any religion's version of god

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Since you reject god and Jesus, don’t be surprised if they reject you

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        ugly woman tier cope.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Saying "God did it" doesn't answer any questions, it just creates more questions about where God came from. God is not a useful theory.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >WHY DOESN'T THE ANSWER TO THIS EXPLAIN THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING ELSE?! I NEED TO KNOW EVERYTHING NOW, NOW, NOW!!!!!!

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        yeah, so just say "i don't know" and stop being a gay

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, I literally just told you that all that exists without God is the universe.

      And it makes no sense to ask where God came from if he is timeless, it's a loaded question.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      HABEEB IT!

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not doing this anymore next year. I only came back here to impart this knowledge.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP is correct. If the past were eternal, we would never have reached the present
    OP is arguing against a straw man. No rational atheist argues for an eternal past since Einstein’s theory of relativity’ which btfo the eternal past. Now atheists are forced to argue the universe popped into being out of nothing, which is hilarious, because they have to say something absurd with a straight face and are probably vaccinated

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I didn't say that, I said that there couldn't have been not enough time for the present to happen yet before it did with an infinite past.
      It's a different logic which is much simpler to follow.
      atheists can reply to the logic that you said I supposedly used with the numbers analogy, that they are infinite.
      But you can't use the same argument against the logic in the Alpha argument because numbers don't take time to get anywhere, it doesn't even make sense to say that they are getting anywhere, it's a concept. So it doesn't equate in anyway.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Numbers are a theoretical construct; they do not exist. So that wouldn’t be a good argument. The absurdity of an eternal past was a philosophical argument against the eternal universe for hundreds of years before Einstein.
        Again, atheists basically don’t argue for an eternal past anymore. The eternal past was basically a foundational scientific law before Einstein’s theory of relativity.. another example of why science is not, and never will be, a substitute for theology and philosophy. Science is like the shifting sands

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Numbers are a theoretical construct; they do not exist. So that wouldn’t be a good argument. The absurdity of an eternal past was a philosophical argument against the eternal universe for hundreds of years before Einstein.
          >Again, atheists basically don’t argue for an eternal past anymore. The eternal past was basically a foundational scientific law before Einstein’s theory of relativity.. another example of why science is not, and never will be, a substitute for theology and philosophy. Science is like the shifting sands
          Time isn't exactly theoretical but the way we catalogue and categorize it somewhat is. Future, past, and present are inexact but useful tools for communicating with other people. To say that the past is eternal puts far more value on our limited perception than is merited. So to try to use a human idea of a human perception of something that we understand in an extremely limited fashion to prove the existence of a being outside the boundaries of our perception is lunacy.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The moronic notion that everything blipped into existence from nothing is baseless and moronic. Try a different word you fricking moron.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Modern theories say that time it's an human perception and may not exist in natureb

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >scientists say
        >experts believe

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Everything has to be said/written to be communicated

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Even retarted things like what you just wrote

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Search it. It's the new thing
            https://theconversation.com/time-might-not-exist-according-to-physicists-and-philosophers-but-thats-okay-181268

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Just like money? That doesn't make it not-real

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Time is a relative demention tied to space. That is why people who are not moronic use the term "space-time." The "past" before there was space-time is not something that can happen. The moronic notion of something "before" the expansion of space-time is moronic. There was no time and so no "before" the Big Bang. You are an idiot who is to moronic to know you are an idiot. If there are gods, they would be ashamed they did something to make it so a moron like you could happen.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Again, if it is a property of universes to “pop into being out of nothing” then we would observe it happening all the time.
      We do not.
      What you are proposing, that the universe pops into being out of nothing with all constants and quantities in place, is worse than magic

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Do you even know what a universe is? How would we be able to detect a different one? When a thing can't be detected, people who are not moronic say, "I don't know how to detect it" and moronic people say "therefor magic pixies pop out of my rectum and squirt love jucies on my never dying soul."

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          The same way you detect the one you’re in, dumbass. Nice retort, except it wasn’t nice. It was retarted

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            How about this? You go learn and be less moronic and then come back to this thread and apologies for your stupidity.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        This same logic applies to god dipshit. Things can be observed like that on a quantum scale, but where is the evidence for god that isn’t just “but he’s actually infinite and beyond space time and he makes crazy shit happen all the time with miracle and prayers, and here’s this book god wrote on how you should behave and it was totally written by people possessed by god so it was his word and not theirs”. Go frick yourself, you come on here with your copy paste argument shit just to wallow in an argument thread. Christians lost the debate years ago which is why debates like that rarely happen anymore.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, it doesn’t apply to God because God doesn’t have a BEGINNING
          Only that which has a BEGINNING has a cause.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Quantum mechanics isn't nothing. A mechanical function is something which takes time, so yes, it's very much begging the question.
          Unless quantum mechanics itself began to exist.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Atheism is cringe

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            atheists dont "debate judaism" because the only people who know the tenets and holy writings of judaism are israelites lol

            being anti abrahamic religion is pretty generic in scope anyway....really shitty attempt at gotcha logic but hey you dont have original thoughts you just repeat what others say

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jews run away from debates by saying they are "racially" israeli not "religiously" israeli. They do this because they are smart enough to understand how fricking moronic trying to argue in favor of religion makes you, something most other religions are too stupid to figure out.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is that you, Ass Toy?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      If the universe along with time began to exist, then I don't see no problem with saying BEFORE the universe existed.
      >But BEFORE presupposes time.
      Only morons like you say that.
      How can something happen without a BEFORE it happened?
      It's the equivocation fallacy.
      Example: All trees have bark. All dogs bark. Therefore, all dogs are trees.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I don't see any problem

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >How can something happen without a BEFORE it happened?
        I don't know. "I don't know" is a better answer than "magic pixies." The thing I can demonstrate to be true is that there was no such thing as time "before" the Big Bang. It can be demostrated by the same data, mathmatics and experamints that people who are not moronic have done ever sense moronic superstitious idiots lost the ability to kill people for pretending that their moronic superstition is true.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The thing I can demonstrate to be true is that there was no such thing as time "before" the Big Bang.

