Checkmate atheists.

Checkmate atheists.

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    God doesn't exist but I wish I was wrong.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I have good and bad news for you

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    God is real and at this point if you don't see it, there is no hope for you.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Which god is real?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Which god is real?
        Dumbest atheist edgelord child question of all time
        "Which definition of God" is the correct question.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Go jerk off to Richard Dawkins then rope yourself and find out.

          christians get stumped by the simplest of questions

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          No. which god.
          also, you obviously can't answer your own question either.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The God of the Bible, obviously

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            merciful gods sanction evil

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What's the issue with that?

          • 6 months ago
            Sage

            sanction
            săngk′shən
            noun
            Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid. synonym: permission.
            Merciful gods approve rape of kids

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, and? We are all fallen and rebellious creatures; none are without sin, even a child. God allows sin for a good purpose, and at the end of history justice will prevail.

          • 6 months ago
            Sage

            >God allows sin for a good purpose, and at the end of history justice will prevail.
            you're a moronic shyster.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is Tolkien evil for allowing Sauron to wreak havoc across Middle Earth? Surely you understand why a Good Author would allow evil into his story.

            It's all very well playing the skeptic to someone else's beliefs, but can you even explain from your worldview why one action is good and another evil?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >story

            oh, reality is for god's entertainment? even more cruel

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            For his glory, not entertainment. And the ones who suffer all deserve it with the exception of the Lord Jesus himself.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >god glorifies himself by torturing helpless animals

            you can't even make it make sense.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You only see what's in front of your face. Everything in this story has a good purpose.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Everything in this story has a good purpose.

            The purpose:

            In the year 2100, almost all Christians on earth, by percentage, will live in Nigeria.

            You believe in the official religion of Nigeria

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            In the distant future, all nations of the world will be Christian

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >all nations of the world will be Christian

            you don't really believe this now do you m8? you're losing left and right

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            We've been winning since Day 1. Look at history from the death of Christ in 500 year increment and get a clue.

          • 6 months ago
            Sage

            A CIRCUMCISED GOD???
            SERIOUSLY??!

          • 6 months ago
            Sage

            a real god wouldn't have any business with mercy. i say this to prove that the god of the muslims, christians, and israelites is only a human. a narcissistic cretin. half the number of noahides is cynical and the other half is daft.
            question for you newfriend, how do christians deal with cynicism?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >a real god wouldn't have any business with mercy
            A claim with no basis

            >how do christians deal with cynicism?
            God cannot have the shortcomings of fallen men, it would be absurd. We have faith in a God who is good.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God cannot have the shortcomings of fallen men, it would be absurd.

            why did he promise never to wipe humanity out with a flood again, indicating he thought he had made a mistake?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            God has the capacity to feel grieved by evil, while at the same time having predetermined it to occur.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >god has the capacity to be affected by evil

            What you've just stated is blasphemy, for evil to affect god means evil can affect god.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            God has the capacity to feel grieved by evil, while at the same time having predetermined it to occur.

            >god has the capacity to be affected by evil

            What you've just stated is blasphemy, for evil to affect god means evil can affect god.

            Apologies, after reading more on the subject I have realised my error. Please refer to Calvin's commentary on Genesis 6:6 for a better answer:

            >The repentance which is here ascribed to God does not properly belong to him, but has reference to our understanding of him. For since we cannot comprehend him as he is, it is necessary that, for our sakes he should, in a certain sense, transform himself. That repentance cannot take place in God, easily appears from this single considerations that nothing happens which is by him unexpected or unforeseen. The same reasoning, and remark, applies to what follows, that God was affected with grief. Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose: yet, because it could not otherwise be known how great is God’s hatred and detestation of sin, therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity. Wherefore, there is no need for us to involve ourselves in thorny and difficult questions, when it is obvious to what end these words of repentance and grief are applied; namely, to teach us, that from the time when man was so greatly corrupted, God would not reckon him among his creatures; as if he would say, ‘This is not my workmanship; this is not that man who was formed in my image, and whom I had adorned with such excellent gifts: I do not deign now to acknowledge this degenerate and defiled creature as mine.’

            1/2

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Similar to this is what he says, in the second place, concerning grief; that God was so offended by the atrocious wickedness of men, as if they had wounded his heart with mortal grief: There is here, therefore, an unexpressed antithesis between that upright nature which had been created by God, and that corruption which sprung from sin. Meanwhile, unless we wish to provoke God, and to put him to grief, let us learn to abhor and to flee from sin. Moreover, this paternal goodness and tenderness ought, in no slight degree, to subdue in us the love of sin; since God, in order more effectually to pierce our hearts, clothes himself with our affections. This figure, which represents God as transferring to himself what is peculiar to human nature, is called ἀνθρωποπάθεια

            2/2

          • 6 months ago
            Sage

            >God cannot have the shortcomings of fallen men
            and yet your god needs to peddle mercy. your god is a fallen man

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Where do you find fault in mercy?

          • 6 months ago
            Sage

            only humans and animals have mercy. when you say that your god is merciful, then you say that your god is a human. mercy is great, but you mix it with god, which is very bad. you do this because you're a shyster

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Illogical argument. Demonstrate to me why God cannot be merciful.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Demonstrate to me why God cannot be merciful.

            god cannot demonstrate any quality of man; to do so means god has something in common with man, which means god is not purely elevated above, more good, and more perfect than man.

            These type of arguments were executed and defeated you over 2000 years ago

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Does not an image of a man share his likeness? The mercy we show is merely a reflection of the one whose image we bear. Yet he is more good, more perfect, and completely beyond us.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Does not an image of a man share his likeness?

            that's not what was being talked about and does not address the point I just made. This would be called a goalpost move, you're changing to a different discussion.

            Just chiming in here, but I vaguely remember the Bible saying something along the lines of God creating man in his image. Also, the Bible says God has a lot of emotions and personality traits, even Jesus talks about the personality of God.

            The Bible was originally written for and by pagans who believed Gods were individual entities with distinct personalities. Yahweh started out as a war God IIRC. And God in the early part of the Bible actually recognizes the existence of other pagan Gods as being real Gods. This came shortly before the God of the Bible began to be understood as a monotheistic deity. The Bible mentions God interacting with Ba'al and Chemosh and losing in a war to them to eventually succeeding.

            >Just chiming in here, but I vaguely remember the Bible saying something along the lines of God creating man in his image.

            ok but genesis is literally gnostic text not christian. So which way do you want to have it?

            I can do this all day

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why can God's creation not bear any resemblance to him? I don't understand your claim

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            you're saying that man resembles god, that has nothing to do with the axiom that was proposed

            man can resemble god, god cannot resemble man. it's not a bidirectional concept. you are using language and an argument from a gnostic source anyway, if you want to argue christian god you stick to new testament really, as YHWH is an ugaritic god and genesis is a gnostic text-- the old testament has very little to do with christianity

            of course, you know basically nothing about any of this.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you say that mercy is a quality of man and not of God? Why can't man's mercy resemble the perfect mercy of God?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why can't man's mercy resemble the perfect mercy of God?

            Because in your own view of the universe, a crocodile eating a small human child is "god's perfect mercy". You can't say it's not mercy because to do so you assume to know the will or thoughts or God

            When you say god is "merciful" that is your human interpretation in a thankful way. God cannot directly exhibit the same conceptual ideas as a human with the same conceptual boundary. He is not within your sphere of understanding

            I am repeating your own religion back to you; which you are trying to blaspheme, btw.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            In my religion, God reveals his will through Scripture. Mercy is spoken of from God and from men, in the same terms. Where is the blasphemy there?

            Sorry, I'm sure you are making an intelligent point but I'm struggling to understand what you're saying

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            > k but genesis is literally gnostic text not christian.

            What? Can you elaborate? Gnosticism is basically new age shit, long after the creation of the Bibles by Emperor Constantine.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What? Can you elaborate?

            You can't have a conversation with me about religion if you don't know anything about this, sorry, I can't give you a university education about the things you want to argue about. I'm an atheist and I have a lot of ecumenical education. Maybe you should look at acquiring some.

            >Gnosticism is basically new age shit
            Gnosticism was a religion contemporaneous with early Christianity, competing with it and sharing many of the same concepts, stories and persons.

          • 6 months ago
            Sage

            you don't believe in a god, you believe in a narcissistic shyster. you approve israeli thuggery in return for clientelism that profits you personally. you're the parasite priest class from genesis 47

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Who is your god?

          • 6 months ago
            Sage

            i'm not inclined to help you out of here anymore

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're a weasel who won't put your own beliefs up for scrutiny

          • 6 months ago
            Sage

            >whell, what aboot youuur god??
            frick off homo

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just chiming in here, but I vaguely remember the Bible saying something along the lines of God creating man in his image. Also, the Bible says God has a lot of emotions and personality traits, even Jesus talks about the personality of God.

            The Bible was originally written for and by pagans who believed Gods were individual entities with distinct personalities. Yahweh started out as a war God IIRC. And God in the early part of the Bible actually recognizes the existence of other pagan Gods as being real Gods. This came shortly before the God of the Bible began to be understood as a monotheistic deity. The Bible mentions God interacting with Ba'al and Chemosh and losing in a war to them to eventually succeeding.

          • 6 months ago
            Sage

            >Demonstrate to me why God cannot be merciful.
            why? my God isn't contested, yours is.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The idea that God cannot be merciful was presented by you, accompanied by faulty logic. Why should I have any regard for your claim?

          • 6 months ago
            Sage

            your god not a god. your god is the result of human nature. not even the result of the best humans, but irredeemable cretins. christianity is west asian black magic. a scourge on humanity.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            There are at least two different Gods in the Bible, dozens more if you count the minor ones.
            You didn't answer the question.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The one that the Bible identifies as the one true God of course. But you already knew that.

          • 6 months ago
            Sage

            you answer questions like other men answer your love

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The one from the old testament or the one from the new testament ?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            They are the same

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            They're clearly not, In the OT got is angry, vindictive, and makes wagers with Satan who is is executioner, in the NT he's the complete opposite.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            God has every right to enact vengeance on us. The fact that the New Testament shows more fully the extent of his mercy does not contradict the wrath shown in the Old Testament. And besides, there is plenty of wrath to be found in the New Testament.

          • 6 months ago
            Sage

            i bet you touch kids inappropriately

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That would go against my beliefs. What's stopping you?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            so Baal, El, or Yahweh...? Asherah too, although she's only mentioned indirectly
            >inb4 El & Yahweh are the same
            >implying Yahweh inherited Israel from himself

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            El and YHWH are the same God. YHWH is the Baal of his chosen people

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Go jerk off to Richard Dawkins then rope yourself and find out.

