If God created everything, what created God?
Any Philosophers talked about this matter?
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
If God created everything, what created God? Any Philosophers talked about this matter?
This is the dumbest question that gets repeated like you really have to be a moron to ask this
in the Christian tradition God has always existed; in fact God is actually outside time itself.
How is that even possible?
How is anything possible
It just is i guess
God is infinity itself. Infinity itself is nothing, a void; that has the potential to impose limitations upon its own infinity, in order to experience a finitude, or at least observe one. God is all possibility, experiencing itself endlessly.
Doesn’t 1+1 = 2 exist outside of time?
So God is a physical law? Are you a pantheist? It makes no sense to talk about a conscious being with real existence being outside of time
Numbers aren’t physical laws you midwit
>Numbers aren’t physical laws you midwit
They're logical constructs. So now you're saying God is totally made up? Math without empirical verification is essentially an intellectual game. Is that what you're saying God is?
>Numbers without empirical verification is a made up game.
You do realize that it’s math that allows for your basedence empirical verification to happen, not the other way around right
>You do realize that it’s math that allows for your basedence empirical verification to happen
You can empirically verify stuff without even knowing how to count. A caveman could claim he could start a fire by rubbing sticks together really fast. Another caveman could watch him do it. Bam empirical verification. Math is an exercise in deductive logic that gives no guarantee at all that it's results exist in reality. There are multiple concepts and even whole fields of math that have no connection at all to physical reality.
There’s no guarantee that what the caveman thinks is happening is actually happening. Look up the problem of induction
So now you don't believe in empirical verification at all? How does that match up with you saying math was required for empirical verification to happen?
Problem of induction doesn’t affect math chimp. The problem is that you think math is just some made up shit while empirical evidence is the end all be all of what we know. It’s incredibly ignorant
>Problem of induction doesn’t affect math chimp.
But you claimed math was necessary for empirical verification. I said that was stupid. How does math help with the problem of induction?
>The problem is that you think math is just some made up shit while empirical evidence is the end all be all of what we know.
Math is made up. It's logically rigorous but the rules of any game can be logically rigorous. The issue is you drawing an analogy between math and God but math doesn't exist like you want it to exist. Proving the monster group exists mathematically doesn't mean it's a real thing.
how are you this dumb, shame on other anons to have even bothered such discussion
>believe
That's your problem, this things aren't of the type on which beliefs are applicable
>numbers are merely logical constructs
imagine knowing less than Plato
Hyperreals, surreals, p-adics, quaternions, and dual numbers. Not to mention plain old complex numbers. Are all those real things or just logical constructs? What about the higher cardinalities?
Why pretend that the complexity of mathematical objects has anything to do with whether or not they exist independently of the mind? Unironically, not an argument.
>Why pretend that the complexity of mathematical objects has anything to do with whether or not they exist independently of the mind?
Because you're pretending that the intuitiveness of the natural numbers has something to do with whether or not they exist independently of the mind. The natural numbers are a logical construct just like the more exotic ones I listed. They have no reality besides in our minds.
>Because you're pretending that the intuitiveness of the natural numbers has something to do with whether or not they exist independently of the mind
you have no clue what Platonism is. I neither stated nor implied any such thing, you're just confused as to what Platonism is.
Platonism says numbers have some type of real existence. What is the argument in favor of that besides them seeming intuitive? My multiple examples are to show that math quickly becomes unintuitive and unless you're going to arbitrarily declare some parts of math real and others not Platonism falls apart with regards to the existence of numbers.
>What is the argument in favor of that besides them seeming intuitive?
there are many. your ignorance of them don't make them magically disappear.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/
>there are many.
All effectively refuted though you seem to be ignorant of that
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-mathematics/
>effectively refuted
every post you make is more ignorant than the last. see:
http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Marcus%20-%20AP%20and%20the%20IA.pdf
or, more briefly:
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7552
most mathematicians disagree heavily with nominalism. I wouldn't expect you to know that, but now you do!
Most of these have physical applications. You sound like a Wikipedia scholar.
>empirical verification
Kek are you serious, you can't empirically verificate anything, much less math
>Kek are you serious, you can't empirically verificate anything, much less math
2+2=4. I have two stones and I add them to two more stones. I count the new pile of stones. It equals four.
