If God is timeless and spaceless, it exists nowhere and never. Making it no different than something that does not exist.

If God is timeless and spaceless, it exists nowhere and never. Making it no different than something that does not exist.

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yup, when you ask Christians why there’s no proof of their god or why he can’t be seen or detected, they give you a long winded explanation that it’s because he doesn’t exist

  2. 5 months ago
    Dirk

    Non sequitur. Do numbers exist?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Countable objects exist yes

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, but they are causally inert.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      No they don't. Nominalism is true.

      • 5 months ago
        Dirk

        Even supposing nominalism the assertion doesn't follow

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          ¨
          >anyway, it doesn't matter
          THEN WHY DID YOU ASK?

          • 5 months ago
            Dirk

            Because realism is incompatible with the argument

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      They exist as ideas in the brain

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      God may very well be an abstract formless, timeless, entity with no location and no ability to appear visibly or interact and interfere with reality.
      That is however not the case for the Christian god that you claim to believe in, “Dirk”

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The meaning of this, for the moronic lot of you, is that numbers "can" exist nowhere and never.
      However no one would say these numbers don't actually exist.

      Not every 'existence' is bound by time and space.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Christian god is still supposedly capable of appearing in reality, interfering with it, and interfering with it on request via prayer.
        Not abstract, he is supposedly real like real things actually are, according to Christians who tuck their tail between their legs every time at the basic and reasonable request of any thinking adult man, “proof?”

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The Christian god
          I'm israeli.

          And I don't know what your point is either way.
          OP wanted to disprove 'God' by saying things that don't exist within time and space don't exist at all.
          This is false.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is one. There are countable things, as it were. But the concepts of numbers are an obfuscation of direct experience of absolute reality. To a layman I might saw, there are numbers, there are countable things, there is reality, there is absolute mindfulness in-and-of-itself, there is an uncomplicated abiding in the here-and-now.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is where the Kabbalistic notion of Ain is derived.

    Think of it this way, when you manifest something that necessarily creates a totality which thereby implies limitation. Limitation is antithetical to Divinity and therefore the primeval state of God must be Ain - or no-thing.

    A state of nothingness isn't a black void. It's fundamentally impossible for us humans to imagine because there's literally no frame of reference for it. This perfect state of absolution is why the Sabbatean-Frankist seek to unravel the world through sin. If the highest state of God is nothingness, then destruction itself becomes a holy act.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is only according to the opinions that the Ein Sof is The Essence Itself, obviously.

      However many opinions hold that the Ein Sof is also a creation.
      (Most probably in order to circumvent that moronic sabbatean-frankist ideology.)

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >However many opinions hold that the Ein Sof is also a creation.
        Ive seen it described as the ‘outward-face’ of the Absolute that is formless and nameless.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >timeless
    yes, it's called eternity anon

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Eternity as is understand it is an abundance of time.
      Timeless, however, implies a lack of time.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        ESL detected

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Distinction is timeless and spaceless, therefore distinction doesn't exist. You never see distinction in time or space, just it's effects, everything else is an illusion in materialism.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Abstract concepts exist.
      >Therefore a israelite in the sky raped a israeliteess so she would give birth to a magic israelite so the sky israelite could kill the magic israelite so you could live in a magic israelite castle in the sky when you're dead.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Abstract concepts exist.
        What gives these concept objective meaning and how to we have access to them?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          They don’t have objective meaning. Abstract concepts are people agreeing on something created in our heads.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They don’t have objective meaning.
            Where do you get that objective meaning to say that these things don't have objective meaning?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is no objective meaning. Objective statements as far as I can tell require parameterizing reality such as picking two points to measure the distance between and agreeing on a measuring unit(s)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There is no objective meaning.
            Does this sentence have objective meaning, or is it meaningless brainfarts?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do you think increasing skepticism and decreasing confidence in any statement or belief is going to result in anyone believing your claim that the Christian god is real?
            Why can’t you prove your god exists like someone can prove the human heart exists?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Answer my question first