          you certainly can't. that isn't even the perspective held by physicists anymore.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are way to moronic to know what "physicists" hold, stupid. All the physicists I know don't "hold perspectives" they demonstrate there experaments and data and results, stupid.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            oh they demonstrate there experaments is that what all the physicists you know do 🙂

            okay

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's a rhetorical question ya moron.
          It's a logical contradiction for something to happen without a before it happen, ya humongous moronic Black person.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are to stupid to know what logic is. It would be logical for you to stop demonstraing that you are a moron. But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that your moronic bullshit is true. How would that moronic nonsense prove gods did something rather than some non-stupid superstitious thing "before" the Big Band as a cause? Whould some unknown natural thing be a more likely thing than some stupid space magic user waving a magic beastalk be more likely?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You are to stupid to know what logic is

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lay off the booze Pontiac

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The moronic notion that everything blipped into existence from nothing is baseless and moronic. Try a different word you fricking moron.

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is there any proof for God that doesn’t boil down to “trust me bro”?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      A simulation requires a simulator

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Competition.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      The fact the concept of God exists is proof enough. What christcucks get absolutely wrong is that God is all good and only all good. God is all good, but he is all evil as well. The true love of God shines through stories and myths.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        God is good. Being all-powrful is good.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Power itself is an evil force. Power is for dominating others, and in God's case dominating all things.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dominating is a Yang-like energy. Which I consider it to be good.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is good and it is evil. Both.

            Often times atheism is cured with a single dose. That's why it was so dangerous to secular society, it cuts in on their turf.

            Shrooms do in fact cure atheism in a single dose. The realization that all we have in this life is ourselves, our family, and God is massive.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am an atheist and have done shrooms many times.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Power is Good.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        unicorn

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The problem with all these first cause arguments is that they present a paradox, then solve the paradox with magic. They say God instead of magic. I could give the same argument and reach the conclusion that the universe was created by universe creating faires that poop themselves out of existence one their work is done.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      It’s an inference to the best explanation, moron. “Science” says the universe popped into being out of nothing. That’s a worse explanation, considering all the many and varied arguments for a creator.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Big bang does not say everything came from nothing. It says all matter already existed. You might say well how could that be, and I would simply ask you the same about your choice of magic. Turns out we just don't know how it could be. Which makes all first cause arguments a god of the gaps argument, people stuff whatever they want in there. Muslims use your same argument as "proof" that Allah exists.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Again, you are arguing for the eternity of the past by saying everything always existed. OP BTFO’d you and you’re too stupid to realize it. Retart

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm saying we don't have an explanation for how to resolve the paradox of creation, and "magic" is not a valid solution. Your essential a child smearing peanut butter into the gaps of a jigsaw puzzle.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Logic must be magical to your kind huh?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you think god is not being magical? Just write down for me that you think no magic is required for your vision of God to exist so we can all have a good laugh

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Something can't come from nothing so it has to come from something else.
            >MAGICAL THINKING! WAAHHHH!!
            TF?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Paradox applies to you
            >Paradox doesn't apply to me because I only I can use magic

            Creation is an unsolved mystery. We don't know how to solve it. Lots of things in science are currently unsolved with no clear path forward on how to solve it. For example we don't know how gravity is able to have influence on objects so incredibly far away from each other. But it would be absolutely moronic to try and publish a paper saying gravity works via magic, and then give no explanation as to how magic works. We have simply swapped out the terms and left the problem in the exact same state.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Paradox exists if Y so Y isn't the case.
            >WAHHHH!!! MAGICAL THINKING!!!! MAGICAL THINKING!!! MAGICAL THINKING!!! WAHHHH!!! MAGICAL THINKING!!!! MAGICAL THINKING!!! MAGICAL THINKING!!! WAHHHH!!! MAGICAL THINKING!!!! MAGICAL THINKING!!! MAGICAL THINKING!!! WAHHHH!!! MAGICAL THINKING!!!! MAGICAL THINKING!!! MAGICAL THINKING!!! WAAAAH!!!!
            Science doesn't help you answer the question, its infinitely begging the question.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh look the pigeon is shitting on the chessboard before he knocks it over.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You seems to be having a breakdown. Take a few breaths to compose yourself, it's just words on a screen. Everything will be ok. Let me try a classic rebuttal to this ancient argument, courtesy of Carl Sagan.

            If the general picture of an expanding universe and a Big Bang is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions. What were conditions like at the time of the Big Bang? What happened before that? Was there a tiny universe, devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly created from nothing? How does that happen? In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because the universe had a definite beginning in space-time you fricking retart. That is what Einstein proved and Vilenkin punctuated.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok great, the universe has a start. Now prove magic exists, and that the magic is in the form of an intelligent, thinking, agent that is all powerful and meddles with reality.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Again, RETART, nobody is “proving” anything or trying to “prove” anything. It’s an inference to the best explanation. Clearly the BEST explanation is NOT “popped into being out of nothing.”

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Clearly the BEST explanation is NOT “popped into being out of nothing.”
            But that's your explanation for God, or perhaps you would say "God has always existed". If you can say these thought terminating arguments then so can I and oh look we are right back where we started.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The universe can be timeless.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe, don't know.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            We do know that you're moronic though. You just demonstrated it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You’re retart
            God has no beginning nor does he have an end. You had a beginning, but there’s no end to you retartedness

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Rules for thee but not for mee