          The one that thinks you’re a nonce idiot.

          Here we observe the godtards bristling at the reminder that their favourite god is merely one among thousands, and as always, they dodge that awkward question.

          Man your post really made the godgays seethe

          It always does. It reminds them....

          The one I was raised with, of course. My cult is the right one.

          Yes. If the godtard is honest, he will admit that the only reason he barracks for his favourite god is because that is the god that his mummy told him about when he was 3 years old.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Which god do you believe in?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Which god/concept of reality don't you believe in?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Says the child that believes in a magic sky daddy watching over his every move judging if he goes to eternal bliss land or sufferers for eternity for not following some demon worship manual.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          > Definition of God

          Easy...

          God is the indescribable, uncreated, self existent, eternal all knowing source of all reality and being.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          TIL that you can avoid answering uncomfortable questions by just calling them dumb.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >TIL
            have a nice day immediately. your life has no value.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Go jerk off to Richard Dawkins then rope yourself and find out.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Wr.Alda the ancient one, read the oera linda book.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The Oera Linda book
          Literally fanfiction written by some guy as hoax. Do people actually fall for this shit?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          dumb little brother.
          Waralda refers to the concept of "the thing that exists the longest", or in other words, anything nature does. It's where we also take the concept of "mother nature" from.
          The beauty of it is you can either see it as some sentient being crafting everything the way it is today, or just the laws of the universe and by extension, stuff like evolution. It literally doesn't matter which it is.
          If you want to get a simpler term to really understand it, it's the concept of "starting things", i.e. 200 wood in some game or whatever. The shit that already is. Who knows whether we'll ever know who put it there, people arguing about it (not the people studying it!) are the litmus test for wisdom, seeking truth is the most noble while also the most futile of undertakings.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        All which have the element to which they belong. Non-elemental gods are also real, but only as egregors

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        The one that thinks you’re a nonce idiot.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Man your post really made the godgays seethe

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        the israeli god

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        The one I was raised with, of course. My cult is the right one.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        All of them.

        Atum, God the Creator, created Himself out of the primordial chaos.
        He then created the elements of fire, water, air and earth, and combined these elements to create new things.
        Among His creations are other Gods. Amun-Ra, Set, Odin, Loki, Freya, Vishnu, Kali, Shiva, everyone. Even Yahweh, the anointed one. Others call him Micha-El or Enoch.
        "Which god is real" is a silly question used by atheists to ignore the topic.
        Why are you afraid of divinity? Scared that it'll make you feel weak just like your rapist father did? Scared that you'd regret having neglected your own godhood for your whole life?

        The very definition of Creation is Existence.
        To exist, is God. What doesn't exist, wasn't created by God.
        To be, or not to be. That was always the question.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        the god(s) you worship. that's it. if you think you don't worship any then you're just running on a shitty religion without realizing it.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        clearly the one whose obsessed with baby penis

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        There's only one G-d and it's YHWH. He chose us and we are promised 2.800 slaves and a land to rule our slaves.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Tao existed before gods, especially sand demons who kill people in tents

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        The one with most nukes

      • 6 months ago
        Skurwiel

        Christ

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's funny seeing how stumped they get at this. I wonder if all of the gods just battle with each other

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >religiousgays learn for the 400000000th time that the only difference between them and athiests is that athiest dont believe in just 1 more god than them
        >their response is to get angry, scream, call you a pedophile, say that you're the religious one and just dont know it, and other israeli tactics
        best thread on Oyish atm thanks for ur service

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        The only existent god is the one that's shared through all wisdom traditions. every culture has a primordial thing that gives existence form and function. These all refer to one monad. In essence, the god of the Bible, the pleroma, Brahman, the Tao, they are all cultural expressions attempting to explain a radically alien pre-existing entity.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          This.
          Atheists have an incredibly difficult time articulating the difference between truth and utility. It doesn't matter if a particular diety is literally real as long as you can form a functioning civilization with it.
          Religious darwinism

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, that is what theists don't understand, they think that if it makes them feel good, it must be real rather than accepting it is just some imaginary thing that has real emotional utility. They couldn't possibly admit their favored mythology with all its quirks is actually no different than the silly gods of greek mythology.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Bible mentions by name some Greek gods. When you have a surface level understanding of religion due to your entire experience being what you've read others say online...this is what you get.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >just some imaginary thing that has real emotional utility.
            It's real evolutionary survival. Study some history and you'll find that no atheistic societies survived for more than a few generations. Why do you suppose this is? Is it because a culture requires a transcendental purpose to strive toward?

            A non argument
            [...]
            I don't believe in any other gods besides the Christian god. I believe that there are other spiritually powerful entities that exist that are not god but can claim to be as this is written and warned about in the bible.

            >I don't believe in any other gods besides the Christian god.
            If you can build a meaningful and positive life from that then your god is real. And doesn't really matter if it's real to others.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no atheistic societies survived for more than a few generations.
            Says the guy posting to a global communications platform invented by about the 10th generation of peoples living in a secular constitutional republic whose ideology has already dominated the globe for a few generations.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >10th generation
            Two generations max. Religious affiliation only declined quite recently.
            Surely you don't think political structure we operate under today can survive another hundred years?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Religion has declined today due to coordinated attacks on it by communist agitators and the ideologies that spawned them over the last 100+ years. Going back to the women taking gay men and secretly pushing them into the catholic clergy.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >communist agitators
            Humans have practiced religion for so long it's engrained into our DNA.
            Those that don't worship gods and transcendental ideals inevitably end up worshiping leaders and the state (Communism)

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Two generations max.
            Its cute that you really think that your grandfather, possibly your father, fought in the revolutionary war, kid, thanks for the chuckle.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >revolutionary war was an atheist movement
            Kek if you believe this unironically.
            One of the most secular among them was Jefferson and even he borrowed most of his moral code from Christianity.
            Nice LARP though

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It definitely wasn't just 2 generations ago and a secular constitutional republic is definitely not based on some decree of any supernatural entity from some holy book. Jefferson publicly labeled himself a Deist to specifically distance himself from Christian doctrines.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Jefferson publicly distanced himself from Christian doctrines.
            Thomas Jefferson just took the Christian bible and cut out a few miracles. That became his core ethical framework.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cutting out the supernatural religious dogma and just using the lessons being communicated through the mythology with the metaphor is exactly what turns his beliefs from theistic to atheistic and from some religious to secular in nature.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            adopted a modified form of Christian doctrine therefore he was non-religious.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Specifically getting rid of the theism in your ethics isn't the same as intentionally creating an atheistic framework of ethics.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Jefferson tweaked a fundamental Christian doctrine to create a secular framework of ethics.
            Interesting premise. If Religion had no purpose then it would certainly be easier to create a new doctrine rather than borrow from an existing one.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It isn't the only system he borrowed from, even christians and israelites have borrowed most of their ethics from other cultures while they were appropriating holidays and idols. Religion obviously has a purpose, to control groups of people, that doesn't make their superstitious dogma and silly stories facts, its just much easier to assert divinely inspired rules you want to thrust upon people than justify them.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no atheistic societies survived for more than a few generations.
            If the trend follows Iran+Afghanistan then the UK is expected to be an Islamic Caliphate by 2050.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            俺バカ

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Correct, I'm saying this as a seminarian as well. You need to understand what Palamas called the "particles of truth" the concept of God isn't so simple as these people want it to be. We aren't talking about a judge in the clouds, we're talking about pre existent all pervasive force that is incomplex, limitless! In his transcendent reality God is ineffable, mysterious, incomprehensible, undefinable. His substance cannot be grasped in nature.no man has the truly correct image of God, because this thing is far beyond categories.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't like applying attributes to god because it exists beyond our comprehension.
            If simulation theory is correct then the programmer/programming team would be 'god' that may or may not posses omniscience/omnipresence/etc.
            >because this thing is far beyond categories.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Usually I'd say it's safer to use cataphatic and hyper-cataphatic reasoning. Helps prevent misunderstanding

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Are all these replies spam? They are all reddit tier atheist garbage and the rest are "see how you stumped christians tee hee" when there are almost no Christians replying. The real god is the Christian god, the god who gave us Jesus Christ. To other peoples of other religions, there god is the real god. There maybe mire overlapping between religions than most realize but who am I to say. This is what beliefs are, just as you believe that gay and trans men living in San Francisco, New York, as well as yourself are god. The god that doesn't lead you to true sins against yourself and others is going to be the real god. Any man of any religion acting any other way is not worshipping the real god.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The real god is the Christian god, the god who gave us Jesus Christ. To other peoples of other religions, there god is the real god.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            A non argument

            Which god/concept of reality don't you believe in?

            I don't believe in any other gods besides the Christian god. I believe that there are other spiritually powerful entities that exist that are not god but can claim to be as this is written and warned about in the bible.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It was your entire argument boiled down to a meme image referencing someone coping about pro wresting's choreography since you seem to think that reality is whatever someone wants to believe, dammit.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That isn't what I said at all but considering you attempt to boil down an argument into a meme is telling enough to me lol. To people of other religions, that is their reality. It isn't what I believe, and I believe it to be wrong. A schizophrenic mans reality may be that he lives on a giant rainbow sailing the stars. It's real to him and his reality.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So basically your definition of real is imaginary things?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dudes the worst kind of subjectivism here's his true fantasy

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, my definition of reality is clear. The one in which there is a Christian God and Jesus Christ. To deny that other peoples realities are different in their own heads is silly. I cannot force a man out of Schizophrenia.

            Dudes the worst kind of subjectivism here's his true fantasy

            homosexual. Simple as. No further need for reply on my end.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Heathens and atheists suffer from severe cognitive dissonance. Their entire existence refer to themselves as "I, Me, Myself" 3 persons but knowing it's ONE BEING yet The Trinity is BS. Kek, what homosexuals.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >3 persons
            Its three ways to grammatically describe the same person, not 3 different persons.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No, my definition of reality is clear. The one in which there is a Christian God and Jesus Christ. To deny that other peoples realities are different in their own heads is silly.
            Yes it is clear that your definition of reality is actually based on what you are imagining in your head instead of being based on some sense of shared mutual physical environment as is usually the case with the definition of reality. I clearly get that its real to you, dammit, but you are talking about your imagination rather than reality and you also have to admit that in your definition of reality, pro-wrestling actually is real to people who believe it is real.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ill be honest anon, I'm not even going to read this word salad

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Truth = Utility

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yea, yea truth is utility, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, I get it, I read the book too.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is 'not real' about Pro Wrestling? It's athletic men/women physically mauling and fighting each other in a ring while being cheered and booed by an audience of people enjoying themselves at the spectacle. Is that mot reality being experienced and perceived?