            >There is no objective meaning.
            Does this sentence have objective meaning, or is it meaningless brainfarts?

            and I will answer your question.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Any sentence requires that you first agree on language which is generally a given while discussing something in the same language.
            Now answer my question, how does decreasing confidence in any given conclusion help your cause of proving the Christian god is real?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Now answer my question, how does decreasing confidence in any given conclusion help your cause of proving the Christian god is real?
            That wasn't the argument, the argument was that rejecting objective meaning already assumes objective meaning. You think that the sentence "Objective meaning doesn't exist" bears objective meaning, otherwise you wouldn't state it, and if arguments are all just subjective and there is no obecting meaning to everything, then there is also no objective reason not to believe in other worldviews.

            Not all things are proven in the same way. Immaterial categories, that are preconditions for communictation and argumentations are not proven in the same way as a murder is solved.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Immaterial categories
            The Christian god can interfere with reality and appears in reality multiple times throughout the Bible. He can even supposedly answer prayers at least some of the time, and if you’re Catholic you believe he literally turns bread into flesh at every mass.
            These are all provable claims and you do not have to leave the realm of matter and energy to test them. If the Christian god was real, you could prove it with your feet body and eyes firmly planted in reality

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >and if you’re Catholic you believe he literally turns bread into flesh at every mass.
            I'm arguing from an orthodox perspective since, in my humble opinion, they give the most coherent argument.

            >These are all provable claims and you do not have to leave the realm of matter and energy to test them. If the Christian god was real, you could prove it with your feet body and eyes firmly planted in reality
            Because the immaterial properties of these things are changed. You partake in the divine energies. And you assume again that all reality is simple material, how do you know that?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because the immaterial properties of these things are changed. You partake in the divine energies. And you assume again that all reality is simple material, how do you know that?
            Just want to be clear here, you believe the Christian god is real but you cannot show him appearing in reality, interacting with it, interfering with it, or at the most probable level which if he were real every intelligent Christian would do, proving he exists by showing he actually can answer prayers by interfering in reality at request of a human.
            Is that true? If not where is the proof?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Just want to be clear here, you believe the Christian god is real but you cannot show him appearing in reality
            That assumes that everyone has your perception of reality, but not everyone sees the world in the same way since you interpret it through the lense of another worldview. So we have to move the question mark back a step and talk about how we even know what reality is, how we know it, why we should describe it like that, etc.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That assumes that everyone has your perception of reality, but not everyone sees the world in the same way
            That’s weird man, I’m almost 32 and the only times I’ve ever encountered claiming something is real that no one else sees are liars, people being wrong or the severely mentally ill.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There are people claiming that multiplicity in this world is just a mere illusion to escape from, like in many hindu beliefes. There is no universal understanding of reality, since it varies radically from view to view.

            That doesn't mean that objective truth is not real, but just to put into perspective that to claim "everybody know's what's real, dude and we gotta appeal to universal understanding of reality" is really just naive.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No clearly everyone doesn’t know what’s real, as you pointed to other ancient fantasy religions as examples.

            >The Christian god
            I'm israeli.

            And I don't know what your point is either way.
            OP wanted to disprove 'God' by saying things that don't exist within time and space don't exist at all.
            This is false.

            I don’t know enough about Judaism to refute it, feel free to try and sell me on it but I’m going to bat against the Christians for now

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What am I supposed to be selling you on?

            >OP wanted to disprove 'God' by saying things that don't exist within time and space don't exist at all.
            This is false.

            >However many opinions hold that the Ein Sof is also a creation.
            Ive seen it described as the ‘outward-face’ of the Absolute that is formless and nameless.

            I have no idea what you even mean.
            What literature have you seen?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          They partake in being because the emanate from and thus exist within Being, duh.