That is not _verification_, it is coincidence and consequence of the (semi)coherence of the universe. You abstract 2+2=4 _because_ when you add two two things, they consistently result in 4; it is not the other way ie since 2+2=4 every time you add two to two things you obtain 4 things. If you disagree with that, we have a long work to do here
You are such a fricking moron.
>Doesn’t 1+1 = 2 exist outside of time?
No, they exist inside time because they are a human creation and temporary things can't create eternal ones. Actually, neither 1, +, =, nor 2 really exist as you or God exist so they are neither outside nor inside of time. You can say they exist if you interpret it as "I have an idea which is represented by them" but, if we accept that, literally everything exist like an big-headed, headless man (which can't exist under the usual definition of existance because it is incoherent with conventional logic)
Computation is necessarily stepwise, even in the abstract, so something like SUM(1,1) only becomes equivalent to 2 over time. The equality relation is eternal I suppose.
But I think philosophers like Wittgenstein seriously erred by thinking the "eternal" equality relationship is the more natural. As kids, we learn from cause and effect. Cause is a more essential element of our phenomenal experience than any sort of abstraction.
Personally, I'm not big on Platonism in the philosophy of mathematics, but I also don't like deflationary theories of truth, where truth is just "something arbitrarily defined in a system." This just seems to make formal systems instead of numbers eternal Platonic objects.
Platonism goes off when it gets applied to physics. I mean, the arguments for eternalism, the claims that "all times equally exist now and always," is super popular in popular physics, but is completely a philosophical not an empirical argument. Hell, the laws of physics at the macro and micro scales bo longer even seem reversible. It seems to make way more sense to say "events occur only at the time at which they occur." Eternalism is just born or projecting the Platonism of mathematics onto reality.
I tend to go more with intuitionist mathematics, which also seems to work interestingly with quantum phenomena.
Hegel had it right in a way then. A ≠ A. A is the whole process of A's coming into being.
God is a true infinite, unlike abstractions like numbers. The apophatic theology can't apply to numbers, it is only true for the truly transcendental.
IMO, all the Apophatics, Saint Dennis, Eriugena, Merton, Eckhart, Boheme, were panenthiests (not pantheists). Probably Augustine, Aquinas, and Bonaventure too. Panentheism makes more sense with the Bible too. God is "in everything but contained in nothing."
this is the most OG post in the thread. its a wrap folks. god damn bro
there are dozens of significant arguments about precisely that which were first made 700–1700+ years ago (which are still built upon and argued over today). You have much catching up to do.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/
None of those address how a conscious acting being can be outside of time. The cosmological argument actually relies on God being in time so that he can be before the universe and create it
>None of those address how a conscious acting being can be outside of time
you have no ability to argue so you choose to life. there are counterarguments /in the articles/ that you could've chosen to parrot if you so much as even opened them up, but you didn't even look. this betrays your complete lack of desire for intellectual honesty.
>The cosmological argument actually relies on God being in time so that he can be before the universe and create it
another embarrassing lie that anyone can see with a quick ctrl+f (picrel). you know nothing about any of these arguments—perhaps you've only heard the breadtuber versions?
choose to lie*
>another embarrassing lie
So God didn't exist before the universe? So that means he can't have created it.
hopefully you're trolling and not really this averse to reading. you misrepresented the argument, I corrected with a direct passage. you being a silly billy and continuing to misunderstand the intentions behind plain English isn't my problem.
Not an answer. If God doesn't exist in time he can't be before the universe. Cosmological argument BTFO
>That is not verification
It is verification to the extent that empirical verification is possible. For an example in the opposite direction whenever singularities arise in theoretical physics they are generally thrown out ad hoc since singularities aren't observed empirically.
>If God doesn't exist in time he can't be before the universe
One thing is contradiction and another agreement. If something contradict a theory (assuming the experiment is well done), the theory is wrong. But, if something agrees with a theory, it doesn't prove it to be true. Example:
Theory: every number is 1+1
Experiment: 2=1+1
The experiment agrees with the theory but it doesn't make it true because it has a contradiction: 1=1+1 is false. So that physical experiments are in accordance with some physical theory doesn't say much about it, only that it doesn't fail on that _particular_ experiment
>If something contradict a theory (assuming the experiment is well done), the theory is wrong. But, if something agrees with a theory, it doesn't prove it to be true.