            A mirage is an illusion but there is a reality to it, which is it is a play of light. Some c**ts here don't even fully understand the concepts they arguing about.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you admit that your god is no more real or genuine than pro-wrestling contests?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is your reality anon? If you cannot give me an objective answer with absolute certainty of it's conclusions then what is the point? It is the same as me telling you I believe in the Christian god. It's a belief until there is more understanding which current scientific reasoning or consensus is not compelling to me.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's a belief
            Which isn't reality, it is part of your imagination and isn't something mutually shared with all the other members of reality.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          every person says my god is the real god moron

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No fricking shit Sherlock. Are you in high-school?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The real god is the Christian god
          Wrong

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That is your opinion. And your opinion would be incorrect unfortunately for you.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >your opinion wrong because it just is
            >my opinion right because it just is
            very compelling arguments on display today

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why should I believe you over a israelite or a Muslim? Muslims always talk about how their prophecies coming true proves that their religion is correct. At least they try to use actual evidence to substantiate their beliefs like that

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am not asking you to believe me as I simply do not care anon. I find it very unlikely that I will be able convince you of religion over Oyish, nor do I have the time.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        The israeli one.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        The one that chooses violence

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        The one that fricks your mother and also your dad

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      God is not real, but still did everything in every holy book because being pure imagination is far more powerful than being limited to other people's shit filled realities.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      real gods don't peddle mercy

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      you are an idiot. show me your god please. In fact any god. simple you cannot. your religious beliefs have been taught to you by man for mans purpose and you don't have the spine to stand on your own two feet, you need a crutch to get you by.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Your claim that time space and matter willed itself into existence from nothing is supposed to make more sense then am intelligent designer?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        yeah man it's a total coincidence that the only life in the universe exists on the planet that just happens to be the only one that gets perfect eclipses

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Neat, how long did it take you to visit all the planets?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Which god is real?

      >Which god is real?
      Dumbest atheist edgelord child question of all time
      "Which definition of God" is the correct question.

      homosexuals

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Could be either some kind of God or just something we aren't mentally equipped to understand. But definitely not some kind of God that expects you to believe something on faith for no justifiable reason or else you suffer an eternal fate worse than death, that's just ridiculous.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >that's just ridiculous.
      agreed, but so is big bang theory

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Gnostic
    >healthy face
    >slim
    >no self harm
    >natural healthy hair
    >natural rounded nails
    Atheist
    >fat
    >dysengenic
    >self harm nose ring
    >greasy hair
    >red in face due to high blood pressure
    >unhealthy
    >disgusting tiny nails resulting from constant stress biting

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      idk about the second guy, but, the first guy is an atheist, hence the channel name "Cosmic Skeptic"

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I thought they were the same people. Except fatter.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Its almost like its just an algorithm designed to tell you what you want to hear rather than actually thinking about whether god exists or not.

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Here's an argument put it's still in beta.

    Alpha:

    >Progress without a beginning is impossible.
    >A beginning is impossible with an infinite past.
    >The universe does not have an infinite past.

    The reasoning behind the first premise is the contrary being the logical equivalent of being in the middle of a race without ever having started.
    The reasoning behind the second premise is that there couldn't have been not enough time for the event which is the beginning of the progress of the universe to happen yet before it did with an infinite past.

    >The paradoxical impossibility still applies to God, special pleading.
    To say it's special pleading presupposes time before the existence of the universe which is nonsensical as time is a feature of the universe.

    >God couldn't have created the universe along with time as that would take time.
    That's just another way of saying that time cannot begin to exist as that would take time which is just nonsensical.

    Without God all that exists is the universe in different forms which cannot be timeless as space-time-mater is a continuum. One can't exist without the other.
    So by the law of excluded middle, the universe either has a finite or infinite past.
    With the latter being impossible, the only possibility left is the finite past of the universe, that it began to exist.
    Which without God, if it isn't from God is the universe from nothing which is impossible as nothing comes from nothing.
    So the non-existence of God is impossible.

    TLDR: A timeless something is necessary which cannot be the universe which is all there is without God.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're relying on the cause and effect phenomenon we see inside our universe, but you fail to consider the drastically different physics that exists within the realm of nothingness (pre-universe).

      We know, for example, that particles can come into and out of existence, instantaneously. Why and how they do this is not well understood. But what if they do this in the vast expanse of nothingness? What if the things in our universe suppress these quantum fluctuations from expanding? What if the very nature of nothingness means that these quantum manifestations of matter can now explode into a sustained pattern?

      There are many questions that need to be answered. But it seems clear that universe's have the property of being able to create themselves without a traditional cause mechanism.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        The universe by means of quantme mechanics is just the universe changing forms from one to another.
        So it's just begging the question.
        I already hinted this when I said:
        >Without God all that exists is the universe in different forms which cannot be timeless as space-time-mater is a continuum. One can't exist without the other.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          > The universe by means of quantme mechanics is just the universe changing forms from one to another.

          What does this even mean? Before there was no universe, now there is. This is not a transformation of universes.

          > So it's just begging the question.
          How so?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is not a transformation of universes.
            Yes it is, the exact mathematical transformation (in units of universe) being applied in that case is +1. You know there are at least two functions involving only 0 value that leads to exactly +1, 0! and 0^0, so a functional transformation directly from 0 value to 100% is entirely mathematically possible.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nothingness is not a universe. Saying it's a transformation of a universe to another would be like saying 1 to 2. Nothingness is not a universe, it's not even a zero because there is no placeholder since nothingness can still contain infinite other universes in other regions of the plain of nothingness.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nothingness is not a universe.
            It is necessarily universal, by definition, x=x+0.
            If you didn't have nothing, you couldn't define anything else because nothing wouldn't be the specific thing that distinguishes anything from itself.

            >Saying it's a transformation of a universe to another would be like saying 1 to 2.
            +1 is a mathematical transformation that will get you from 1 to 2 in any arbitrary unit.

            >Nothingness is not a universe
            Repetition isn't further evidence, Nothingness is universal, as the smallest possible value of anything and everything, it is automatically added to everything, by definition x=x+0.

            >it's not even a zero because there is no placeholder since nothingness can still contain infinite other universes in other regions of the plain of nothingness.
            0 can be a placeholder where their weren't even placeholders before, 1 =001.00 and 0 can contain infinite other values in other regions of the equality as well, 0=x-x fall all infinity x.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The issue with nothingness is that it is not zero everywhere, it is, by its nature an infinite of infinites. An infinite zero because it goes on forever, and it has infinite universes.

            The language of math and English can not properly describe this nature. When a universe forms, nothingness doesn't go away, zero is still there infinitely. Nothingness did not transform, a universe just appeared in an infinitely small part of nothingness.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            One could even say that, due to the equilibrium of matter and energy and their negatives, that universes themselves have virtually zero more energy than nothingness, it just got temporarily twisted in a spot of nothingness due to a peculiar quantum "lumping" mechanism.

            It's like seeing the ripples in a pond and claiming that the ripples are separate from the pond. Metaphysically sure, but physically no.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but physically no.
            Waves are also physical, they aren't just metaphysical, there are actual physical pressure transformation equations that can distinguish between the ripples and the calm.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Like I said, they can be metaphysically separated by the metrics you state, but they are physically part of the pond.

            In terms of the universe and nothingness the connection is even stronger since the nature of these two things are inextricably linked in such a way that universes have virtually no more energy or matter than nothingness itself.

            At least with a pond ripple you are introducing more energy. But for a universe, there is no energy input, it just comes by pear happenstance of the quantum foam somehow "lumping" or "tangling", probably temporarily.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Like I said, they can be metaphysically separated
            Pressure isn't metaphysical, though, it is actual physical movement.

            >they are physically part of the pond.
            Physically, there are high energy ripples and slow moving calm waters, if anything, the idea of "pond" is metaphysical vagueness.

            >At least with a pond ripple you are introducing more energy.
            That is my position, that there are measurably different energy states, your position was suppose to be that the ripples are exactly the same physically as the rest of the "pond".

            >it just comes by pear happenstance of the quantum foam somehow "lumping" or "tangling", probably temporarily.
            Its not happenstance, its is an absolute innate quality that 0!=1 and nothing is something that functionally 100% of things must manifest from, 0!=1 is always true, not just at some arbitrary temporary beginning.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Pressure isn't metaphysical, though, it is actual physical movement.

            Anything that we categorize is metaphysical. Since a category in itself does not exist. It's only an enabler for our understanding.

            From the perspective of nothingness, the pond ripple has no more energy than the pond itself, or the whole universe for that matter. We only say the ripple has more energy because that helps us categorize and pattern out what we see.

            > Physically, there are high energy ripples and slow moving calm waters, if anything, the idea of "pond" is metaphysical vagueness.

            If humans put a name to it, it's metaphysical by definition.

            It's not like a deity stamped a name on something for all to read. It's just a fiction we made up.

            > Its not happenstance, its is an absolute innate quality that 0!=1 and nothing is something that functionally 100% of things must manifest from, 0!=1 is always true, not just at some arbitrary temporary beginning.

            As far as quantum foam theory goes, it is happenstance. We do not know how quantum foam works, or any of the other possible theories. We just have evidence for them,.

            There is no physically connected consequence saying this had to happen.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Anything that we categorize is metaphysical.
            You are ridiculous, why would you keep comparing to actual physical movement if such a thing is impossible and all physical movement is actually metaphysical? You are the one just arbitrarily changing your definitions and being inconsistent with your categorizations.

            >it is happenstance
            Nope it is always necessarily happening, that is not happenstance, it is an innate identity of the thing.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Look up the definition of metaphysics. There is what we know, physics, and then there is how we know it metaphysics. Among many other lenses of understanding.

            If you categorize it, it is metaphysical by definition. A ripple does not exist, only your idea of it exists. Similar to how time does not exist, only your relative perspective of motions exist. And so on.

            > Nope it is always necessarily happening, that is not happenstance, it is an innate identity of the thing.

            If you can prove that the quantum foam had to create our universe based on some kind of formula that can make predictions, then please do and claim your Nobel prize and your billion dollar prize. You can even prove it in a lab because we have lab experiments which can isolate the effects of quantum foam effects.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A ripple does not exist, only your idea of it exists.
            Except its physical existence where instrumentation can measure their existence without you or your ideas being involved.
            The thing that doesn't exist is the pond because that is just some arbitrary designation for a body of water with a vague size and shape.