          Think very, very hard about

          >Abstract concepts exist.
          >Therefore a israelite in the sky raped a israeliteess so she would give birth to a magic israelite so the sky israelite could kill the magic israelite so you could live in a magic israelite castle in the sky when you're dead.

          before you make your next move.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They partake in being because the emanate from and thus exist within Being, duh.
            What's "being"? Are you talking about material reality here, or Plato's Realm of Forms, or what do you mean?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I was referring to Plato's transcendent realm, yes. I wouldn't be talking about Deleuze's ideas in this context.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So, how do the multiple categories (like distinction) eminate from the totally unified point and give "birth" to multiplicity in the material realm?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Be-ing is totally unified as all things that exist are within being RIGHT NOW. Multiplicity occurs when Be-ing overflows (emanation), resulting in things that be less: to put it another way, the overflowing of Be-ing occurs due to the necessity of things that be less than Be-ing also existing. They have to be multiplicitious in order to be less: Be-ing is unified so it can never be anything but Be-ing, meaning that being can never be standing as that would imply that it is not standing and being just Be-s, it doesn't sit or stand or not-sit or not-stand.

            It does this in some giga-autistic chain down to the material realm resulting in the Gods, numbers, abstract concepts, etc.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Be-ing is totally unified as all things that exist are within being RIGHT NOW.
            Then are we part of the divine essence so to speak?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well, humans are not omniscent, so I find that illogical that we are all part of the One.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why would being part of the One imply that we are omniscient?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Well, humans are not omniscent
            Being an aspect or part of something else doesn’t automatically entail sharing all of its qualities. But regardless if you are arguing for identity in a partial or complete sense either way the point about omniscience is not a problem or inconsistency if you aren’t arguing for identity with a personal God as opposed to an impersonal One; obviously a Christian mystic would be arguing in favor of identity with a personal God but then they could reply to you with the reasoning stated above.

            Because the One has to know how to bind, connect and make all the things (material and immaterial) coherent. (So that timespace interacts with truth, multiplicity, unity, meaning, math, etc. so that it results in an understandable reality which we can explore) Otherwise the reality would be a chaotic mess, or unstable, since we wouldn't know how to build the "lego stones" of the metaphysical reality together.

            In addition to that it's difficult to argue and predicate about the One at all, since he is "trapped" in his absolute simplicity, while humans are cast of into multiplicity. It reduces multiplicity into an illusion and I would say, since the One is an absolutely simple Monad it's impossible for it to even eminate multiple things at all and it can't be known by humans, since it's impersonal, while humans are not impersonal things.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because the One has to know
            The One doesn't know anything, it just be-s. This is why multiplicity (which really means the Olympians) is necessary, so that there are things that can know and not know. They, the Gods, are the ones that unite reality into a coherent whole so that it's not
            >a chaotic mess, or unstable

            >since we wouldn't know how to build the "lego stones" of the metaphysical reality together.
            We don't build reality, it exists independent of us.

            >since he is "trapped"
            The one is not trapped nor untrapped, the one just be-s.

            >since the One is an absolutely simple Monad it's impossible for it to even eminate multiple things at all and it can't be known by humans
            The one can't not do anything, it just be-s.

            >it can't be known by humans, since it's impersonal, while humans are not impersonal things
            Why would human knowledge impact The One in the slightest?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why would human knowledge impact The One in the slightest?
            Because when the question arises "How do you know the One" it's a question of epistemology, how you know him, how you can predicate and describe him. If the One is just a giant super-monistic Being, impersonal, then it's impossible for humans to know him.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it's a question of epistemology
            If The One exists then phenomenology is meaningless here as things (in this case the one but also like, the Form of the Chair) still have ontology separate from our epistemology.