That's what a theory being empirically verified means. Every experiment you've run agrees with the predicted results. So yes you can empirically verify basic addition.
Then, empirical verification is useless
So again you claimed you can't have empirical verification without math. So how does math help with the problem of induction? Or are you admitting that your original claim was stupid like I said.
>So again you claimed you can't have empirical verification without math.
I never claimed that, maybe it was another anon
>So how does math help with the problem of induction?
Do you mean this problem?
>there can be no demonstrative arguments to prove, that those instances, of which we have had no experience, resemble those, of which we have had experience.
Can you explain it further? It doesn't appear to me to be too difficult of a problem, probably because I am ignorant
>I never claimed that, maybe it was another anon
Is this not you here
>You do realize that it’s math that allows for your basedence empirical verification to happen
If it's not you I don't even know what the frick you're responding to me for.
>Is this not you here
No
>No
Then where the frick did you butt in. Because I've repeatedly referred back to that moron saying empirical verification depended on math. That's what I've been arguing against. What did you even think we were talking about?
How is what possible? Time doesn't exist outside human perception, it's not that outrageous that a being that surpasses human understanding lives outside of time.
God is infinity itself. He lives outside of all categories, including "life." As soon as you start using language you've already lost all sight of God. Even the name God, has no real relation to what God is.
>He lives outside of all categories, including "life.
And the category of existence. Since God doesn't exist.
In a sense, yes, but not in the "gotcha" way I assume you mean
That's all I could have hoped for. Another deluded fool shown to the truth of atheism and God's non-existence. You're welcome.
no that doesn't prove shit about atheism. It just proves that existence is subordinate to God.
You are a duleded moron that delude himself, what a fool
you're using "existence" incredibly loosely. perceivable reality =/= the universe =/= time (existence) within the universe =/= potential time (existence) outside of the universe =/= potential existence without time outside of the universe.
this is why definitions have to be rigorous, it's impossible to know either of you think.
by existence I mean all of the above. God still supersedes every subset of existence you described.
God is a non-contingent being. Aquinas talks about this extensively.
This. Krishna, Vishnu, and I’d say Shiva are also non-contingent being, so the ontological argument applies to them as well, but fedora-tipping atheists will never admit it.
I'm also non-contingent. Everything leading to my birth was predestined and necessary.
Good call. Allah, as a distinct divinity from the Christian gods, is also by definition non-contingent.
Allah = LORD
Yes, Allah is Lord and God. And Jesus is His prophet, but neither His son nor a god.
True
First temple cult disagrees. Yahweh is son of El.
Jesus said several time that He is God. How does islam square that?
If He's a prophet then He spoke the words of God. And yet He said He IS God.
It's a fundamental contridiction and show Islam is false
> Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
>Then the israelites said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
>Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
>Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going[p] through the midst of them, and so passed by
>Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?”
>And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
>Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’
It's really that straightforward
They don't believe he said that you dumb dumb
If i understand correctly muslims believe scriptures cant be corrupted.
Also didnt mohammad tell muslims to honor the bible and Jesus?
No they believe the previous scriptures were corrupted. The only scripture which will be incorruptible is the final one, which is both a conformation of the previous scriptures and the exposer of the tahrif (corruption/changes). I definitely recommend reading the Quran. There are verses about this.
False, he didn't say that he is God
Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word.
Lmao, read the whole passage:
John 10:30 "I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his israeli opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
hmmm
It also doesn't matter at all man, what God "is." God isn't anything. We are. When people talk about believing in God, having faith, etc what they're talking about is believing that life is worth experiencing, that the good outweighs the bad, or that good is even real, that love is something that can be trusted in. They're talking about, why go through this at all? "Because I believe in God." The life-force. They're talking about a lot of different things, but not necessarily ever what God actually is, God proper, is the infinite. Its okay to talk about what they talk about though. God does love us, God knows everything, being everything as he is, and knows that love is far preferable to fear or hatred. But we get to choose. So we turn to God and say we want his love. He just thinks, ok, but nah you don't. You want to love one another and don't think its possible; I've loved you from day one, what are you really asking for?