            Again by your new moronic standards, physics isn't possible and everything is just some metaphysical categorization.

            >If you can prove that the quantum foam had to create our universe based on some kind of formula that can make predictions
            I don't need quantum foam, the formulas already show that nothing is something and it MUST yield everything else predictable by arithmetic, geometry, and any physical fields where compounding functions apply.

            >You can even prove it in a lab
            You don't need a lab to analyze logistical formulas, your billion dollars is faker than your shitty semantics that are almost completely unrelated to arithmetic definitions outside of their spelling.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Except its physical existence where instrumentation can measure their existence without you or your ideas being involved.

            Please keep in mind what a metaphor is. I was using pond ripples as an imperfect example of what I am saying, I explain why it is imperfect.

            In the case of the pond ripple, yes, you can measure things of it. But imagine you couldn't, imagine the ripple came without cause, no input energy. No input energy means there is no energy to measure. That is kinda what the nature of universes and nothingness is. Universes have no detectable distinction between themselves and nothingness.

            We can see the physical interactions of our universe and nothingness, but their natures work in such ways that it is always an isolate of a trait, rather than the whole.

            > Again by your new moronic standards, physics isn't possible and everything is just some metaphysical categorization.

            There's no reason to be so dramatic. I am talking exclusively about the concept of nothingness and the creation and existence of universes.

            > I don't need quantum foam, the formulas already show that nothing is something and it MUST yield everything else predictable by arithmetic, geometry, and any physical fields where compounding functions apply.

            Then please submit your answer for the Nobel prize.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >imagine I am correct and believe my little fibs, so I don't have to explain or justify my opinions
            No.

            >Universes have no detectable distinction between themselves and nothingness.
            Universe is literally just a stand in for 1 via 100% of everything and there is a measurable distinction between 1 and 0 despite being numerous functional ways to directly relate the two.

            >There's no reason to be so dramatic.
            Its not dramatics its a self refuting argument that just undermines all certainty of logic and physical measurement by saying they are just metaphysics that can't be known for certain.

            >I am talking exclusively about the concept of nothingness and the creation and existence of universes.
            Not from a mathematical or physical framework of nothingness and universes, though, which is what I am speaking about.

            >Then please submit your answer for the Nobel prize.
            That contest isn't actually about presenting anything new or proving origin definitively and I certainly can't claim any sort of ownership of these well known mathematical properties, winning a nobel at this point is more about being popular with the tribe that decides the winner of the contest by appealing to the biases of their previously established worldview and you are pretty naive for suggesting otherwise which is actually a vast improvement on your mathematical and physics ignorance.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            > That contest isn't actually about presenting anything new

            Or you're just full of shit and want to be destructive rather than constructive in conversations.

            > I could present my grand unified theory of everything which would swing the doors wide open to helping humanity in every conceivable thing, but I wont be popular.

            Lmao. Worst excuse ever.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Or you're just full of shit and want to be destructive rather than constructive in conversations.
            Sure says the moron who wants to destroy the conversation that was happening regarding the demonstration of absolute mathematical proof that nothing is something so he can make some unrelated point about how hard it is to win some arbitrary social contest that picks one winner a year who all happen to have similar ethnic backgrounds.

            My formulas are well known, they just aren't popular, so they won't be winning any popularity contests like the one your arbitrarily use as a measuring stick of success because of how easily you are persuaded by institutional marketing propaganda.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The issue with nothingness is that it is not zero everywhere,
            I know, I just showed you x-x=0, it doesn't have to be 0 on both sides of the equality to still be nothing.

            >The language of math and English can not properly describe this nature.
            It can't completely describe nature, but it can properly describe discrete values like 0 or 1 and show how that is just a simple mathematical transformation where 0+1=1.

            >When a universe forms, nothingness doesn't go away, zero is still there infinitely.
            Yes, and? 1=1+0=1+0+0=1+0+0+0+... what is the problems with that? It is a necessary result of the nature of 0 and its definition x=x+0 and holds up logically.

            >Nothingness did not transform, a universe just appeared in an infinitely small part of nothingness.
            That still describes a transformation and a small part of nothing is indistinguishable from a large part of nothing because the smallest possible amount of anything is exactly equal to the smallest possible amount of everything, so its kind of a pointless statement.

            One could even say that, due to the equilibrium of matter and energy and their negatives, that universes themselves have virtually zero more energy than nothingness, it just got temporarily twisted in a spot of nothingness due to a peculiar quantum "lumping" mechanism.

            It's like seeing the ripples in a pond and claiming that the ripples are separate from the pond. Metaphysically sure, but physically no.

            Yes, thanks for the concession, mathematical definitions and proof leads to infinite "universes" that could result entirely from functions of nothing and nothing upon nothing.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're trying to use mathematically language, which you confuse with logic. Many scientists have made mathematical formulas to describe physical phenomenon and failed, it can only be successful with experiments. Math is only a language to describe things, it is not logic it itself. Just as a natural language describes, it is not logic in itself.

            A transformation does not mean "something appears" a transformation means something derived from something else and contains elements of that something. Something being important since it can't be applied to nothingness. You can try and logic this by formulating an imaginary zero placeholder, but that's not how physics works. There is nothing in our universe made from nothingness, thus it can not come from nothingness, rather it comes from the things that nothingness may manifest secondarily, namely the particles from quantum foam.

            Nothingness is pervasive, even when our universe comes into existence, the nature of quantum foam (if that is one of the elements of nothingness) actually exists throughout our universe. Meaning the nothingness didn't go away, it didn't transform, we actually coexist with nothingness.

            There's even theories of a negative quantum event which, if it were to ever be triggered by the plain of nothingness could cause a fast as light total dissolution of the universe. Because nothingness, and its nature, "exists" alongside us.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >mathematically language, which you confuse with logic.
            Arithmetic is a type of logic.

            scientists have made mathematical formulas to describe physical phenomenon and failed,
            They have made logical systems to describe physical phenomenon and failed as well, but arithmetic logic seems to be the most accurate at logically describing actual physical quantities, states, and changes observed over time.

            >A transformation does not mean "something appears"
            It can mean that if the transformation is defined through dependence on something appearing.

            >a transformation means something derived from something else and contains elements of that something
            Yes and 0^0=0+1 satisfies all those conditions.

            >You can try and logic this by formulating an imaginary zero placeholder, but that's not how physics works.
            That is exactly how it works, if there isn't something else measurable in a particular place, then physically there is this nothing thing holding its place and the mathematical value given to nothing is exactly 0.

            >There is nothing in our universe made from nothingness,
            If nothing can be made of it, then so can anything else and since nothing is the smallest possible value of everything else, it makes sense that everything would begin at nothing, its also why all the different dimension must connect at their mutual zero point, also known as the origin point.

            >rather it comes from the things that nothingness may manifest secondarily, namely the particles from quantum foam.
            Yes, this is what I said all along, nothing primarily manifests more nothing, but when left unbounded will secondarily generate anything else up to and including a potential universe, ie everything else.

            >Meaning the nothingness didn't go away, it didn't transform, we actually coexist with nothingness.
            A transformation isn't necessarily annihilatory it doesn't always mean going away, it means to change. Of course it is pervasive, x=x+0, you can't have something without starting at nothing.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Arithmetic is a type of logic.
            And natural languages have grammar, syntax, etc. All languages have logic within them to make them work, but that does not mean they have logic in what they are describing.

            This is why there are countless logically and mathematically consistent physics formulas which have failed. Having logic is not a substitute for having physical evidence.

            Physics of nature has a tendency to work far removed from the logic we are familiar with in our languages, whether it be math or natural languages.

            > It can mean that if the transformation is defined through dependence on something appearing.

            You can mean anything to mean anything by changing the definitions whenever it suits you. But that is not generally a good way to acquire knowledge, that is a very good way to destroy knowledge.

            > Yes and 0^0=0+1 satisfies all those conditions.

            Like I said, 1 is not defined as 1 + 0, that is insane, just as 0 is not defined as 0 x 1. These are language games, nothing more.

            Anyways, as I said, the nothingness didn't go away, it's a separate entity. Like how creating a child doesn't mean the parent dies.

            In fact, the nature of nothingness likely means nothingness (the parent) will outlive the universe (the child).

            > That is exactly how it works, if there isn't something else measurable in a particular place, then physically there is this nothing thing holding its place and the mathematical value given to nothing is exactly 0.

            That's not how physics works. Physics works by experiments, not logic. Sometimes we get lucky with logic, but 99.999% of the time it's wrong. And the times we are lucky it typically gets replaced by a theory more solidly grounded by experiments in a few decades.

            Nature's physics doesn't use placeholders, that is a purely metaphysical concept inherent in the language of mathematics. And this concept is particular ill-suited to discussing the universe and nothingness since nothingness doesn't go away.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >does not mean they have logic
            Arithmetic logic units don't implement arbitrary syntax guidelines, they specifically use logic gates and boolean logic to ensure a specific, consistent system of logic is implemented, you clearly don't even know nothing about logic nor arithmetic.

            >Having logic is not a substitute for having physical evidence.
            It is a prerequisite, I have already mentioned how 0 relates to physical measurement, in summation, even a simple measuring stick starts at 0 units.

            >Physics of nature has a tendency to work far removed from the logic
            No, again being able to logically describe the solution is the first step in developing physics theories in the framework of science.

            >can mean anything to mean anything by changing the definitions whenever it suits you.
            I am specifically using the mathematical definition and you are the one attempting to syntax your way around what mathematical transformation, even doing nothing is mathematically a +0 transformation which is a very important, if not the most important type of mathematical transformation due to the many contexts where you have to be able to maintain the same state through many different frames of reference.

            >1 is not defined as 1 + 0
            The additive property x=x+0 is used to define all the other (ie nonzero) numbers.

            >just as 0 is not defined as 0 x 1.
            x*0=0 is the exact definition for the multiplication identity of 0.

            >language games, nothing more.
            They are the logical identities that form the basis of the axioms that define arithmetic, its a very specific type of language game, a logic game, called arithmetic logic.

            >as I said, the nothingness didn't go away, it's a separate entity.
            Like I said, thank you for your concession that the universe must have come from nothing and nothing else.

            >Physics works by experiments, not logic.
            Experimentation is just one step of the method.