            >then it's impossible for humans to know him.
            It's precisely because The One is impersonal that we can know him. The One isn't a him, it can't be as it can't be male or female, it just be-s. The One isn't Yahweh or whatever, it doesn't impregnate virgins or demand genital mutilation, it does nothing but be. This is why it can be a
            >giant super-monistic Being
            because it is literally just that: a giant super-monistic Being that only be-s in utter simplicity.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because the One has to know how to bind, connect and make all the things (material and immaterial) coherent.
            That’s not true, the One would only require conceptual knowledge of how to do this if It didn’t have the inherent power or ability for the creation to happen effortlessly and without any thought involved; but there is no actual sound logical or philosophical reason why It cannot have this power, so that makes it unnecessary for the One to know anything when it can just happen automatically through a potency that is naturally already present in the One. In the Neoplatonism of Plotinus the One doesn’t have a mind/intellect because that only begins at a subsequent level that belongs to the emanations and not the One itself. It’s fallacious to ignore this possibility and narrow-mindedly insist that It has to have conceptual knowledge.

            >In addition to that it's difficult to argue and predicate about the One at all, since he is "trapped" in his absolute simplicity, while humans are cast of into multiplicity. It reduces multiplicity into an illusion and I would say, since the One is an absolutely simple Monad it's impossible for it to even eminate multiple things at all
            Being a Monad doesn’t preclude the One from having an inner capacity or fullness that wells up and expresses itself or overflows as the emanation.

            >and it can't be known by humans, since it's impersonal, while humans are not impersonal things.
            Humans are actually a confluence of the personal and the impersonal. The awareness in all living beings is impersonal while the things characterized as personal belong to the non-aware phenomenal qualities in our experience. If the One is awareness (Atman = Brahman) then an impersonal One can indeed be known.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it's a question of epistemology
            If The One exists then phenomenology is meaningless here as things (in this case the one but also like, the Form of the Chair) still have ontology separate from our epistemology.

            >then it's impossible for humans to know him.
            It's precisely because The One is impersonal that we can know him. The One isn't a him, it can't be as it can't be male or female, it just be-s. The One isn't Yahweh or whatever, it doesn't impregnate virgins or demand genital mutilation, it does nothing but be. This is why it can be a
            >giant super-monistic Being
            because it is literally just that: a giant super-monistic Being that only be-s in utter simplicity.

            But the cruicial point is that you, as a human being, can't even give any descriptions about the One, or say anything about it. The One doesn't reveal himself and it is an impersonal it, humans are living in multiplicity and we use multiple words, concepts and arguments to say things about it. But words in this realm, which are multiple, have no connection to the absolutely simple Monad. It becomes an unknowable super-essence beyond any human comprehension.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But the cruicial point is that you, as a human being, can't even give any descriptions about the One, or say anything about it.
            Also not true, I can truthfully say and affirm many things about the One that are correct. There is a whole type of theology devoted to this called ‘apophatic theology’ which you may have heard of before, and you don’t even need to rely on it all the time to make true affirmations about the One like ‘the One is ontologically more fundamental than anything else’ etc.

            >The One doesn't reveal himself
            Says who? Be honest with yourself: that’s just a strawman. In both Neoplatonism and Eastern doctrines there are sages who either were divine or received divine messages from above and/or there are revealed texts that emanate from the impersonal One that reveal true knowledge about It and from which we learn about It. In both Indian Shaivist Tantra and Japanese Buddhist Tantra they say that absolutely everything and every facet of every experience is expressing the Absolute and reflecting and pointing back to the Absolute in its own way.

            >it is an impersonal it, humans are living in multiplicity and we use multiple words, concepts and arguments to say things about it. But words … have no connection to the absolutely simple Monad. It becomes an unknowable …
            If you actually look at which primary sources say in western and eastern traditions, both say we have an inner inherent capacity to know the One that is cultivated through spiritual practice and study etc, it seems like you are presenting a bad-faith representation of the other side without engaging with or mentioning how they explain how one comes to know the One. In Neoplatonism this is done with the help of theoria and the nous, in Vedanta and Tantra the One is already present as our Self and it’s a matter of self-discovery or ‘unveiling’ of the true nature of the Self, which people possess an inherent ability to realize and which doesn’t require words.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Says who? Be honest with yourself: that’s just a strawman.
            You know what; You're right. I apologize and admit that my knowledge about this topic wasn't deep enough and that I should look more into Neo-Platonism before to critique it and steelman it properly.