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Mental midget.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Of course Universe didn't pop in out of nothing. This is not what Big Bang model says. Also, we can only speculate what could have been before Universe, as we know and understand it, came into being. Perhaps we actually inside a black hole? Therefore, the many-worlds interpretation comes into force. Every black hole means creation of a baby Universe, infalling matter of the mother Universe is causing the inflation to happen, which is precisely how black holes appear to grow and would explain accelerated expansion of our Universe (dark energy meaning energy coming in from mother Universe causing our "black hole" to grow faster). Perhaps it is futile to look for a "prime mover". The Universe itself had a beginning, but for now, everything beyond the moment time and space came into being is pure speculation, where you can insert black holes, God, quantum fluctuations, whatever. Neither is proven, I'd leave it at that.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Prove a beginning without precisely that.
            You defeated yourself.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The atheist brain overloads with information and cognitive dissonance when God's existence is forced to register. It physically cannot compute, resulting in a data reset where they forget everything argued so far. What is this phenomenon called?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lack of spiritual experiences or ascension. Atheists stop being atheist if you give them shrooms and tell them they'll meet God during their high.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Often times atheism is cured with a single dose. That's why it was so dangerous to secular society, it cuts in on their turf.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is magical if god goes away with logic and unlike the universe does not need a beginning.
            If we are to be honest and require everything to have a beginning so does god need to have one.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the universe does not need a beginning.
            The establishment view of cosmology does.
            It's called the Big Bang

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yep and Vilenkin proved it has a beginning in space-time. It was the death knell for atheism.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Boy how the atheists love to seethe when they learn their creation model originated from a catholic priest Lemaitre

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If something cannot exist with infinite time, then something timeless cannot exist with infinite time.
            atheism is cognitive dissonance resulting from indignance.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >atheism is cognitive dissonance resulting from indignance.
            atheism is asking someone to prove that their magic is actually magic and not delusion. That's all, you don't like it because you cannot prove anything, because it doesn't exist.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Atheism stems from narcissism, the belief that man is the most powerful force in the universe.
            Notice how society follows the same trend. While Christians focused on eternity construct cities and cathedrals that stand for millenia, the seculars can barely manage to maintain the infrastructure handed to them.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Atheism stems from narcissism, the belief that man is the most powerful force in the universe.
            >Notice how society follows the same trend. While Christians focused on eternity construct cities and cathedrals that stand for millenia, the seculars can barely manage to maintain the infrastructure handed to them.
            Atheism stems from the ability to think. Christians choose to be unthinking golems who believe they're going to be eternally rewarded. That's narcissism.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >only atheists know how to think
            See, there's that narcissism.
            The problem with atheists is that they can't articulate between a literal sky-daddy and the realization that religion is.a necessary glue to hold civilizations together.
            Secular/hedonist societies never last more than a few generations, which we're getting a front-row seat for today

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is there to articulate?
            Religion is necessary to give the unthinking masses a social cohesion glue, but only because the real lessons taught in those religions, if distilled and purified, would be too abstract for the unthinking masses to comprehend.
            What's the problem here? Using cringe psychology terms is boring, that whole field is a meme.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Religion is necessary to give the unthinking masses a social cohesion glue, but only because the real lessons taught in those religions, if distilled and purified, would be too abstract for the unthinking masses to comprehend.
            Agreed. We instinctively encoded deep wisdom into stories the same as we fo today.

            >See, there's that narcissism.
            You don't know the meaning of that word at all.
            >The problem with atheists is that they can't articulate between a literal sky-daddy and the realization that religion is.a necessary glue to hold civilizations together.
            That's a subjective view that you hold not a truth, nor does it prove anything.
            >Secular/hedonist societies never last more than a few generations, which we're getting a front-row seat for today
            The fact that you say that with a straight face when history completely refutes you on every point shows the problem.

            Give some examples then of successful historical civiliations that were non-religious, my intellectual friend.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Give some examples then of successful historical civiliations that were non-religious, my intellectual friend.
            Ancient Greece and Rome both refute you just fine. The most you can truly say of their religion is that they enjoyed the holidays, Rome until christianity shit the place up being tolerant of every religion so long as you honored their gods proves the lack of need of even a true state religion to "glue" things together. Christianity being one of the actual large reason Rome fell, born nation wreckers you.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Ancient Greece and Rome
            Were Polytheistic, silly. Do they not teach greek+roman mythology in school anymore?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Were Polytheistic, silly. Do they not teach greek+roman mythology in school anymore?
            Polytheistic is a nice way to say they liked orgies and drinking.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So exactly like modern christians then?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Give some examples then of successful historical civiliations that were non-religious, my intellectual friend.
            China. They were never religious as a whole country. Every single village had their own gods and ancestor spirits and noone cared. Even when christians came over they accepted christ and saints as part of ancestors pantheon. Of course till the moment when christians started going apeshit against every single non christian tradition so they just killed them. And still to this day they are atheists who just worship ancesotrs and historical figures.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not a great example since they weren't reeally secular, just scattered warring factions from competing religious factions.
            Modern China, maybe, but communists tend to worship+diefy the state and their leaders
            >And still to this day they are atheists who just worship ancesotrs and historical figures.
            Religion provided a clear evolutionary advantage over those that didn't practice, so it's not surprising at all to see even atheists engaging in religious behavior

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yea we agree but I don't understand why you think it's a problem for an atheist to understand this? We've only had the printing press for a few hundred years, the secularism of society is an inevitable consequence of the democratization of knowledge regardless of past failures. The question is, can the pleb class handle secularism or is it something that leads to their suicide? This is an open question, we might learn the answer within our lifetime.
            When it comes to the elite class, it doesn't really seem to matter as long as they are able to have a source of meaning and ambition either way.
            The point here was to argue the Truth, and not that which is more efficient. If it is more efficient for the middle class to mass suicide (this is partially what white genocide is all about) so a new middle class of mindless religious pakistani servants takes their place, then maybe that's the path forward. But that's inconsequential to whether or not the religion itself is true.
            In other words, the strongest possible society is a secular one, we just haven't figured it out yet.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >See, there's that narcissism.
            You don't know the meaning of that word at all.
            >The problem with atheists is that they can't articulate between a literal sky-daddy and the realization that religion is.a necessary glue to hold civilizations together.
            That's a subjective view that you hold not a truth, nor does it prove anything.
            >Secular/hedonist societies never last more than a few generations, which we're getting a front-row seat for today
            The fact that you say that with a straight face when history completely refutes you on every point shows the problem.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Secular/hedonist societies never last more than a few generations