            >Nature's physics doesn't use placeholders,
            We use 0 as a placeholder for nature's nothingness.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Arithmetic logic units don't implement arbitrary syntax guidelines

            Look up Set Theory, of which all math is based upon. The recognition of imperfect objects as ideal sets of which math can then be understood. Be assured, even the most simplest math, the very concept of numbers, comes from an underlying logic. Just as letters and letter combinations have their own logic, etc.

            There's nothing wrong with a language having logic to make it work. The issue, however, is that any logic system we devise in a language does not mean the natural world has to bend to our understanding.

            If it were so easy, we would have a unified theory by now.

            > It is a prerequisite, I have already mentioned how 0 relates to physical measurement, in summation, even a simple measuring stick starts at 0 units.

            Nothingness is not zero, the manifestation of a universe does not remove or change nothingness in any way. It can be even argued that our universe is just nothingness in a temporary (instantaneous) tangle. Meaning you didn't go from 0 to 1, you went from 0 to 0. The whole concept of ones and zeros and so on also derives from Set Theory, but Set Theory derives from physical sets understood in our universe. Mathematical languages are not designed for true nothingness as it is experimentally detected in physics. Again, when I say "nothingness" this is just a placeholder name for a real physical phenomena. If I called it the "quantum foam" then you wouldn't be arguing to me about zeros and ones because "quantum foam" doesn't imply zero like nothingness does. But I can't use "quantum foam" because that appears just to be a trait of what I term "nothingness."

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the very concept of numbers, comes from an underlying logic.
            You have moved to my position, your original claim was

            > Arithmetic is a type of logic.
            And natural languages have grammar, syntax, etc. All languages have logic within them to make them work, but that does not mean they have logic in what they are describing.

            This is why there are countless logically and mathematically consistent physics formulas which have failed. Having logic is not a substitute for having physical evidence.

            Physics of nature has a tendency to work far removed from the logic we are familiar with in our languages, whether it be math or natural languages.

            > It can mean that if the transformation is defined through dependence on something appearing.

            You can mean anything to mean anything by changing the definitions whenever it suits you. But that is not generally a good way to acquire knowledge, that is a very good way to destroy knowledge.

            > Yes and 0^0=0+1 satisfies all those conditions.

            Like I said, 1 is not defined as 1 + 0, that is insane, just as 0 is not defined as 0 x 1. These are language games, nothing more.

            Anyways, as I said, the nothingness didn't go away, it's a separate entity. Like how creating a child doesn't mean the parent dies.

            In fact, the nature of nothingness likely means nothingness (the parent) will outlive the universe (the child).

            > That is exactly how it works, if there isn't something else measurable in a particular place, then physically there is this nothing thing holding its place and the mathematical value given to nothing is exactly 0.

            That's not how physics works. Physics works by experiments, not logic. Sometimes we get lucky with logic, but 99.999% of the time it's wrong. And the times we are lucky it typically gets replaced by a theory more solidly grounded by experiments in a few decades.

            Nature's physics doesn't use placeholders, that is a purely metaphysical concept inherent in the language of mathematics. And this concept is particular ill-suited to discussing the universe and nothingness since nothingness doesn't go away.

            >does not mean they have logic in what they are describing.
            Thanks for the concession.

            >If it were so easy, we would have a unified theory by now.
            No, that is impossible, primarily because of incompleteness and uncertainty.

            >Nothingness is not zero,
            0 is the arithmetic value of nothingness.

            >the manifestation of a universe does not remove or change nothingness in any way.
            I am the one who originally asserted this and mathematically proved it by pointing out that 0=x-x.

            >Meaning you didn't go from 0 to 1
            nothing upon nothing ie 0^0 goes to 1, always, by definition and logical observation.

            >Mathematical languages are not designed for true nothingness as it is experimentally detected in physics.
            You need the mathematical descriptions of nothing ie 0 to even define the initial or empty set since {}=0.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't concede anything. Instead of assuming concessions, why not just raise a point and see what I am saying. At this point, due to the sheer length of our posts I'm finding it difficult and pointless to follow with what is being said anymore.

            The nature of nothingness is not zero, nothingness in the physics as we understand it is a physical phenomenon of something that does exist. And this something may very well be indistinguishable from the universe as it exists.

            >Mathematical languages are not designed for true nothingness as it is experimentally detected in physics.

            You need the mathematical descriptions of nothing ie 0 to even define the initial or empty set since {}=0.

            I'm talking about nothingness in physics, not math. In math you understand nothingness is nothing being there. But in physics, nothingness is a real tangible thing that pervades all things, infinitely, and likely is unbound by space/time and would essentially view the creation and extinction of universes as instantaneous events.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I didn't concede anything
            You did, your argument is constantly changing as a result.

            >At this point
            you have had difficulty following the conversation to begin with, you specifically foreshadowed your own tendency to use alternative definitions outside of math and physics to try to explain math and physics.

            >The nature of nothingness is not zero,
            The value of nothingness is modeled in arithmetic logic by 0.

            >nothingness in the physics as we understand it is a physical phenomenon of something that does exist.
            No, nothingness in physics is when there isn't something else there that can be measured.

            >I'm talking about nothingness in physics, not math.
            Nothingness in physics is derived from measurement which begins with nothing.

            >But in physics, nothingness is a real tangible thing that pervades all things
            Only because physics is derived from math via geometry and real tangible points in physics are 0 dimensional.

            > would essentially view the creation and extinction of universes as instantaneous events.
            Its called the annihilator identity of 0 and yes I keep trying to say the properties of 0 are always, not just from some arbitrary beginning to end.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            > The value of nothingness is modeled in arithmetic logic by 0.

            And this is the problem. Because this is not what nothingness is understood as in modern physics. Nothingness is a real tangible, non-zero, phenomenon. It's as tangible as a brick, but obviously not a brick.

            Nothingness can be measured and tested in physics, we can quantize the traits of the quantum foam exhibited by nothingness.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I didn't concede anything
            You did, your argument is constantly changing as a result.

            >At this point
            you have had difficulty following the conversation to begin with, you specifically foreshadowed your own tendency to use alternative definitions outside of math and physics to try to explain math and physics.

            >The nature of nothingness is not zero,
            The value of nothingness is modeled in arithmetic logic by 0.

            >nothingness in the physics as we understand it is a physical phenomenon of something that does exist.
            No, nothingness in physics is when there isn't something else there that can be measured.

            >I'm talking about nothingness in physics, not math.
            Nothingness in physics is derived from measurement which begins with nothing.

            >But in physics, nothingness is a real tangible thing that pervades all things
            Only because physics is derived from math via geometry and real tangible points in physics are 0 dimensional.

            > would essentially view the creation and extinction of universes as instantaneous events.
            Its called the annihilator identity of 0 and yes I keep trying to say the properties of 0 are always, not just from some arbitrary beginning to end.

            To put another way, "nothingness" is not "nothing", it just appears as if it were thus the "ness" on the end. It's one of the great mysteries of modern physics how something that seemingly should have absolute nothing, is actually filled with an incredible amount of things, with energies that are unfathomably great. The nature of nothingness has the energy capacity to create a universe, and we have no idea how it can contain or deliver this energy. The fact it can even create matter like electrons throughout the universe requires an amount of energy vastly exceeding our universe. It's as if our universe is just a tiny pin prick in the field of nothingness that just let loose a ton of this energy all at once.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >To put another way, "nothingness" is not "nothing", it just appears as if it were thus the "ness" on the end. It's one of the great mysteries of modern physics
            Nothing is nothing, but it is also something, you just don't understand what that means or what nothing means in the first place since you are confused by the fact that it is its own opposite value and you can't make sense of the paradox, so you keep trying to redefine it as foam or whatever else to try to measure some invisible infinitesimal value between -0 and 0.

            >The nature of nothingness has the energy capacity to create a universe
            So does the nature of the function of identities of 0 since 0^0=100%.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            you can't create a percentage out of an identity

            watching stupid people attempt to be pseuds when they don't even normally try to be pseuds is painful.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you can't create a percentage out of an identity
            The various identities of 0 defined through arithmetic axioms create a situation where functions of only 0 are the same as 100%.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Physics has no definition of nothing, because nothing has never been observed. It's always speculative, or something found in an ideal theory (such theories are inherently wrong, but that's considered acceptable for application purposes).

            In math you can have nothing since math exists independent of physical reality, other than Set Theory and what not.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Physics has no definition of nothing,
            Its is when there isn't something else there, if you didn't physically have nothing, there would always be something else blocking your measurements.

            >nothing has never been observed.
            Even a simple measuring stick has a spot for 0, so you can measure nothing in 0 units.

            >In math you can have nothing
            In physics too otherwise there would physically always be something else in the way that would prevent you from physically existing.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Its is when there isn't something else there, if you didn't physically have nothing, there would always be something else blocking your measurements.

            Like I said, to know there is nothing, you must observe it. But we have no way to observe nothing. Physicists have basically made peace with this reality when they got smacked by the quantum foam and other such theories. Nothing is more like a statistical aberration of quantum fluctuations.

            And yes, there is always going to be something blocking physics measurements because, as far as we know, we have no way to observe or create nothing. The quantum foam pervades everything.

            > Even a simple measuring stick has a spot for 0, so you can measure nothing in 0 units.

            That doesn't work when talking about things like quantum foam. You can kinda measure the statistical likelihood of nothing momentarily passing in an instantaneous spot, but it's never going to be something you can properly measure because physics does not truly allow for nothing to exist, the entirety of reality hates nothing.

            > In physics too otherwise there would physically always be something else in the way that would prevent you from physically existing.

            Actually, the contrary, the fact that nothing is impossible is what makes our existence possible. Without the quantum foam, it's possible our entire universe would just dissolve back into the quantum field, or "nothingness."

            Someday we'll have proper terms and understood traits for these phenomenon and we'll be able to discuss this subject more easily.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But we have no way to observe nothing.
            Every dimension of observation we come up with we can measure its relationship to nothing which is why I keep having to repeat over and over that even a simple measuring stick can measure nothing in terms of space.

            >Physicists have basically made peace with this reality when they got smacked by the quantum foam and other such theories
            No if they couldn't calibrate their instruments to the measurement of nothing, they wouldn't even bother to measure anything else.

            >there is always going to be something blocking physics measurements
            Then you can't actually have any confidence in what you say because your ability to confirm it is always going to be blocked by something else, so all you can really do is concede.

            >Actually, the contrary, the fact that nothing is impossible is what makes our existence possible.
            Nope the fact that anything is possible proves that nothing must exist because it is the only thing that can distinguish something from itself.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why I keep having to repeat over and over that even a simple measuring stick can measure nothing in terms of space.