            I argued to much with materialists and I've gotten intellectually lazy to learn other positions, time to change this. Thanks for humbling me and keeping me keen to study.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Thanks
            No problem brother, I wish you luck in extending the span of your knowledge further.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >can't even give any descriptions about the One, or say anything about it.
            Sure I can, I can say that it be-s.

            >The One doesn't reveal himself
            The One does reveal itself, and again, it's not a him.

            >But words in this realm, which are multiple, have no connection to the absolutely simple Monad.
            Right which is why the Platonists had this whole practice on how to ascend beyond the mereness of Midgard and achieve direct knowledge of higher things that were beyond the capacity of language to convey.

            >It becomes an unknowable super-essence beyond any human comprehension.
            No, it's totally knowable, it's just not something that you can put into words. Again, YOU believe that there's nothing but atoms bumping around in the void and as such knowledge beyond language is impossible, I do not. If one believes that abstractions are real then we can absolutely know things beyond language.

            We might not be able to do so without ascending beyond what we are now, but that's a technical difficulty on the same level of "you cannot read French until you learn French".

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Well, humans are not omniscent
            Being an aspect or part of something else doesn’t automatically entail sharing all of its qualities. But regardless if you are arguing for identity in a partial or complete sense either way the point about omniscience is not a problem or inconsistency if you aren’t arguing for identity with a personal God as opposed to an impersonal One; obviously a Christian mystic would be arguing in favor of identity with a personal God but then they could reply to you with the reasoning stated above.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Not abstract

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      If distinction doesn’t exist objectively then numbers don’t exist objectively either, rendering dirks two bit Jesus lawyer routine refuted

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        That was a Reductio Ad Absurdum of OP's argument. When you belive that not everything is material there is no problem to believe that there are timeless and spaceless things.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >christcucks once again reverting to epistemology spiraling because there is no Christian god and therefore it can’t be proven to exist like anything that’s actually real

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Christian god and therefore it can’t be proven to exist like anything that’s actually real
      I'm going to take a stab at this:
      >I've not proven it and no one who I ask will give me an answer other than [the right answer that I don't like, can't be arsed to investigate] therefore it is unprovable.
      ^that's irrational application of mind

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    God is above everything and actually exists

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Standard Model asserts that time-space expands forever... since all of existing time-space is nothing compared to that, no one and no thing exists right now.

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Of course. That’s why Dirk and assorted Jesus freaks need to trail into arguments basically denying that anything exists. They would not need to do this if they believed in something that actually exists.

    You will never have to do this routine even if you’re talking about something relatively vague and ethereal as a thunderstorm existing, because you can keep your feet grounded in reality and say thunderstorms exists. They exist in reality, unlike the storm and war god of ancient Levantines who had a virgin son out of wedlock

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Of course. That’s why Dirk and assorted Jesus freaks need to trail into arguments basically denying that anything exists.
      The argument is that you should be consistent, as a materialist, to denie all of these immaterial categories, like distinction, as well. Which you don't do. You're inconsistent.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I didn’t call myself a materialist. You’re like the insecure neighborhood kid who would change the rules of a game when he lost

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          What's your position?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t know what the name for it is. Reality is matter, energy and forces. We also as humans swim in psychological abstractions like value, meaning, distinction, sentiment, emotion and power.
            If you think you are Christian though your god is supposed to be as real as energy and forces, not just real at the abstract psychological level like the feeling you get holding an antique

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            But what you will accept as real is dependant on your preconception of what is real. So, a materialist (which you aren't, just an example) presupposes that everything must be matter and he will therefore explain things in a material way.