Silly ppl
No I don’t think philosophy has talked about this subject at all. This brand new concept will totally flip the world on its head.
From Imam Ali in Nahj Al-Balagha
>Praise be to Allah. He is such that senses cannot perceive Him, place cannot contain Him, eyes cannot see Him and veils cannot cover Him. He proves His eternity by the coming into existence of His creation, and (also) by originating His creation (He proves) His existence, and by their (mutual) similarity He proves that there is nothing similar to Him.
>He provides evidence through the creation of things of His being from ever, through their marks of incapability of His power, and through their powerlessness against death of His eternity.
>He is One, but not by counting. He is everlasting without any limit. He is existent without any support.
>He who assigns to Him (different) conditions does not believe in His Oneness, nor does he who likens Him grasp His reality.
>Everything that is known through itself has been created, and everything that exists by virtue of other things is the effect (of a cause).
>Times do not keep company with Him, and implements do not help Him. His Being precedes times. His Existence precedes non-existence and His eternity precedes beginning.
>The word 1 "mundhu" (i.e. since) disproves their eternity, the word "qad" (that denotes nearness of time of occurrence), disproves their being from ever and the word "lawla" (if it were not) keep them remote from perfection.
>Stillness and motion do not occur in Him, and how can that thing occur in Him which He has Himself made to occur, and how can a thing revert to Him which He first created, and how can a thing appear in Him which He first brought to appearance. If it had not been so, His Self would have become subject to diversity, His Being would have become divisible (into parts), and His reality would have been prevented from being deemed Eternal.
>If there was a front to Him there would have been a rear also for Him. He would need completing only if shortage befell Him. In that case signs of the created would appear in Him, and He would become a sign (leading to other objects) instead of signs leading to Him. Through the might of His abstention (from affectedness) He is far above being affected by things which affect others.
>He is that which does not change or vanish. The process of setting does not behove Him. He has not begotten any one lest He be regarded as having been born. He has not been begotten otherwise He would be contained within limits.
>It cannot be said that He has a limit or extremity, or end or termination; nor do things control Him so as to raise Him or lower Him, nor does anything carry Him so as to bend Him or keep Him erect. He is not inside things or outside them. He conveys news, but not with the tongue or voice. He listens, but not with the holes of the ears or the organs of hearing. He says, but does not utter words.
>His speech is an act of His creation. His like never existed before this. If it had been eternal it would have been a second god.
>It cannot be said that He came into being after He had not been in existence because in that case the attributes of the created things would be assigned to Him and there would remain no difference between them and Him, and He would have no distinction over them. Thus, the Creator and the created would become equal and the initiator and the initiated would be on the same level. He created (the whole of) creation without any example made by someone else, and He did not secure the assistance of any one out of His creation for creating it.
>Surely, after the extinction of the world, Allah the Glorified will remain alone with nothing else beside Him. He will be, after its extinction, as He was before its production: without time or place or moment or period.
Thanks anon
>>If there was a front to Him there would have been a rear also for Him. He would need completing only if shortage befell Him. In that case signs of the created would appear in Him, and He would become a sign (leading to other objects) instead of signs leading to Him. Through the might of His abstention (from affectedness) He is far above being affected by things which affect others.
interesting
>Allah is *totally* unlike creation
>Let me predicate created concepts to Allah
>These somehow signify things about Allah
What the muzzies mean by this? Also what is the relationship between Allah and his attributes assuming predication is actually possible in your theology?
The Shia believe in divine simplicity. Divine Unity. Unity of Essence. And Unity of Attributes.
I recommend reading the entire 185th and 186th sermons of Nahj Al-Balagha,
and reading Sheikh Al-Saduq's "Al-Tawhid", specifically the second chapter Divine Unity and Negation of Anthropomorphism. I recommend the websites Thaqalayn for the books, and Al-Islam for learning.
The same thing is applied to His 99 names. The reality of those names belong of Allah alone, but the creation manifests a portion of each of those attributes, obviously these manifestations are not manifesting the reality since the reality of those belong to Allah (swt) alone.