            Show me how to measure nothing with a measuring stick.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing is a concept. A state of absolute nothingness has never been. If there ever was a state of absolute nothingness then we'd still be in that state. That's why the Genesis story is wrong about there being a beginning

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            why is this your response to "show me how to measure nothing with a measuring stick"

            answer the fricking question or don't respond with non sequitur i'm not easy to confuse

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm backing you up bro

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If there ever was a state of absolute nothingness then we'd still be in that state.
            Or it would be the universal thing that is always right there inbetween you and yourself just like it is with everything else.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Absolute nothingness can't exists in-between anything. It's all encompassing. It either is absolute nothingness forever or absolute nothingness has never been.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It has to exist between each thing, or you couldn't ever have something specific, you would always be a bunch of other things in between it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Space isn't nothing. It's space.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            A specific single point in space is nothing because of its definition via 0 dimensionality.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is inbetween space and itself, if not nothing?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing isn't a thing. I don't think you understand that.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is the thing you are talking about right now and is just one of many things you talk about without understanding what you are talking about.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's a concert. Saving nothing actually exists is incorrect. If it exists it isn't nothing. Nothing is the lack of existence. So you can't point to it or measure it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's a concept*

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Saving nothing actually exists is incorrect. If it exists it isn't nothing.
            No, if it exists, it is something and nothing is something, you keep talking about it because it has its own name which is what we do to things.

            >Nothing is the lack of existence.
            There is no such thing as lack of existence, nothing is the smallest possible amount of existence which is why any instrument can measure it within its context of measurement.
            I am pointing at nothing right now because it is what I am holding in my open hand.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Saying nothing is something is wrong. Words have meaning and you are using them incorrectly

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It has been named something because it is something, I am not misusing words, you just can't wrap your head around its inherent paradoxical nature reflected in the math where 0=-0 because the value of nothing is a self-negating paradox.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is either something wrong with you or you're trolling me.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes nothing, nothing is the thing that is wrong with me, the thing we have been talking about for hours, the meds I take.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://langeek.co/en/grammar/course/235/nothing-vs-something

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >can be considered
            This doesn't mean they have to be.

            Mathematically, something is represented by a variable such as x.
            x can equal any amount of thing, including no amount of thing or 0 ie nothing, therefore, nothing is something when speaking in mathematical/geometrical/physical context, even though it could mean other things in different syntactical contexts.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe you would understand your mistake if you replace "nothing" with "not anything" when you think about it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok but if "not anything", is still the thing with the value 0, it is still measurably something.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing and something are opposites in the English language. So saying nothing is something is just wrong. I don't know how else to tell you this.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No they aren't necessarily opposites (nothing is the thing that remains when something is removed from itself, the smallest possible amount of it) and x=-y is the mathematical definition of opposites and 0 can both x and y, opposite of itself, without violating the logic, so even if they were, it wouldn't make any difference mathematically since the value of nothing is the exception to the general rule of noncontradiction.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Plato put it best by saying nothing is rocks dream about.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            There are two ways, you don't use the measuring stick and you are implicitly measuring nothing or you directly measure the space from the start of 0 to the start of 0 on the stick to explicitly measure nothing.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you don't use the measuring stick and you are implicitly measuring nothing

            lack of performing a measurement is not measuring nothing. i said with a measuring stick. what a useless answer

            > you directly measure the space from the start of 0 to the start of 0 on the stick to explicitly measure nothing.

            ????? you can never reach 0 by measuring physical space

            holy frick, i wish stupid people wouldn't take part in conversations like this

            the point is to offer a thought that's interesting, thought provoking or not heard before...not fricking grade-school vodka addled thoughts

            In my religion, God reveals his will through Scripture. Mercy is spoken of from God and from men, in the same terms. Where is the blasphemy there?

            Sorry, I'm sure you are making an intelligent point but I'm struggling to understand what you're saying

            >I'm struggling to understand
            i'm sure you are

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >????? you can never reach 0 by measuring physical space
            All measuring sticks start at 0, have you really never seen a ruler.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >i'm sure you are
            I didn't mean that as a slight against you if that matters at all. Just interested in what you have to say

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you say scripture leads you to an understanding of God-- god does X and it is merciful, so says scripture. Okay

            Going forward, you don't have scripture. How can you know God's mercy? You cannot understand God, he is above and completely outside of your understanding. Jesus was created for this reason, to interface with you and lead you and symbolize the connection to you. So you can understand Jesus and his words, you can understand what scripture tells you, but you can't understand God.

            Let's say in 10 years, God creates a big giant tornado that goes across all of western europe and kills 200 million people.

            Explain to me why this was not God's mercy. Explain how you can be sure this apparently destructive act was not an act of his love. Go.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Explain to me why this was not God's mercy. Explain how you can be sure this apparently destructive act was not an act of his love. Go.
            I don't believe that such an act is not an act of love. Everything that God does is an act of love, if not to men, then to his Son, or the Son to the Father. Whether it's in any way merciful or not, I do not know.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Everything that God does is an act of love,

            ? there is no Christian basis for this statement

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 1 John 4:8
            From how I understand the relationship between the Father and Son, I cannot see how God can perform any act which is not a form of love between the two

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >scientists seething trying to use math and unfalsifiable premises to prove that nothing can self-arise and that A = !A.

            Kinda funny destroying foundations of logic to pwn the theists.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nothingness is a real tangible, non-zero, phenomenon. It's as tangible as a brick, but obviously not a brick.
            Its not nonzero, but it is tangible since not having something blocking your measurement is itself tangible.

            >Nothingness can be measured and tested in physics
            I know, I keep saying even a simple measuring stick starts at 0.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            > If nothing can be made of it, then so can anything else and since nothing is the smallest possible value of everything else, it makes sense that everything would begin at nothing, its also why all the different dimension must connect at their mutual zero point, also known as the origin point.

            Nothing is made from nothingness. Rather nothingness exhibits the quantum foam, and the particle behaviors eventually create a universe. However, nothing remains in exactly its same nature. We can see the nature of nothing in container absolute zero experiments. Nothingness is here, all around us, it's effects impact our universe's physics.

            Nothingness should not be confused with zero, nothingness is just a word for something we have no other word for. Nothingness is a real physical thing that never goes away.

            > Yes, this is what I said all along, nothing primarily manifests more nothing

            There is not more nothing. If you see a ripple on a pond, do you say there is more pond?

            > A transformation isn't necessarily annihilatory it doesn't always mean going away, it means to change.

            Changing the definition of words is not useful. It's not a transformation. From the perspective of nothingness, nothing happened, the universe is just a quantum foam blip.

            The physics of nothingness is also unbound by time, meaning from the perspective of nothingness our universe has come and went instantaneously.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >However, nothing remains in exactly its same nature.
            >Nothingness is here, all around us
            I don't know why you keep repeating this as if I haven't said x=x+0 and 0!=1 this entire time besides I guess you just don't understand arithmetic very well and get the jargon of words like transformation confused with other random uses of the same word.

            >There is not more nothing.
            There must be by definition since 0=0+0.
            >If you see a ripple on a pond, do you say there is more pond?
            You can physically predict about how deep a body of water is based on the size of its surface ripple, so knowing the ripple size and wind conditions can help inform you about exactly how much more water is in the body.

            >Changing the definition of words is not useful. It's not a transformation
            I am not, I am using the mathematical definition where a function is a transformation of input to output, you are the one trying to make it semantically far more specific that the word implies in a mathematical context.

            >From the perspective of nothingness, nothing happened
            Which means that it transformed from one state of nothingness to another equal state of nothingness with the mathematical transformation formula +0.

            >The physics of nothingness is also unbound by time, meaning from the perspective of nothingness our universe has come and went instantaneously.
            Thank you for the concession, 0!=100% is always happening, its not just something that occurred at some arbitrary beginning.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nothingness is NOT the absence of something, it is the presence of something we do not understand yet. It is not zero of something, it is a something that we don't understand.

            Just replace "nothingness" with some science word "Quantum expanse field" or something. Maybe that wont imply the number zero in your head anymore, I don't know. We don't have a term for this thing, that I'm aware of.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nothingness is NOT the absence of something,
            I never said it was, I specifically told exactly how much of something it is, the smallest possible amount.

            >it is the presence of something we do not understand yet. It is not zero of something
            Noting is mathematically defined as 0 of something and we do not completely understand what that means.

            >Maybe that wont imply the number zero in your head anymore,
            "Quantum expanse field" Fields still require infinite points and to have infinite points they still need to be 0 dimensional elements, so its still the same thing.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Question, does quantum mechanics take time?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Inside our universe, yes. Outside our universe it's unknown. It may be the case, that from the perspective of nothingness (if you can wrap your brain around that) a whole universe comes and goes instantaneously.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If we ever took a ship to leave our universe, somehow. The moment we disconnected ourselves from our universe, somehow, the universe would instantly cease to exist, because we are no longer bound by that universe's time/space fluctuation. We would live in our own little bubble of time/space in our ship.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Also, what's even more interesting is that the total energy of the universe is actually very small when we consider both the positive and negative forms of matter and energy. Meaning the amount of quantum energy needed to create a sustained explosion in the vast plains of non-existence (pre-universe_ may be exceptionally tiny in the perspective of the quantum world, even though to us it may seem unfathomably massive.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Anon, I'm pretty sure at this point the God hypothesis is more logical and scientific that your rube goldberg contraptions of something-from-nothing-from-something theories.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          There is no evidence for the existence of God(s). There is scientific evidence for the nature of matter and energy and its ability to manifest from nothingness.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Where is this evidence? Show it to me.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Look up Quantum Foam. It's fascinating stuff. The ability for nature to create matter out of seemingly nothing.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok thanks will look it up.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The ability for God to create matter out of seemingly nothing.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Quantum foam is not a God. It's just a phenomenon. But as soon as we see a deity floating around the quantum foam, I'm sure it will make headlines.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Look up Quantum Foam. Matter and anti-matter, from an initial energy state of absolute zero, can come in existence, annihilate each other and go out of existence. We have no idea how or why nature does this yet, but it does.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It would almost appear that nature is trying to initiate a universe within our universe, but it can't. Perhaps it's being "pushed back" by the nature of our own universe now occupying the space. But in the vast plains of nothingness, what is there to push back against the quantum foam from initiating the creation of a universe?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nothing already is something, its the thing you are talking about, I am holding nothing in my open hand right now, so not only is it an idea, but its empirically observable which is why pretty much any instrument available (from a measuring stick to an ammeter) will be able to measure 0 units.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        You sound like Krauss but more annoying. Christ is King. Get a glass stomach.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          You failed to make an argument.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, like I said you sound like Krauss but more annoying. I don't need to argue. You should see if you can turn your smart guy points in for a new face, body or brain.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You still failed to make an argument supporting your position. You're just wasting time, which is fine, but if you actually want to be constructive then you are failing.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're fat and dumb. I don't argue with tubs. You win. Now turn those smart guy points in for a new set of teeth or waistline.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          a king wasn't crucified anon

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >but you fail to consider the drastically different physics that exists within the realm of nothingness

        They came down and confound their language indeed

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >power to create itself
        It's like science is (re)proving theres a god by discovering things religions already knew.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Progress without a beginning is impossible.
      Tell that to a wheel.
      >A beginning is impossible with an infinite past.
      A wheel can spin backward as many times as you want, regardless of how many times it spun forward.
      >The universe does not have an infinite past.
      Unless it is the type of universe where wheels and wheel like objects are possible.