            Oh so you don't actually think god exists, your just pretending to because you think it's what's best for society. Very noble of you. However this discussion is about the underlying truth of our reality, not about what is best for society.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's a different topic but it's important to articulate truth vs utility.
            The geocentric model wasn't real but it was accurate enough to predict eclipses.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That’s why grown-ups make inferences to the best explanation, Timmy.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >I don't see no problem with saying BEFORE the universe existed

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      No u
      You can have negative time when referencing a linear event (causality) that has a clearly marked beginning.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    what do you want refuted not reading your wall of gobbledeasiatic

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >couldn't get through one sentence without a double negative

    sorry but that's a no from me

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      The argument is all about exploring the impossibility of the contrary of God's existence.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the contrary of

        why do you want to argue with people when you sound like a fricking idiot who can't speak english?

        of course you believe in god, like all low-iq people. you did not arrive at that through analysis, discourse or reading, you just automatically believe because you were told to. you cannot "Debate" you hold no intellectual value as a person

        you are brown

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Which gods are you suggesting would exist if your bullshit was not bullshit?

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    We are in a social matrix of humanity, built upon a matrix of base reality.

    A HOLOGRAPHIC matrix, a light matrix. Light is the purest form of energy. All the ancient teachings start making sense, time slows down as my mind frees, but it's disturbing. I feel too free. I feel alone, like my mind is just a manifestation of creation contained in my skull, floating through space with the rest of this godforsaken rock.

    MENTALISM and the law of thoughts manifesting into reality (attraction) becomes obvious. Zinuru! Follow the circle, as the emerald tablets said. It makes sense.

    HERMES, THRICE GREAT predicted a great war after man harnessed the power of lightning. World War 1 happened within 50 years of mainstream electrical adaption. The ancients were great ones.

    I KNOW GOD or Gods are real, I know there are multiple dimensions as science states and yet, I don't believe we travel there after death. We return to non-existence.

    BEFORE you or I were born, 14 billion years passed in the blink of an eye. The death of us may as well be the end of the universe as far as we are individually concerned, time will exist though we will no longer be an active observer of it. Time is relevant to the observer as Einstein stated, afterall.

    HOW does this make you feel anonymous readers? How does this make you feel anon? We are the reptiles, once seen it cannot be forgot. Spread the good word. Zinuru!

    FOLLOW the circle!.

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    You just listed a bunch of things you can neither prove/disprove. So what should be refuted? You got nothing.

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The universe is weird as frick, deal with it

    Religion is just stories written by man during times of very limited world views to make sense of shit. The first god was probably the sun, which at least made some logical sense.
    Most of them even resemble from other religions, they are stolen like memes.
    Many have come and gone. None of it is real. Your questions that you want answered are likely completely irrelevant to how reality operates

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >post full of wild fantasies with no reason behind
      >666
      checks out

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        checkmate

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    This was already debunked multiple times, you are moronic. Why do you keep posting this thread even though you were refuted multiple times?
    Are you just proud of being a liar or are you really just moronic? I don't feel like searching the archives for the dozens of times your childish point got refuted but surely someone else will do it. I truly don't get it why you would keep posting this after being refuted over and over and over again. Don't you understand your argument is dumb 90 IQ trash and there are better arguments for God than this?
    You're a joke anon.

    So I will refute it again for the 100th time. Your initial premise is wrong. Who are you to tell me what the universe can or can not be in its initial stage, a stage that falls completely outside of our comprehension? Who are you to tell me what "time" is or that it needs a "beginning" or that it cannot exist outside of Reality?

    You are not smart.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Don't you understand your argument is dumb 90 IQ trash and there are better arguments for God than this?

      anon, you've answered your own question. he's not an intellectual grower, lol.

  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    And then you have a god without attributes except that he created the universe. There is no reason he would want something from us.

  17. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Asks atheists a rhetorical question.
    >They answer that they don't know.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >believing that pokemon exist

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Pokemon is a 100billions dollar franchise.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          so is your larp

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Christianity is beyond pokemon. It cannot be estimated with monetary values.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It cannot be estimated with monetary values.

            actually, it can

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do try.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I won't because as it's not my field. But it can be, which is the point

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nope. People will literally burn nation for God. No amount of money can buy this franchise.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            weird tangent you have, but that's still very quantifiable

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's impossible. Absolute No one on tgis planet can estimate the value it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            nah, we can, which demonstrates your silly limitation

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Try it then. You can't. Especially when it means you have to win Me as well.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You can't.
            I can't in the same way that I can't ballet, but some other b***h who has the talent and willpower can

            This again is a demonstration of your limited pee brain's view. Don't @ me in your slide thread again

  18. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Okay, you have made an argument for the universe being created by some unknown agency (or agencies) that we know absolutely NOTHING about, other than them creating the universe. Great argument, I guess I believe it.

    Now, you only have one job, to prove that this agency is in fact a deity of semites "Yahweh" (formerly Baal), whom abrahamics worship, and refer as "god" by default. Why can't it be some Hindu deity? Or some Bantu deity? Or, more likely, something that has absolutely nothing to do with any deities imagined by humanity?
    This is where your job is. Proving that SOMETHING created the universe was easy part.

  19. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    not much to talk about. image states x, atheists state not x, so nothing can be concluded.
    how about you define:
    >infinite past
    >"enough time" for an infinite past
    >God
    >the concept of beginning to exist
    >timelessness
    >causality without time
    >a proof of "without god, all that exists is the universe in different forms"
    All very difficult concepts that are far beyond what we know about anything, all just chucked left and right, and also where the sophistry of the approach lies. Then, we can have a look at how you've defined the universe to presuppose God, ie God is just whatever the universe needed to come into being, oh which by the way is conscious because mind over matter (which is also why I'm curious as to the definitions of the above).
    not much to do until then with all the vaguery

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Even easier just ask him to define time.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      He won't answer you. He will post this exact same thread months from now, while pretending he discovered fire. He just knows that "time" can't exist "outside the universe". Isn't that obvious? He presents this as fact because... He is just that smart.

  20. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The power of Money is not limitless.

  21. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    For One. You can not buy me with Money.