>When questioned about Him, the prophets did not describe Him in terms of any limit, scope, extent or in terms of constituents. Rather, they described Him in terms of His Functions, and they led people towards Him through His Signs.
>The Shia believe in divine simplicity. Divine Unity. Unity of Essence. And Unity of Attributes.
The Allah always possess the attribute of being Creator (Al-Khaliq)?
>Unity of Essence
Does this mean that when we predicate of Allah we predicate to the essence/nature?
>Allah always possess the attribute of being Creator (Al-Khaliq)?
Yes. And his attributes are identical to his essence. It is not the case that the attribute of being The Creator is somehow a different attribute than being The Merciful.
>Unity of Essence
The Unity of the Divine Essence just means that the Essence of God is One or Unique. The Oneness or Unity of the Divine Essence has two meanings:
First is: The Essence which in Itself is not in need of any cause is only God. Therefore, all essences and existents, whether they are physical or non-physical, essential or accidental, animate or inanimate – are possible beings, needy and effects of a prior cause. So, the Essence of God is not in need of any cause for Itself to exist and has utter absence of necessity for any partner or similarity.
Second is: The Essence of God is not constituted by parts, and there is no sort of multiplicity and plurality in the Divine Essence.
>And his attributes are identical to his essence.
Ok interesting. Seems to have some similarity to Aquinas' doctrine of absolute divine simplicity. Would you say there's an inheritance from Hellenic philosophy esp. Aristotle in your theology then?
>Seems to have some similarity to Aquinas' doctrine of absolute divine simplicity
Of course! Aquinas and Augustine (and Maimonedes) were influenced by the Islamic philosophers so it makes complete sense for there to be similarity on this topic.
>Would you say there's an inheritance from Hellenic philosophy esp. Aristotle in your theology then?
That is a very complex question tbh. I will answer tomorrow. Although I believe the religion is from God of course.
>Augustine
? Augustine predated Islam by at least 200 years. Anyway, I look forward to your analysis
My apologies. I meant Anselm not Augustine.
You realize questions like this is the whole point of the Christian esoteric tradition? It explains all of the normie questions about god and faith and whatnot. It’s all online and free for you to peruse. I’d suggest starting with the book “the secret history of the world” by mark booth.
I read that book and enjoyed it but for OP's question I would recommend some Thomas Aquinas summaries
they say that the god does not have to be created. then why anything has to be?
>If God created everything, what created God?
Pseud question. God is eternal, that is, existed before and will existed after time existence
The notion of God as a bearded, ethereal personal being is like your dog trying to understand your behavior in dog terms. I share with my dog the fact of being a mammal, but I possess a level of rational and conceptual ability that he does not. Likewise, God shares in this rational symbolic faculty but transcends it entirely because it can see the whole picture in an undifferentiated state and thus bypasses the need for symbol.
God was created by some guy called Bob last Thursday. I can tell you more but you have to meet me Emerston, Lake & Palmer's because I need to be around people, the Jesuits won't risk abducting me in publi
What a moron
Seriously. I do understand the need for an first cause, if you think this shit is going linear. What if everything just happens to exist, the multiverse and all, it's all just happening "at the same time".
Like things are just here because. Just like God would be just because. Both seem exactly equally plausible
It's not nothing instead it's probably infinity with all possibilities ever that just exist. Even worlds with different physical laws and everything.
I did, OP. You're welcome.
When they get cornered on this, they make up some nonsense about how god conveniently takes care of his own existence by dint of his properties, or is his own "reason/cause". It's always some version of that. Of course, this is deeply unsatisfying. I feel sorry for them that they've convinced themselves that it is a valid, or even a convincing argument.
I haven't even opened up the thread to look at it and I'm sure that this canard has been repeated a good three to five times already.
this was worth posting and added a lot to the conversation. thanks for this
Well done, you've discovered the impossibility of infinite regresses. Hence there must be a first cause that is not created, which is why Aristotle posited there must be a supreme God in the first place.