            To believe in the existence of immaterial things (which I guess you do?) is obviously a step forward but, when there is no objective meaning to these things, or to your position altogether, then these is no reason to follow your argument. Morals, Epistemology and metaphysics all go and fall together. In my view why you should follow a position, how we have knowledge and how these categories are coherent is explained through a universal, immaterial, personal mind which can ground these categories meaningfully for us to understand.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But what you will accept as real is dependant on your preconception of what is real. So, a materialist (which you aren't, just an example) presupposes that everything must be matter
            Nope. Most people learn the distinction between imaginary and real at a young age. For example catching your toddler friends lying about the toys they have or things their dad can do or owns

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nope. Most people learn the distinction between imaginary and real at a young age
            I didn't deny that people have a distinction between illusions and reality. My argument was that they have a different conception of what reality and illusion is. Some believe that meaning is an illusion, that nations are an illusion, that race is an illusion, etc.

            Not all people will have a universal understanding of what is real and what is not. Like far eastern philosophies that hold the view that this material realm is actually an illusion.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >My argument was that they have a different conception of what reality and illusion is.
            Which really is the same thing as the kid saying his dad has a Ferrari, you going to his house where his dad drives a ford ranger and the kid saying “man like everyone perceives reality differently man”
            It’s just bullshitting. I know you’re doing it, you know you’re doing it, I suspect even you know that I know you’re doing it. But I won’t let you prey on these mentally unstable young men to convert them to the last thing on earth they should adhere to, the religion of not having a girlfriend you sleep with

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So, if everybody has the same perception of reality why do some people attribute value to life and some don't?

            We wouldn't have had millenia of debates on what's reality, what we should do what is real and so on.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why do some people attribute value to life and some don't?
            You’re back to abstractions again instead of real things.
            I am not claiming value is real outside of anyone’s head, I’m denying your claim that the Christian god is real outside of peoples imaginations

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You’re back to abstractions again instead of real things.
            What's your definition of real; forces, energies and matter?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes and if something else were to be discovered to be real, it would occupy that same space which is outside of the human imagination.
            Think about the difference between being hit by a car on the highway, and being hit by an imaginary car on the highway.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes and if something else were to be discovered to be real, it would occupy that same space which is outside of the human imagination.
            Well, how do you know that this assertion is real?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hey at least you’re tacitly admitting that you’re trying to admit imaginary things in your head into the “actually real” club

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And how do you know that the assertion "Everything real is matter, force and energies" is real? You don't have a material proof for it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Everything real is matter, force and energies" is real?
            I included the potential for other things but specified outside of the human imagination.
            Whenever you talk it really is just the kid claiming his dad had a Ferrari in 2nd grade, but just trying to save face when we are both looking at the ford ranger in his driveway

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can you give me material proof for the assertion "Everything that is real is matter" ? Then it's just another imagination.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why would I do that, that’s not a claim I made.
            When are you going to post proof of your god by the way?
            You give up on that? Not surprised.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because different things are proven in a different way. Or do you think that we find out the same way what's the ultimate 'Good' for society as we find out the location of a lost wallet?

            You can prove the existence of things through the impossibility of the contrary, like truth. To deny the existence of truth already assumes truth, it's a precondition for knowledge and to make a meaningful sentence and argument at all.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Or do you think that we find out the same way what's the ultimate 'Good' for society as we find out the location of a lost wallet?
            Again you’re mixing abstractions with “where is this real thing”
            The Christian god is supposed to be able to answer prayers, appear in reality and interfere with the natural movements of things at his own will. If Jupiter was spiked out of orbit like a basketball with no physical cause it would genuinely be good proof of a god. If you prayed god to lift a rock and the rock lifted 7 feet in the air I would convert immediately. If someone had stage 4 pancreatic cancer and a prayer made it immediately heal I would also convert. There are no records of this, no video, no studies, because it doesn’t happen.
            The real question is why you are following religion you know you need to bullshit constantly to keep defending. Living a lie, couldn’t be me.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Again you’re mixing abstractions with “where is this real thing”
            The "real" things are interpreted through abstractions, not the other way around. If you think this realm is real or just an illusion depends on how your presuppositions in your head will interpret it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >so anyway my dad’s Ferrari is in the shop, he’s just renting this Ford ranger

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You haven't even grounded why we should only accept material realities, or material proofs.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    So it's a paradox?