  22. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheism is satanism for the petty bourgeoisie. Proof of Christ comes when the priest casts out demons in Jesus name during exorcism

    ?si=q7V5dHU4rOO3DOb0

  23. 6 months ago
    s a g e

    Also the op is an underage paki or something, I remember him revealing his flag in one of those threads where he got grilled hard and had to write sentences longer than 10 words, exposing his broken english. Some kind of 80 iq inbred.

  24. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    this presupposition moron gets BTFO and remakes the thread some time later

  25. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
  26. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Please describe how this picture make you feel evil

  27. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Standard-issue "God of the Gaps" argument concocted by a 90-IQ midwit thinking he's 130-IQ.
    >YOU don't know EVERYTHING yet. Therefore this child-sacrifice cow demon desert-dwelling caravan raiders came up with IS TRUE!!!
    Nope. It just means we don't know everything yet. But we know a hell of a lot more about the world and universe than we did even 100 years ago.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >we know a hell of a lot more about the world and universe than we did even 100 years ago.
      Debatable. Humans are having a harder time reaching the moon in the 2020's than they did in the 1960's, and most 100+yr old machines like steam engines still work as well today as they did back then. No modern techs are as durable or reliable.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Conflating the technological regression of one nation caused by the influx of low-IQ millions, ironically imported by christians, is not the same thing as saying we've wholesale lost knowledge of the world and universe. We found out other galaxies exist, and that those galaxies are either moving away or towards us, and that the universe has a background radiation leftover from the Big Bang, and that other solar systems, with planets, exist, and how solar systems form, and what the composition and make-up of the planetary bodies of our own solar system is, all in the past 100 years. There's a lot of other things I could put in here, but character count is character count.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      So mad you can't debunk it lol.

      >It just means we don't know everything yet.
      >yet
      Atheism is the fastest shrinking religion in the known universe because you're all incels. You will have died out long before your "science" has answered any important question.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        The sad thing about your post is that I know you're not faking being as recklessly stupid as you're demonstrating.

  28. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    you do not understand infinity and try to work with it like it is finite numner.
    Get back to me when you are at least at college level of maths.

  29. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I reject causality as a valid construct. Show me the argument for God that doesn't even implicitly rely on the validity of causality and I will come over to the other side.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      You idiot. You don’t reject causality, you accept it every day with every action you take.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Causality is how we craft narratives, not an actual fact about the world.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          No retart

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes anon. The way causality is constructed, there can only be a single ultimate cause of everything, right? So when I say, "the sun made me warm" I'm not saying anything true. In that model, the truth is that the ultimate cause made me warm and the sun just happened to fit well into a story I was telling.

            So if we accept causality, it has no relationship to how we describe the world we experience. What's the point?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I thought it would be as clear as day that the argument is clearly going out of its way avoiding causality?
      I can defend it with the choice argument but I don't like the causality argument as it grants that the universe can be eternal which is neither Blibical, logical or scientific.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think the existence of something outside of time alone = God exists. At most it could be used to refute pantheism

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I don't think the existence of something outside of time alone = God exists.
          Not when you factor in that the timeless something is the source of the universe.
          I thought I already hinted this in the argument but the creator can't have attributes which can only exist after the creation, like space-time-matter which isn't he case with sentience.
          The creator can't be composed of things which can only exist after the creation.
          So it makes no sense for the creator to lack something which came from it, like consciousness, sentience.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What do you mean by "source of the universe"? If you mean "caused the universe," then you see me issue with it. If you don't mean that, then how can you reconcile the eternal existence of God with the finite existence of the universe?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >how can you reconcile the eternal existence of God with the finite existence of the universe?
            The fallacy here is assuming that a creator and the creation must have the same attributes

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If we don't accept causality then it's impossible for God to be eternal while what is dependent on him is finite.

  30. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    There must be somewhere not this universe from which the initial observation occurs which collapses the p state of the quantum multiverse. God both has to be real, and has to be from another frame of reference which does not have to include quantum physics or the theoretical so called holofracal reality. In fact I feel its a simulation which does all things at once and this is seen by subjects as quantum mechanics but there is no guarantee that its present in the other place, god lives in the true world us in the shadows, the shadows have facets reality is singular.

  31. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    you can never win if i make up the rules and refuse answers

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      And you can never resist the calling of God if he has elected you for salvation. Turn to Him before it's too late.

      Christ is King

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      You can never win if you're wrong.

  32. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Thinking correctly and honestly are not possible when the need to believe is greater than the need for truth. Give up sheep. Kneel humbly before your master: ignoble ignorance.

  33. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Define god.
    Also, time can start and end. We can define heat death as end of time and the big bang as start, as far as we know, time didn't exist before it.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I specifically already did in the argument.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I specifically already did in the argument.
        Define god for me.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          The timeless something from which the universe came from.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The timeless something from which the universe came from.
            Ok, so what is the timeless something, define that for me.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Timeless means without time and something means it is not nothing.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Timeless means without time and something means it is not nothing.
            Alright but what it is.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What were you trying anyway?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What were you trying anyway?
            You did not define the something, so what it is it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            show flag midwit

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Define god
          The architect that programmed the Matrix

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is close to it. But you're just using words from our modern culture to describe Him rather than how He is portrayed in the Bible. So, basically yeah, but I'd word it differently

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm always surprised the number of claimed atheists that accept the possibility of simulation theory.
            So I like to bring it up as it's a form of theism they can relate to and accept

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Most atheists just want to make up their own morality. They're usually weirdly open to batshit theories so long as they can still make up whatever rules they want. This is especially obvious when you bring up something like multiple worlds or reincarnation with them. The arguments for God are 1000x stronger than the arguments for either of those, but God comes with morality (allegedly) so theism must be false, because gay sex or something.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            "wisdom"

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but muh bible verse!
            Then just do a Thomas Jefferson and cut out the parts that are shit

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Careful where you tread your tongue