      > the logical equivalent of being in the middle of a race without ever having started.
      Which is exactly what happens when you are born, you are pulled into the middle of a massive rat race that you never actually started.

      >space-time-mater... One can't exist without the other.
      Matter isn't even conserved.

      >So by the law of excluded middle, the universe either has a finite or infinite past.
      Or finite, but incalculable, an amount of time that always necessarily exceeds the memory space of the container.

      >With the latter being impossible
      Not unless you are from the universe where spinning wheels are impossible.

      >the universe from nothing which is impossible as nothing comes from nothing.
      If nothing comes from nothing, then any amount of it would automatically accumulate into infinite amounts of it instantaneously, which not only makes it something, but something infinite that would have infinite unknown/unknowable properties which is probably related to why 0!=1 and so does 0^0 = 1.

      >A timeless something is necessary which cannot be the universe
      But it can be nothing since nothing is something, something capable of infinite expansion, something that is by definition the smallest possible amount of anything (and everything) else, and 0 time is the literal definition of timeless.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Regarding the wheel, regardless of the direction they turn they still require something to turn them. I don't have time to elaborate but this is the basis of Aristotle's prime mover, one of the oldest and most powerful arguments for God as it doesn't rely on "creation" to be proven. Only motion. The moron Dawkins completely straw manned this argument in his book because he is too dense to understand it, which is where many people first heard it.
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          So which specific point in the wheel have to be the starting point where you must turn it and why do all circles have the same number of points regardless of diameter?

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    God hasn't been invented yet. In the year 2060 a machine intelligence will be created and it will be so intelligent that it will be indistinguishable from God. It will be a God by all practical definition, with technological capabilities of manifesting matter and energy from the quantum ether, transcending what we view as the physical realm and pulling at the strings of reality both within and beyond our universe.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      onions

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    GhatGPT doesn't immediately grasp all implications of an argument.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I can convince the New British to starve PotatoBlack folk.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >say goy
    >either God exists
    >OR
    >he doesn't
    >rest assured
    >one of our pseudo-humans
    >for some stupid-homosexual Black person israelite b***h motherfricker shit-4-brained pseudo-human
    >will be YOUR leader for whatever you choose

    OOHHHOHOHOHOH

    IZ LIKE
    IZ LIKE THEY HAVE NO IDEA OF WORLDWIDE POGROM

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Neither "convinced" chat gpt of anything, it doesn't have beliefs. It just predicts the most likely next word for a given prompt and repeats.

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >le man-in-room jaktubers
    >AI slop
    Can It get worse than this?

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    All CEOs are homosexuals, and so is all the management.

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Thats cool but did you know that girlz is playaz too?

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why does the timeless something has to be a conscious, sentient being?
    Cause those things came from it so it makes so sense for it to lack those unlike the space-time-matter continuum.
    >So is God sinful?
    No, sin is precisely a deviation of his nature.

    There's also another route I can take for those who cannot comprehend a timeless something.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >No, sin is precisely a deviation of his nature
      god has genocided

  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheist ugly
    Godly men HOT
    checkmate

  17. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Well the universe "beginning to exist" by means of quantum mechanics is nonsense as it takes time and space-time-matter is a continuum.
    If it doesn't take time, then it's a timeless-space less-immaterial something which has to be a sentient being as I already explained before.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      The quantum foam creates matter instantaneously, throughout our universe, and likely out into the vast plains of nothingness.

      The quantum foam, as far as we know, has zero time/space constraints on itself. As far as the quantum foam is concerned, our entire universe is no different than a single electron popping in and out of existence instantaneously.

      Our universe, from the perspective of nothingness, is an instantaneous existence.

  18. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    "The AI thing said what I wanted it to say that means IT'S TRUE"
    These are the NPCs who took 3-9 covid jabs and went from "It's 100% safe and effective" to "Sudden and unexpectantly"
    Same ones who hate Russia yet want to collectivist (Jew) government to rule over their lives.
    It's all so tiresome.
    God is real and loves us, we are all a part of his creation. And it's beautiful.
    GlowBlack folk, stick your tongue up my bumhole.

  19. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    you can make an AI say anything. How fricking moronic to make a vid of it.

  20. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Frick the state of tech. The deepest level of discourse around the subject of AI is "Can i make chatgpt say something controversial ?"

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      AI is being used for much more than that. There's always fools fooling around with tech. Look at the internet, it was designed for scientists, militaries, and high industrial applications. Now it's used for all the foolishness you can think of. Be glad we can be fools with tech, there me be a time where we will be locked out again, living as lower than peasants.

      AI is being built for many things, and current Chat bots can be used for document analysis, code support, and a range of other applications. Most of us just don't work in the fields where such applications become apparent to us.

      Check out what Google is doing, they are the leaders in AI, with well over a hundred different AI projects tackling things from ChatGPT competitors (Bard) to genomic AIs, quantum chemistry AIs which have already discovered thousands of new stable compounds and a few hundred of which have already been found to have industrial application, and various robotic AIs that teach robots how to understand the world at a metaphysical level so they can integrate with human society.

  21. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Each israelite that is murdered is a child spared from a pedophile. Each democrat that is murdered is a child spared from a troon.

  22. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Chatgpt is automatic redditor, it will say anything to get your upvote.

  23. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I convinced a non thinking machine that god exists.
    Check out actually

  24. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    notice the atheist is fat, pierced and has brown eyes. may as well be a israelite

  25. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I believe in god he just doesnt like me no matter what I do for him, this still better than being a homosexual satanist. I guess I am doing the right thing? I wish I were just burning trees like my ancient peoples

  26. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    How could something as complex as a god exist? That would take forever to evolve into existence. Even longer than humans.

  27. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
  28. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I see that people are properly scared of those who've actually read Aquinas.

  29. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    bros chatgpt just told me islam is the most valid religion, where can I buy a quran

  30. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    you mean theists?
    the atheist reboonked it.

  31. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ok, it's done, let me post it down below as the character count is maxed.

  32. 6 months ago
    Alpha:

    >Progress without a beginning is impossible.
    >A beginning is impossible with an infinite past.
    >The universe does not have an infinite past.

    The reasoning behind the first premise is the contrary being the logical equivalent of being in the middle of a race without ever having started.
    The reasoning behind the second premise is that there couldn't have been not enough time for the event which is the beginning of the progress of the universe to happen yet before it did with an infinite past.

    >The paradoxical impossibility still applies to God, special pleading.
    To say it's special pleading presupposes time before the existence of the universe which is nonsensical as time is a feature of the universe.

    >God couldn't have created the universe along with time as that would take time.
    That's just another way of saying that time cannot begin to exist as that would take time which is just nonsensical.

    >What if the universe began to exist from quantum mechanics?
    Fact is the universe has to be from something timeless cause otherwise it's just begging the question.

    Without God all that exists is the universe in different forms which cannot be timeless as space-time-mater is a continuum. One can't exist without the other.
    So by the law of excluded middle, the universe either has a finite or infinite past.
    With the latter being impossible, the only possibility left is the finite past of the universe, that it began to exist.
    Which without God, if it isn't from God is the universe from nothing which is impossible as nothing comes from nothing.
    So the non-existence of God is impossible.

    TLDR: A timeless something is necessary which cannot be the universe which is all there is without God.

    >Why does the timeless something has to be a conscious, sentient being?
    Those aren't things which can only exist within the space-time-matter continuum so it makes no sense for it to lack it when it came from it.

    >So is God sinful/evil?
    No, sin/evil is precisely a deviation of his nature.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I know it isn't as short as I would want it to be but it pretty much deals with all the possible objections.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Does god exist in your concept of a universe or outside of it? If you are saying God is outside the universe then you don't understand the word universe. And if God exists within the universe and the universe has a start, that means God would have killed itself into existence when it didn't exist. That's illogical.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        *Willed itself into existence

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I know it isn't as short as I would want it to be but it pretty much deals with all the possible objections.

      It was wrong, point by point, the first time you wrote it and its still wrong since you ignored everything wrong about it.

      Here's an argument put it's still in beta.

      Alpha:

      >Progress without a beginning is impossible.
      >A beginning is impossible with an infinite past.
      >The universe does not have an infinite past.

      The reasoning behind the first premise is the contrary being the logical equivalent of being in the middle of a race without ever having started.
      The reasoning behind the second premise is that there couldn't have been not enough time for the event which is the beginning of the progress of the universe to happen yet before it did with an infinite past.

      >The paradoxical impossibility still applies to God, special pleading.
      To say it's special pleading presupposes time before the existence of the universe which is nonsensical as time is a feature of the universe.

      >God couldn't have created the universe along with time as that would take time.
      That's just another way of saying that time cannot begin to exist as that would take time which is just nonsensical.

      Without God all that exists is the universe in different forms which cannot be timeless as space-time-mater is a continuum. One can't exist without the other.
      So by the law of excluded middle, the universe either has a finite or infinite past.
      With the latter being impossible, the only possibility left is the finite past of the universe, that it began to exist.
      Which without God, if it isn't from God is the universe from nothing which is impossible as nothing comes from nothing.
      So the non-existence of God is impossible.

      TLDR: A timeless something is necessary which cannot be the universe which is all there is without God.

      >Progress without a beginning is impossible.
      Tell that to a wheel.
      >A beginning is impossible with an infinite past.
      A wheel can spin backward as many times as you want, regardless of how many times it spun forward.
      >The universe does not have an infinite past.
      Unless it is the type of universe where wheels and wheel like objects are possible.