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I suspect a common conversion technique that works on simpler minds is post-modern deconstruction of all beliefs and reality being used to instill a sense of anxiety in the targeted person.
    This anxiety is then harnessed by giving them a grounding axiom of Christianity as a remedy for the existential anxiety they caused.
    Obviously is only going to work on weaker and simpler men.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      There was an anon on Oyish yesterday talking about how conversion was fundamentally immoral as it requires forcing someone to lose their faith. Let's see if I frick this one up:

      [...]

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Good post. This is sort of like that, only the Christians are trying to get you to throw out your belief in reality itself, because god isn’t there.
        Essentially trying to drive you insane and irrational, which adds and even deeper layer of immorality and sinister motives.
        Every one of them here is trying to undermine your sane and rational thought, your attachment to reality to make you join their fantasy

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Essentially trying to drive you insane and irrational, which adds and even deeper layer of immorality and sinister motives.
          I agree. "Without god, everything is permissible" isn't an actually true statement, it's a sort of magical incantation to justify action. You simply MUST profess tetraclavianism and the real implied literal symbolic actual allegorical presence or else nothing exists!

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah the Christians constantly admitting they don’t have a conscience, empathy or strong, pro-social emotions really is disturbing.
            At least they don’t fully understand that people can smell the deranged faker on them

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If God is timeless and spaceless, it exists nowhere and never.
    This involves the petitio principi fallacy by presupposing that something must be conditioned by time and space as a preconditon of existing.

    >Making it no different than something that does not exist.
    Conclusions derived from fallacies are also fallacies.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >christoid shows his hand once again that this is a sophist game for his socio-political culture war and not the sincere belief that Jesus Christ can answer prayers

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I’m not a Christian, but I just thought OP made a mid-wit tier argument involving a blatant fallacy so I was calling it out.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I’m not a Christian
          Well that’s one thing you’ve got going for you

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >replying twice because you were upset but couldnt challenge the premise that OP’s argument is blatantly fallacious
            touch grass

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Op hit a pretty good point that Christians at least these days give god all the qualities of something that isn’t real and all the qualities of something that isn’t

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >all the qualities of something that isn’t real
            There you go again with that petitio principii!

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    God is the hidden and the evident. God, like the buddha, has transcended the distinction of being able to be known by means of "existence" and being able to be known by means of "non-existence". One who is enlightened has also transcended this.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds like you’ve transcended having sex and sleeping with a woman in your arms

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't know about that. I think I abide without passion (as it is called), aversion or delusion however.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      duuuuuuude!!

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >God, like the buddha, has transcended the distinction of being able to be known by means of "existence" and being able to be known by means of "non-existence".

      The Buddha was an actual man. God cannot transcend something he supposedly created.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Is there something else you want to say? Is there something else you want to say plainly by way of conversation?

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If God is timeless and spaceless, it exists nowhere and never
    If God is timeless and spaceless it exists everywhere always. If you want to see God's light go to Heaven.

    /thread, I win OP.

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Of course God explains it, God can do anything

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Impossibility of infinite regress proves god exists

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      what superpower does God have, that makes him escape the regress problem?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        That sort of regress problem doesn’t occur for something which is metaphysically self-sufficient or self-grounding like God because if He is self-sufficient that obviates any regress of dependence since God depends on nothing. Is it worse that you genuinely didn’t understand this or that you did but you had the emotional urge to muddy the waters anyway?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Could something that isn't God, have the powers of self-sufficiency and self-grounding?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Theoretically yes but in most cases this will be basically a placeholder for God that is filling the same purpose in a similar manner but with a different name.

            Everything that we know through empirical means and logic suggests that none of the particular objects in the universe are ontologically self-grounding, which is why its natural to suppose they as a collective are grounded in something that is beyond them.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Granting that, it's simply not the case that "Impossibility of infinite regress proves god exists"

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Laws of logic says hi.

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Except God is timeful and spaceful.

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