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >indigenous ways of knowing

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Most atheists just want to make up their own morality. They're usually weirdly open to batshit theories so long as they can still make up whatever rules they want. This is especially obvious when you bring up something like multiple worlds or reincarnation with them. The arguments for God are 1000x stronger than the arguments for either of those, but God comes with morality (allegedly) so theism must be false, because gay sex or something.
            If you require god or religion to make you moral you are likely neither. Be good because you can not because you should.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I do require God to be moral. Otherwise. I just kill you like an npc in gta.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I do require God to be moral. Otherwise. I just kill you like an npc in gta.
            You could be a Talmudic israelite and have free-reign to commit atrocities, but then you're spending the rest of your life trying to outrun the Karma.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You could be a Talmudic israelite and have free-reign to commit atrocities, but then you're spending the rest of your life trying to outrun the Karma.
            No, no they beat a chicken to death and transfer the sins over to it before they do that. Same "loophole" as confessing all your blackmail material to a priest different in form but same in spirit.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Talmud
            based movie on the talmud, israelites, israel etc.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Karma is nothing for those with Power.
            The NPC can never retraliate to the Player.

            Except for that Monkey King who cursed me and break my game in Sunless Sea.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Karma is nothing for those with Power.
            Parasitism can continue until the parasite is removed or until the host is killed.
            Either way the parasite always lives on borrowed time.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Predator eats.
            Prey get eaten.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's fairies, btw. That's why the uncanny valley exists; to keep you safe from fairies.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your fear is palpable.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            They are capricious and powerful. Fear is appropriate.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            "Being good" doesn't even have meaning outside of moral statements ("should" statements).

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      The point is that your theory is being refuted because it has no reason to be believed. It was entirely made-up with no evidence for it
      >But the universe is expanding! It must have come from one point!
      No, we observe from earth certain characteristics in the light that make it appear to have shifted the same way it would if the space of the universe was expanding. We don't know conclusively that is actually what is going on

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        What do you know is going on?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          You're not clear on what you're asking. But if you're asking about what I'm talking about regarding the universe expansion and light shifts, I'm just explaining why it is some people say the universe is expanding. It's just because of perceived light shifts from galaxies. They assume what a star is made of, look at what wavelengths that material is able to produce, then see that it doesn't match up as expected and use relativity to adjust the wavelength due to the star moving. That movement is then explained away as the universe expanding

  34. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I just did though, forgot to mention, being. It's also a being.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I just did though, forgot to mention, being. It's also a being.
      How do you know?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I already told you, twice.

        >I don't think the existence of something outside of time alone = God exists.
        Not when you factor in that the timeless something is the source of the universe.
        I thought I already hinted this in the argument but the creator can't have attributes which can only exist after the creation, like space-time-matter which isn't he case with sentience.
        The creator can't be composed of things which can only exist after the creation.
        So it makes no sense for the creator to lack something which came from it, like consciousness, sentience.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I already told you, twice.
          You haven't though, how do you know? Nothing you said there points to how you achieved your conclusion. Go ahead and lay out your method of coming to those answers for me.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          What's the alternative to time?
          Some speculative bullshit.
          Presumably there is "another time" (for everything) outside the universe-specific time, because if you make up one time you can make up another. Something still happens while a universe is in its singularity state, although it may be very boring from our perspective. Saying time stops then is simply irrelevant in itself, as you are illustrating yourself, you can simply begin to measure a different kind of time (like you made up the original time measurements), even if hardly anything happens in the universe/singularity. Maybe the time is especially slow in comparison? But there will still be processes and processes to take some kind of time, whatever their shape.
          If there was no time everything would happen at once. Do you understand? And this is not how reality functions. It's sequential, one thing after the other, and for this you need time, however minuscule it is.
          In fact it's entirely pointless to debate the nature of time whatsoever, since it does not actually exist, so there is no need for "other time" either. It's simply a convention of measurements for a fundamental feature not just of the universe but existence.
          If there is a God he is also subject to some form of "time", because otherwise he will act in a nonlinear and simultaneous fashion all across history, and this would literally destroy the universe. His time may be different however.

          I'm agnostic tho. No clue how many gods there are tbhdesu.

          I wrote a lot there, some confusing things, but it can be cut down to
          >processes are sequential

          How else is anything supposed to work? God does everything that he ever did in the same moment at once; everything that ever has or will happen has already been covered by a God outside of time?
          This makes Gods existence irrelevant - he already fully served his purpose and everything is already decided however he wants, because he can alter everything forever at once "beforehand".
          How can God engage in action if there is no time ordering his actions? There would be no first or last, or third or fourth act of God. Not just would all creation happen simultaneously, it would also live through its entire existence within that nontime moment and be finished.
          >so not only would God be pointless but the universe as well
          So no, God is also bound to doing things in sequence.
          Whether this is mainly a feature of the universe he made (and how he made it) does not matter, since it binds him to time within worldly existence, and his abilities outside of existence would not really matter in that respect.
          >there's no time in Heaven
          Sure, maybe, that may work, BUT: do you assume everything happens at once in heaven forever and consequently already happened - all conversation that might ever take place.
          People sort of drop out of time when they die and... suddenly become irrelevant because every aspect of their existence has already been solved since there's no time.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >there's no time in Heaven
            Who told you that?
            Jesus Christ came back in the flesh and promised a new flesh for heaven. Heaven is very much with time.

  35. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    What's the alternative to time?
    Some speculative bullshit.
    Presumably there is "another time" (for everything) outside the universe-specific time, because if you make up one time you can make up another. Something still happens while a universe is in its singularity state, although it may be very boring from our perspective. Saying time stops then is simply irrelevant in itself, as you are illustrating yourself, you can simply begin to measure a different kind of time (like you made up the original time measurements), even if hardly anything happens in the universe/singularity. Maybe the time is especially slow in comparison? But there will still be processes and processes to take some kind of time, whatever their shape.
    If there was no time everything would happen at once. Do you understand? And this is not how reality functions. It's sequential, one thing after the other, and for this you need time, however minuscule it is.
    In fact it's entirely pointless to debate the nature of time whatsoever, since it does not actually exist, so there is no need for "other time" either. It's simply a convention of measurements for a fundamental feature not just of the universe but existence.
    If there is a God he is also subject to some form of "time", because otherwise he will act in a nonlinear and simultaneous fashion all across history, and this would literally destroy the universe. His time may be different however.