>Hence there must be a first cause that is not created
Which directly contradicts everything being created. So there is no need to posit a God to create the universe since the universe doesn't need to be created.
these are things already answered by spiritual traditions even older than Aristotle, by a mile. God is the infinite, finite is by definition not infinite, but is also by definition always contained within the infinite. So its not so much a contradiction as it is seeing a difference in kind rather than in degree. Being exists within non-being, existence exists within non-existence, all and nothing exist within God, and God presupposes existence, God presupposes everything, one cannot properly describe God, the closest thing is the infinite.
Cool story bro. The refutation of the cosmological argument still stands. There is no support for God existing.
Nor is there any for the idea that he does not exist. There is just as much support for the first claim as there is for the second.
>Nor is there any for the idea that he does not exist.
Historical and scientific facts show a large part of the Bible is made up. We can't disprove the existence of a philosophical God that doesn't interact with the world but we also can't disprove the existence of a philosophical Santa Claus that has stopped delivering presents.
>Historical and scientific facts show a large part of the Bible is made up
where have you left your brain
Well, there's several problems with what you wrote here. The Bible doesn't really matter when it comes to the existence of God, because YHWH and Allah and all that are specific Gods, or names for God, but God can exist outside of these things, just as a Creator of the Universe. Or at least, Generator of the Universe. But, to your credit you seemed to anticipate this response, so good on you for that, this part:
>We can't disprove the existence of a philosophical God that doesn't interact with the world but we also can't disprove the existence of a philosophical Santa Claus that has stopped delivering presents.
Is problematic though because you injected the "doesn't interact with the world part," for a God to exist outside of Abrahamic tradition, there is nothing making it necessary that he not interact with our world. As for the disproving existence of God concept as a whole, true, you couldn't disprove the existence of a Santa Claus, but the two comparisons are not equivalent, we have much stronger reasons to suppose there is some being or intelligence or concept that generated this universe, than we do for Santa Claus, which is a specific character rooted in specific cultural traditions. The former is dealing with questions that arise from examining the structure of reality, while the other is derived from folklore.
you are taking this guy seriously, i feel like he do not deserve it, Good explanation tho i liked it
>there is nothing making it necessary that he not interact with our world
So bring out the interactions your God has had with the world. Science will prove or disprove them.
>but the two comparisons are not equivalent, we have much stronger reasons to suppose there is some being or intelligence or concept that generated this universe, than we do for Santa Claus, which is a specific character rooted in specific cultural traditions
Popularity is not a reason to believe something is true.
>Popularity is not a reason to believe something is true.
its not a matter of popularity, its a matter of the basis for the questions. Saying "I read a story about Santa Claus, do you think its real?" is far less substantial than saying "how could something come from nothing?" Because one is rooted in a story, which only humans can make up, and the other is a question about the fundamental nature of reality.
>So bring out the interactions your God has had with the world. Science will prove or disprove them.
I don't say God has or hasn't interacted with our world; rather, I do believe that he has, and is all the time, but I admit that I do not know nor could I ever know this. I choose to believe it. But similarly, you could never know that there is no God, nor that he does not interact with our world, same thing. You choose to believe it.
>is far less substantial than saying "how could something come from nothing?"
I've already refuted the cosmological argument and you agreed with me here
>I don't say God has or hasn't interacted with our world
So you don't have any evidence there either. So without philosophical or empirical proof what reason should I have for believing God exists and not Santa?
I've already refuted the cosmological argument and you agreed with me here
he didn't agree with you
>he didn't agree with you
Me: There is no support for God existing.
Him: Nor is there any for the idea that he does not exist. There is just as much support for the first claim as there is for the second.
He explicitly says there is as much support for my claim as his directly after me saying
>The refutation of the cosmological argument still stands
>He explicitly says there is as much support for my claim as his directly after me saying
he is just talking about that there is no justification for your claim nor his
he didn't agree with anything
>he is just talking about that there is no justification for your claim nor his
>he didn't agree with anything
And if the cosmological argument was valid there would be justification for his claim. He's explicitly agreeing with me the cosmological argument is refuted and provides not support for his claim. You're reading comprehension is shit but that's to be expected from a christcuck
Seek the truth instead of trying to win some randoms on Oyish, we can't save you you must save yourself
yes, exactly this. He's right and you
are wrong, and increasingly making less sense. You are simply trying to win the argument instead of actually being curious about these ideas. It's Oyish so its not like I'm shocked or blame you, its fun to talk shit. But at this point you're just sounding goofy.