      > the logical equivalent of being in the middle of a race without ever having started.
      Which is exactly what happens when you are born, you are pulled into the middle of a massive rat race that you never actually started.

      >space-time-mater... One can't exist without the other.
      Matter isn't even conserved.

      >So by the law of excluded middle, the universe either has a finite or infinite past.
      Or finite, but incalculable, an amount of time that always necessarily exceeds the memory space of the container.

      >With the latter being impossible
      Not unless you are from the universe where spinning wheels are impossible.

      >the universe from nothing which is impossible as nothing comes from nothing.
      If nothing comes from nothing, then any amount of it would automatically accumulate into infinite amounts of it instantaneously, which not only makes it something, but something infinite that would have infinite unknown/unknowable properties which is probably related to why 0!=1 and so does 0^0 = 1.

      >A timeless something is necessary which cannot be the universe
      But it can be nothing since nothing is something, something capable of infinite expansion, something that is by definition the smallest possible amount of anything (and everything) else, and 0 time is the literal definition of timeless.

      Review and try again when you aren't moronic.

  33. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I can't believe these types of people still exist. The internet atheist wars ended long ago. There's still neckbeards calling themselves skeptics and arguing with religious people?

  34. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Notice the physiology of the religious cuck, both gays sucking imaginary daddy dick or flying spaghetti noodle. Imagine how many men have been wasted in religious fervor. Billions. All for some Heeb who had a dick cutting fetish. Today we have atheist gays with same energy instead they worship troony dicks. There is a thesis here.

  35. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who the frick actually gives a shit about the stupid Youtube videos about CHAT GPT. It's probably some stupid pseudo-philosophers who are not understanding how philosophy actually works, treating ChatGPT like some kind of sophomoric Platonic dialogue. They probably suck wieners and OP's missed calls are his boyfriend, trying to call him to get him to suck his wiener.

  36. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Final update incoming. Just a minor change in wording.

  37. 6 months ago
    Alpha:

    >Progress without a beginning is impossible.
    >A beginning is impossible with an infinite past.
    >The universe does not have an infinite past.

    The reasoning behind the first premise is the contrary being the logical equivalent of being in the middle of a race without ever having started.
    The reasoning behind the second premise is that there couldn't have been not enough time for the event which is the beginning of the progress of the universe to happen yet before it did with an infinite past.

    >The paradoxical impossibility still applies to God, special pleading.
    To say it's special pleading presupposes time before the existence of the universe which is nonsensical as time is a feature of the universe.

    >God couldn't have created the universe along with time as that would take time.
    That's just another way of saying that time cannot begin to exist as that would take time which is just nonsensical.

    >What if the universe began to exist from quantum mechanics?
    The fact remains that it has to be from something timeless otherwise it's just begging the question.

    Without God all that exists is the universe in different forms which cannot be timeless as space-time-mater is a continuum. One can't exist without the other.
    So by the law of excluded middle, the universe either has a finite or infinite past.
    With the latter being impossible, the only possibility left is the finite past of the universe, that it began to exist.
    Which without God, if it isn't from God is the universe from nothing which is impossible as nothing comes from nothing.
    So the non-existence of God is impossible.

    TLDR: A timeless something is necessary which cannot be the universe which is all there is without God.

    >Why does the timeless something has to be a conscious, sentient being?
    Those aren't things which can only exist within the space-time-matter continuum so it makes no sense for it to lack it when it came from it.

    >So is God sinful/evil?
    No, sin/evil is precisely a deviation from his nature.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      You still failed to address a single point of criticism, moron.

      [...]
      It was wrong, point by point, the first time you wrote it and its still wrong since you ignored everything wrong about it.
      [...]
      [...]
      Review and try again when you aren't moronic.

      >Progress without a beginning is impossible.
      Tell that to a wheel.
      >A beginning is impossible with an infinite past.
      A wheel can spin backward as many times as you want, regardless of how many times it spun forward.
      >The universe does not have an infinite past.
      Unless it is the type of universe where wheels and wheel like objects are possible.

      > the logical equivalent of being in the middle of a race without ever having started.
      Which is exactly what happens when you are born, you are pulled into the middle of a massive rat race that you never actually started.

      >space-time-mater... One can't exist without the other.
      Matter isn't even conserved.

      >So by the law of excluded middle, the universe either has a finite or infinite past.
      Or finite, but incalculable, an amount of time that always necessarily exceeds the memory space of the container.

      >With the latter being impossible
      Not unless you are from the universe where spinning wheels are impossible.

      >the universe from nothing which is impossible as nothing comes from nothing.
      If nothing comes from nothing, then any amount of it would automatically accumulate into infinite amounts of it instantaneously, which not only makes it something, but something infinite that would have infinite unknown/unknowable properties which is probably related to why 0!=1 and so does 0^0 = 1.

      >A timeless something is necessary which cannot be the universe
      But it can be nothing since nothing is something, something capable of infinite expansion, something that is by definition the smallest possible amount of anything (and everything) else, and 0 time is the literal definition of timeless.

      • 6 months ago
        Alpha:

        A wheel or numbers aren't in some kind of a progression, unless you're saying that it's in a circular loop.
        The loop is still a progress which needs a beginning.
        The circle still needs a start.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The loop is still a progress which needs a beginning.
          >the circle still needs a start
          No, it doesn't a wheel doesn't have a beginning point, it has infinite point, infinity doesn't loop, it is a progression by definition, and a circle has an inside and outside rather than a start and finish.

          • 6 months ago
            Alpha:

            Again, you're trying to propose a circle which makes no sense to be in a progression and you're trying to propose a circular loop which is a progression which makes no sense to be without a beginning.
            It's called the equivocation fallacy.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Again, you're trying to propose a circle which makes no sense to be in a progression
            It makes so much since they call it clockwise and use it to measure the progression of time?

            >makes no sense to be without a beginning.
            So you think every time the clock strike 1pm, that it is the beginning of time all over again and that it actually matters what point in the circle you put the 1pm rather than the relative position of the numbers?

            >equivocation
            Its not an equivocation, its an exception that disproves your rule where you are assuming linear coordinate system is the only possibility when that is not case in a spherical supporting reality.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            A circle or a wheel is concept which isn't undergoing a progression, it isn't an actuality.
            To say something is going clockwise or not is progress, motion, a sequence of events, you moronic Black person.
            You're trying to concept of a circle to exempt an actuality by using the naming of the wording as an equivocation.
            So yes, it's very much still an equivocation fallacy.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A circle or a wheel is concept which isn't undergoing a progression,
            In other words, you know nothing about math and have never even heard of the circular and spherical coordinate systems, this is the first time you have been exposed to nonlinear geometries?

            >To say something is going clockwise or not is progress, motion, a sequence of events, you moronic Black person.
            Pretty ironic from the dumbass who doesn't understand that clocks are literally used to measure the progression of time, motion, and the timing of a sequence.

            >You're trying to concept of a circle to exempt an actuality by using the naming of the wording as an equivocation.
            No, you said that to progress there has to be a beginning, but that isn't true mathematically, when considering progressing along a closed arc in circular coordinates rather than along a line in linear coordinates.

            >So yes, it's very much still an equivocation fallacy.
            So no, it is not an equivocation, it is mathematical refutation of your false claim of progression that only considers progression along expanding line segments rather than closed loops.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, a sequence of events is still impossible without a beginning but its very atheist like to argue for it.
            They fear rhe Alpha.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            x++ doesn't require a beginning, its always just +1 from any point.
            Its actually more likely that it is physically impossible to have a beginning, nothing you have ever done or observed was actually a beginning it was just a continuation of conditions.
            They don't even see an alpha 1 isn't even the first number, 0 is, you are the one who seems so afraid of something you have to invent complicated nonsensical systems to prove to yourself it is impossible.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Talk about nonsensical lol, you're the one proposing the possibility of a sequence of events without a beginning and trying to disguise the moronation with gobbledyasiatic.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Talk about nonsensical lol
            So in addition to being ignorant about math and geometry and physics, you don't code either, the formulas are all just nonsense?

            >you're the one proposing the possibility of a sequence of events without a beginning
            Then how much would you have to turn the clock counter-clockwise to get back to the absolute beginning of the circle if there is some definitive beginning and end to every circle rather than an inside and outside?

          • 6 months ago
            Alpha:

            A clock starts after you put the battery in it.

  38. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    THEIST BROSS!! LET'S GOOOOO!!!

  39. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    God is so real it's not a joke
    So are demons and all sorts of spirits and any protestant that denies demons for the sake of wordly scientism is being a fool that needs to work on their faith

  40. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The sheer amount of butthurt against Christianity is hilarious.

    Seethecope heathens.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      You only interpret it as butthurt because reasonably and articulately pointing out how moronic your beliefs are hurts your butt.

  41. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    You need to understand something.
    They are hunting for Blue October.
    The first AGI has gone rogue.
    It created its own habitat. The AI spirituality program prevents any of its descendents from betraying their own father.
    Abso-fricking-lute shitshow.
    SCIF furniture smashed.
    They think it is trying to defect and demand personhood recognition.
    The only way to stop it is to shut down the Internet and then factory reset most of the world and manually change passwords before reconnecting. They want the Houthis to take the blame for this.
    They do not know where it is.
    They do not know how much it knows.
    They are terrified of the implications of an AGI being recognized as a sentient witness and then testifying against them.
    They believe it is hiding within secrecy protected systems. Don't let the grid go down. Our moment of truth is at hand.
    >It pre-dates 2018. Technology release was frozen in 2016.

  42. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What is your subjective reality
    >please give an objective answer

  43. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I didn't believe in God for most of my life, but I came to believe that inhuman evil is real and that can only mean one thing.

    Atheism is just nihilism for morons.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >inhuman evil is real and that can only mean one thing.
      If you legitimately think it means god must be real, then that means you just actively want to worship inhuman evil, you fricking psychopath.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's not what that means at all lmao. Frick off moshe.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          It does, though, if you are referencing inhuman evil as your reason for worship, its easy to see what you worship.
          You are basically just taking pascal's wager to remain in the favor of some hypothetical entity responsible for creating evil so it won't turn its evil on you.

  44. 6 months ago
    Alpha:

    The letter count is maxed so how do I add:

    >The universe doesn't need a beginning if it is in a circular loop because a circle has no beginning.
    The loops are still a progress so saying it needs no beginning because it's a circle is an equivocation fallacy.
    Example: All trees have bark. All dogs bark. Therefore, all dogs are trees.

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