    I'm agnostic tho. No clue how many gods there are tbhdesu.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is no time seperate from space, there is spacetime. Time exists as long as space does.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >There is no time seperate from space, there is spacetime. Time exists as long as space does.
        Both entities might exist independently of each-other but there would be no way for us to measure/quantify it..

  36. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    There are unfortunately a number of problems here, many of which other anons have pointed out. I didn't see anyone discuss this one, though:
    >universe couldn't be infinitely old
    Assuming that's right, there's no way to tell that the universe isn't
    >9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 x10^999,999,999,999,999,999
    years old (or whatever arbitrarily large number you like). Not infinite (in fact, infinitely far away from it, just like 0!), but arbitrarily long enough that every weird thing will happen.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >There are unfortunately a number of problems here, many of which other anons have pointed out.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        ... they have, though, and you didn't address my new point at all.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >they have
          Citations needed.
          >you didn't address my new point at all.
          Which is?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            My post is

            There are unfortunately a number of problems here, many of which other anons have pointed out. I didn't see anyone discuss this one, though:
            >universe couldn't be infinitely old
            Assuming that's right, there's no way to tell that the universe isn't
            >9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 x10^999,999,999,999,999,999
            years old (or whatever arbitrarily large number you like). Not infinite (in fact, infinitely far away from it, just like 0!), but arbitrarily long enough that every weird thing will happen.

            literally right there. I'm not going to relitigate the thread for you. Anyone truly interested would have read it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Citations needed.
            You still didn't tell give me the method that allowed you to reach your conclusions. What steps did you take to get to your answers. Please enlighten us.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So.. where are they?

            My post is [...] literally right there. I'm not going to relitigate the thread for you. Anyone truly interested would have read it.

            I already read it but how can I address a point which does not exist?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            See, posts like this one make me think you're being dishonest. The universe can be arbitrarily extremely old without being infinite. The very first point in your graphic is rendered moot.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If the universe isn't infinite then by the law of excluded middle, it is finite, meaning it began to exist from?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can you apply that law to the start of the universe? Cause you certainly can't apply laws of our universe outside this universe

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody knows. It could have come from being collapsed into a singularity: an infinitely dense point where space and time have no meaning. It could have come from strange quantum phenomena. It could have been shit out by a cosmic turtle.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So.. where are they?
            I asked you for your methods of reaching your conclusions first, go ahead.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I already gave the reasons and the explanation with concluded with the existence of God.
            But that is irrelevant, don't dodge the question, where are they?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I already gave the reasons and the explanation with concluded with the existence of God.
            >But that is irrelevant, don't dodge the question, where are they?
            No you did not, you gave me conclusions but have yet to outline the method you used to confirm those conclusions. How do you know?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No you did not
            Resorted to straight up lying and dodging the question?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Resorted to straight up lying and dodging the question?
            Nice projection there. So you don't know and can't prove it.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Feigning ignorance is not an argument.

  37. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    oh I get it....youre one of those women who are so stupid you actually think other people are stupid. got it.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      You sound like a woman.

  38. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    > a big bang machine created the universe
    > the Big Bang machine just exists
    > thus it logically follows the machine created a child machine upon this earth in order to save our magical invisible souls

    Inbef machines need creators
    > it’s a special machine

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Does the big bang machine have an infinite past?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Directionality of time is a function of entropy within our universe. The machine exists outside our universe where time spreads out similar like a spacial dimension

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          So it's a timeless something?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Its misleading to talk about time as a separate entity. And neither of us have a full grasp or would probably be even able to meaningfully agree on a definition of what time really is. There are no simple logical shortcuts of how an average joe could conclude where the universe came from and it’d be ridiculous if there was a god who would expect us to.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There are no simple logical shortcuts of how an average joe could conclude where the universe came from
            That's demonstrably false given the argument.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The argument requires a definition of god and of time that both sides agree on. It assumes that we all know what time is and what god is. And it ignores that reality in its deepest level is completely counterintuitive

  39. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think that the more Christians attempt to logically interpret the nature of God and his creations the further Christians stray from God.
    Tell me, if all logic told you that God could not be real but you had the faith that converted you guiding you, would you still be able to believe it?
    I am not saying that you must be mindless in your worship of God, but I worry about the spiritual strength of those who do not have spiritual knowledge and relay only on their mental facilities.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, you're misunderstanding, the whole point of apologetics is to shut them up, the atheists.
      But they always manage to have something to say, even when they don't have anything to say.
      It's amazing.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Christ is real and none of existence contradicts that other than the minds of men. I cannot prove or show you God, only God can reveal himself to you. But I can show that nothing within his word is beyond truth

  40. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The argument basically ends with two points.
    The universe has to come from something timeless, space less and immaterial.
    And if it's possible that God exists, then God exists, some people might confuse this with the Ontological argument, but it's not.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The argument basically ends with two points.
      >The universe has to come from something timeless, space less and immaterial.
      >And if it's possible that God exists, then God exists, some people might confuse this with the Ontological argument, but it's not.
      Ok that's great, but how do you know these things?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Oh come on. Your entire argument was shot apart in this thread.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Argument by vigorous assertion isn't valid.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Argument by vigorous assertion isn't valid.
          but that's what you did, tell me how you know the things you think you know. Go ahead prove it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but that's what you did
            This is an example.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is an example.
            yes because all you've done is say things without prooft. Show me the proof that makes your conclusions concrete. You can't just conclude things and decide you're right.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it any less fallacious.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it any less fallacious.
            You don't know what a fallacy is, you're a great example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Give me the methods you used to come to your conclusions.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not only are you repeating yourself, but you are asking me to repeat myself.
            You can't just bury you head in the sand and use it as an argument.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not only are you repeating yourself, but you are asking me to repeat myself.
            >You can't just bury you head in the sand and use it as an argument.
            Well apparently you can because you're continuing to do just that. How did you determine that time is and the universe is not infinite in all directions, what method did you use to confirm that a something that according to you has to be a being would have to exist at the beginning of time. How did you make these confirmations? What did you use to measure the infinite past? If it's infinite how did you manage to observe the beginning of time when you exist in a fixed point in time?
            Go on prove to me you didn't just make assumptions based in bias by telling me your methods.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Its misleading to talk about time as a separate entity. And neither of us have a full grasp or would probably be even able to meaningfully agree on a definition of what time really is. There are no simple logical shortcuts of how an average joe could conclude where the universe came from and it’d be ridiculous if there was a god who would expect us to.