>are wrong, and increasingly making less sense.
So now you think the cosmological argument is valid? You're contradicting yourself here
where you claim there is no support for God existing. If you believe the cosmological argument was valid that would be support.
At this point, you are simply being obstinate because you want to win the argument. I don't really care about winning the argument, but I have been extremely clear in what I've written to you. I'll say it even more directly: I do not know that God exists and freely admit that I could never know that let alone attempt to prove it, but I choose to believe it as a response to the innate universal questions which logically demand some kind of answer.
Likewise, you can never know or prove that God does not exist, therefore, whatever reasons you may give, you are choosing to believe those reasons. It is the process being applied. If you say you KNOW God doesn't exist, then I have to call you out on it, because you simply do not know that, but if you say you choose to believe he doesn't exist, then thats as logically consistent as my position is. There is really nothing else to argue here, so everything else you are saying is just to keep trying to win the battle, but I simply don't view arguments as battles I have to win because I am long past puberty.
This is exactly what I've been saying. I can't disprove God exists but all of the supposed proofs of his existence are false as you agree. I also can't disprove Santa's existence. Belief in God is on the same intellectual level as believing in Santa.
Ok so now I guess we'll circle back to the fact that you have much less logical basis for needing to explain Santa's existence than you would something like the Creator of the fricking Universe, because one comes from a fricking storybook and the other one comes from reality itself. you fricking idiot
>other one comes from reality itself. you fricking idiot
No it doesn't. God is a story just like Santa. No matter how important you want him to be God just isn't. Again do you think the cosmological argument is valid or not? Because you've switched back and forth trying to dodge me. Do you think the cosmological argument provides some support for God that Santa doesn't have? Is that what you're saying?
No, whether or not reality came from something, is not a story just like Santa. Logically.
Castrate yourself, for the good of mankind
>No, whether or not reality came from something
What does this have to do with God? It would be like me saying Santa gave us the present of the universe. You can't just tie whatever fantasy you want to important questions just to lend importance to your fantasy. And since you are continuing to dodge the cosmological argument question I'm going to put you down in the don't believe in it column. God has as much to do with the existence of the universe as Santa Claus does.
You're focusing way too much on the idea that "God" has to be a personified character or being or figure that exists outside of the universe, like a human with magical powers. That's not what most people who've thought seriously about this stuff, believe God is. And even "God," is just a name, that's why I always say "Creator" as a more neutral alternative, names don't matter.
For example, my belief in God is that he represents infinite possibility in physics, God is the Infinite. This is a common belief, even among religious people.
>has to be a personified character or being or figure that exists outside of the universe, like a human with magical powers.
So you're some kind of pantheist. I don't really have a problem with that. It's the goofy shit about the Bible being real and God telling us to do certain things or go to hell that I'm allergic to. To be honest I don't really see a meaningful difference between pantheism and atheism besides a good vibes sort of feeling towards the universe.
I just believe in things that make sense more than things that don't make sense. Atheism doesn't make any sense because it says that it knows there was no creative intelligence or being or force behind reality's creation, or alternatively, its eternal maintenance, breathing a sort of life into it. That fundamentally makes zero sense, and defies provability, so I think its silly. Agnostics say they couldn't ever know so they're just not gonna worry about it and leave it at that, which I can at least accept logically. But that question of "what did this all come from" has to be answered in order to maintain logical consistency, or at least acknowledged, atheists claim they can definitively say the answer is "nothing" and then when you try to get into the mechanics of it they can never prove anything about that because it fundamentally doesn't make sense.
Other than if you argue that a holistic representation of infinity in physics would look like a void, aka nothing is everything, which is true. But that's not what they mean, they just don't have an answer and pretend they do, they say "well the universe blew itself up out of nothing one day" and you say "what was that nothing it blew up in though" and they go "oh its impossible to know but we definitely know its not God or anything divine or spiritual"
ohhhhhhhhh
its dumb shit
>creative intelligence
So we're back to the goofy ass personified character being behind everything. You can't even maintain consistency over two posts. Believing a creative intelligence, or whatever other term you want to hide behind, caused the universe is on par with believing in Santa Claus.
>That fundamentally makes zero sense, and defies provability, so I think its silly
So you have some kind of argument why or course? Is it the cosmological argument? The one you said was false then refused to say what your belief about it was one way or the other.
I don't have the energy for this anymore, you're exhausting. Suck a dick homosexual
>I don't have the energy for this anymore
Because you keep circling back to the same argument. I don't know if you think I'm going to forget or what. You think it's ridiculous that the universe just exists without a creative intelligence. WHAT CREATED THE INTELLIGENCE? If it's not ridiculous that the creative intelligence wasn't created THEN IT'S NOT RIDICULOUS THAT THE UNIVERSE WASN'T CREATED.
nah, its because you're a fricking moron man.
don't bother this kids pedantic and dumb as shit
>nah, its because you're a fricking moron man.
My argument there is pretty clear. It's pretty telling that you're still refusing to say whether or not you believe in the cosmological argument.
>universe operates on, emanates from 1 + 1 = 2
>WHO CREATED MATH
They try to be all smug about it, but most atheists put so much emotion into the idea of God that they treat it differently than other ideas that are fundamentally the same. Honestly, just read the presocratics, then Plato, then Plotinus maybe (haven’t read him myself, so I’m guessing)
>universe operates on, emanates from 1 + 1 = 2
>WHO CREATED MATH
They try to be all smug about it, but most atheists put so much emotion into the idea of God that they treat it differently than other ideas that are fundamentally the same. Honestly, just read the presocratics, then Plato, then Plotinus maybe (haven’t read him myself, so I’m guessing)
talk respectfully about God, you peasant
>there is nothing making it necessary that he not interact with our world.
He's asking you to either commit to occasionalism by saying that the divine is constantly present in the world or to accept the possibility of the world continuing without active divine action.
Uh, no. The cosmos is by nature finite and circumscribed, complex and composite; one can conceptualize many existences that could engender it, whereas God by delineation is infinite and incomposite, being perfectly simple, so nothing can bring Him into existence. We can with certainty dismiss the idea of anything ontogically preceding God, but the complexity and nature of the universe requires explanation that is simply not provided by presuming it is the first cause and necessary existence. Which also begs the question of what the cosmos itself is as well; is it identical with time and space? Or are they components of it?
it was me. sorry guys
You have to be at least 18 years old to post on Oyish.
This is an answer coming from a non-christian, so let's just say god is unconditioned, the unconditioned by it's very nature cannot be conditioned by anything else, what that means with your question is that "God" is uncreated, for creation to be there must be something that's uncreated, something that wasn't created. How do you prove this? With deduction basically, subject precedes object, objective negation leads to subjective synthesis.
>for creation to be there must be something that's uncreated, something that wasn't created.
And once you get to this point you've contradicted or at least disproven the assumption everything has to have a cause. So the universe doesn't have to have a cause and God is superfluous.
>the assumption everything has to have a cause
I didn't make that assumption because I'm not arguing the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument as I usually see argued has holes in that the first principle is argued as something in time yet somehow timeless, this is of course contradictory. What this means is that not only is infinite regression not an issue, but it's true, if you look far back enough in time you'll never find a beginning, just endless causes, but conditioned reality ITSELF exists because of an unconditioned reality.
>I didn't make that assumption because I'm not arguing the cosmological argument
So the universe doesn't have a cause is a perfectly valid explanation for you.
>but conditioned reality ITSELF exists because of an unconditioned reality.
Just call the universe unconditioned. Problem solved.
yes, exactly, the unconditioned reality is the infinite aka God. But like I said homie. Don't bother. he's not good faith and will try to lead you in circles all night. He doesn't want to actually explore the ideas.
There is no difference between creator and created
us
Not reading this shit thread.
Pic rel is the actual answer.
>If God created everything, what created God?
Simple as. Are you going to ignore the divine spark?
>Any Philosophers talked about this matter?
actually, no. you're the first person ever to think about this question. congratulations!