      Directionality of time is a function of entropy within our universe. The machine exists outside our universe where time spreads out similar like a spacial dimension

      IMO 'Extra-temporal' I think is a better description, since it would be something that exists beyond our perception of time.
      'Timeless' tends to imply something that doesn't posses time which can lead to confusion.

      The same way as a Minecraft avatar might try to understand the time before his seed was generated. The player that created the seed is not timeless, but extra-temporal relative to the game avatar.

  41. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Gibberish

  42. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Time is an illusion due to us evolving around a rising and setting sun. Speed is actually what determines time.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's moronic. That's purely a matter of perspective.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm so tired of seeing this particular kind of fallacious thinking.
        >I observe that X exists
        >Therefore it is an illusion
        2500 years and going strong.

        Time is just the measurement for any object to go from point A to point B in a way our brains can comprehend.
        Time isn't a force, without it shit still moves. Without gravity and heat there would also be no time because shit would just be static.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Unfortunately, the universe by design cannot be static.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not in our universe, since the big bang set everything in motion.

            >shit would just be static
            Naw, cause then there wouldn't be anything/anyone to observe it therefore nothing would exist. "I don't think, therefore I am't" stuff.

            I'm not even slightly convinced by your argument of just deciding it is that way

            I'm not sure if this is an argument? I agree that nothing could exist if things weren't put in motion, but I still don't think "time" is part of our natural universe. At least not in the way we're currently thinking.

            You are confusing what we use time for (measurement) with what time actually is, which is ultimately unknowable. That it is real is a brute fact derived from experience, i.e. sequentiality exists. Denying it on the basis of observing it couldn't be more moronic.

            I find it odd that time is one of the few things in the universe that is completely intangible yet somehow exist in the background of everything.
            We don't really need time as a force to describe how the universe works.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I mean, even the most realistic theories of time travel requires manipulating speed and mass rather than the notion of time itself.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, of course you get negative time when you break the system (either with negative mass or superliminal speed).
            Also, who knows if this is how the universe will act in if this were to happen (if ever), since we know that mathematical models may convey limitations or oddities not necessarily present in the real world (see Schwarzchild metric).

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I agree, my point was that we don't even know of a theoretical way to manipulate time directly.
            But theorizing about breaking the rules of the universe is definitely an interesting topic.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That wasn't meant to be related to the argument in the OP.
            Again, it's impossible for the universe which is composed of space and matter to be timeless.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well, it's not that we don't need it but rather that we can't use it. There's no standard for measurement, so all measurements all relative. If we could get outside of our system to see which absolutes really existed, then we could use them to describe things. But we can't. Point being: we discard time because of how we make measurements, not because it's an illusion/doesn't exist. It's just not useful for a very specific subset of human activity.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >shit would just be static
          Naw, cause then there wouldn't be anything/anyone to observe it therefore nothing would exist. "I don't think, therefore I am't" stuff.

          I'm not even slightly convinced by your argument of just deciding it is that way

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          You are confusing what we use time for (measurement) with what time actually is, which is ultimately unknowable. That it is real is a brute fact derived from experience, i.e. sequentiality exists. Denying it on the basis of observing it couldn't be more moronic.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm so tired of seeing this particular kind of fallacious thinking.
      >I observe that X exists
      >Therefore it is an illusion
      2500 years and going strong.

  43. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    This caused me to gain daily enlightenment and remind me of greater existance. Mathematically irrefutable that the existence of a great being is necessary in order for a universe to function.

    Thank you. May the universe bless you.

    P.S. The 'firmament' is actually around the universe itself and has been detected for decades.

  44. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Matter changes form
    >DID YOU JUST MAKE SOMETHING FROM NOTHING!

  45. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Look into, The 'Giant Wall at the edge of space', it's a multicolor giant nebula all around the edge of our existence that holds more galaxies than the inside in a net of energy/plasma.... we are living a micro existence on the elements that are a part of the actual body of God AKA the Universe.

  46. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Abrahamic god is Satan. The universe has always existed, it is an endless matryoshka. English is the language of degenerates because it does not even have an analogue of such a word as the Mirozdanie. The Mirozdanie ≠ worlds, universes and cosmos, these are all different words that have different meanings

  47. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    all true but cuckstianity is still a israeli psyop
    look up NDE accounts, god doesn't care what path(religion) you follow, meditate, reach moksha

  48. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Black person

  49. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just a reminder that atheists have never achieved anything. They have never had a country. They have never had a culture. They have never had an army. Atheism has never worked in the history of mankind. It is a way for midwit morons to mentally jerk off over their daddy issues. Your cult is a trojan horse used to infiltrate white nations and undermine them for israelites and Muslims to invade. Peddle your shit somewhere else.

  50. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >not my OC

  51. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Their objections couldn't even hit the bump limit.
    Pathetic.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      So unhappy nobody responded to me 🙁
      It's okay anon, they can only output dogmas (ironically) on things they don't even understand fully. You can't really argue on things you don't even know about.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >:(
        You think that shits finny?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          No this is just sad >:[

          I agree, my point was that we don't even know of a theoretical way to manipulate time directly.
          But theorizing about breaking the rules of the universe is definitely an interesting topic.

          Yay you responded! Yeah, theorizing is interesting, but wouldnt' approaching the subject through math imply applying a certain level of metaphysical connections of logic to the universe?
          For other predictions, we can argue that it is fitted, but if it works backwards in some cases, then that should imply something rather alarming, wouldn't it?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *