Who created God?

The question that destroys monotheism.

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Regardless of how you call it, there has to be a first mover, that's not being moved itself. If you accept that, there is no problem. If you don't accept that, the problem is universal and not limited to religious worldviews.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The answer is infinite regress...
      There is always a deeper explanation.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        This. Every premis is a conclusion, and every conclusion is a premise.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous
      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        This. Every premis is a conclusion, and every conclusion is a premise.

        What are you trying to say

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          there is not first mover and time goes on infidelity in the negative direction
          >what about the big bang?
          Planck Epoch

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Then explain it, goy. Your little goy brain cannot even comprehend such a concept. Nobody can. So good luck

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why can't the universe be the first mover?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Oh it has to be a man, or the psychotic delusion wouldn't work.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Again, if you can’t produce a falsifiable hypothesis you have nothing. Supernaturalism is not an argument.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >there is a last number

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Regardless of how you call it, there has to be a first mover, that's not being moved itself.
      I know. Let's call it the Big Bang and not attach any invisible-Jew-in-the-sky-who-only-cares-whether-you-jerk off characteristics.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's easy. There is no beginning, the big bang and an infinitely expanding universe was all a cope invented to save geocentrism and explain away the observations.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    God just was, he just is, and he will just always be. There is no beginning to the Eternal One and there will be no end to him. Thankfully, because wtf would we be without him? Who gave me eyes to see? ears to hear? Heart to feel? Mind to think and meditate on him?

    I could have been born a chipmunk if he wanted to, and it would have not been unfair since chipmunks do exist, is it fair to them that they are not men? someone has to be the chipmunk, and it could have easily been me. But he made me the son of a man, how grateful am I for it. I did not earn it, I did not pay for it, did not deserve it. It was not by my merit that I was born a man, It was nothing but a priceless gift from him, the Great and Holy One.

    I must praise him because I have nothing else that I can pay him with. I am forever in debt to him and will forever serve him. When I think of him I truly become in loved with him. We are so lucky that he exist.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think idealism explains the world well. It these days however needs a secular, atheistic variant. Because, and I'm certain, that quantum mechanics in the modern world confirm a non-realist position, the most likely one being idealist.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Actually Quantum Physics proved how Logics and Aristotle's idea of universe needing a beginning, fails.
    In Quantum Physics the research has showed that on a subatomic perspective the elemental particles just appear from nowhere making the Void, the Nothing something impossible.
    The elemental particles will always exist, the Non-Existente is just impossible despite how much unlogical it is, the basic components of reality just appear from the nothing, they "force" themselves to exist.
    The Higgs Boson, the most important of elemental particles directly lacks of matter and electrical charge, that makes them unique since reality as a whole is made of matter and energy.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      So Parmenides' nothing comes from nothing has been disproven?

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    1) Anything that begins to exist must have a cause
    2) God did not begin to exist
    3) Therefore, God does not need to have a cause

    Simple as

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      > 2) God did not even begin to exist
      Therefore he doesn't exist. Checkmate.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        God exists eternally, there is no period when God did not exist. Since God exists but never began to exist, God does not need a cause for His existence.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          You can't exist if you never ever started to exist.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I can’t, that’s correct. But God can, because God exists eternally

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >everything requires a logical explanation for it's existence
            >except for this super special omnipotent being that has existed forever

            >It’s not heckin verifiable by experimentation
            Ok, don’t care. It’s logically possible, and is revealed to us. Religious position doesn’t hinge on science

            Omnipotence and immortality are not logically possible. Everything has a limited amount of energy and will eventually die. The idea of God sounds like a 6 year old saying I'm stronger than infinity.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >everything requires a logical explanation for its existence
            Yes, God has a logical explanation for His existence, it is that God always existed. This is not logically contradictory, I don't understand the problem.
            >Omnipotence and immortality are not logically possible.
            This is just wrong. Does being a living being logically require that there is death? No.There are plenty of creatures on this world that would never die of old age. They would thus be effectively immortal if no other creature besides them existed.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it is that God always existed
            Oh, like the universe. No volcano demon needed.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you think that the universe always existed, then you have no argument as to why God could not have always existed.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Correct, there's no problem with God always existing.
            The problem is why we should think there's such a thing as a God in the first place. We both already believe the universe exist.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I believe that the universe exists, but I do not believe that the universe always existed. We really don't know what conditions were like before the big bang. I just choose to believe that it is God that is eternally existent, and is the creator of the universe. A reason why I believe that there is a God that created the universe is the argument from fine tuning. There are dozens of universal constants that could have been different in a minuscule amount which would not allow for the development of life or a long lasting universe. For example, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons is approximately 10^36, if it was even slightly different then only a short lived universe could exist. If the rate of cosmic inflation was 1/10^60 greater than it was, the universe would have expanded so rapidly that no stars could form The strength of the binding force of nucleons to nuclei is .007, if it was .006 then only hydrogen could exist, and if it was above .008 then no hydrogen could exist. If the neutron was not roughly 1.001 times the mass of a proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or vice versa. There are plenty more examples but the fact that all these universal constants are all tuned in such a way is strong reason to believe in a creator.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There are dozens of universal constants that could have been different in a minuscule amount which would not allow for the development of life or a long lasting universe.
            Infinite monkey theorem. If you think of time as infinite, the universe as we see it must have eventually come into existence.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            But the observable universe is not infinity old, it is roughly 15 billion years old. Unless you are talking about a universe which is not our observable universe and are falling into either multiverse theory or something like an infinite big crunch, but there is no evidence for this. And it is more reasonable when looking at something incredibly complex to believe that it was designed than to think it was completely random.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's also no evidence for the big bang having been a singular event. Of course you have to accept the possibility of either other universes out there or the big bang happening infinitely if you want to talk about what caused the universe. The answer to that is most likely not to be found in our observable universe, as it's an factor from outside.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you think either the big bang happens infinitely or that there are infinitely many universes besides our observable universe, then my belief in a creator (God) is just as rational as your belief. Either way a sort of faith or belief is required.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're probably right and I'm not arguing against God. All I'm pointing out is that there are other explanations for why our universe exists in this fine tuned state. If it didn't, we wouldn't exist to observe it after all. It's like saying how amazing it is that Earth has ideal conditions to support life. Earth being habitable is a prerequisite for us to even notice it's habitabilty and therefore not even really part of probability.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thats not really an accurate comparison, it's like a man who is being executed by firing squad is shot at by 100 soldiers. All 100 soldiers miss and the man does not die. Can the man then be justified in saying that it was very likely that he would survive the execution because the only way he would realize that he survived was for them all to miss? Probability is a thing even if there is no one to observe it. Lets give another example, lets say you wake up in a small room, next to you is an empty barrel which is tipped over, and enough dice to fill up the barrel are all scattered across the floor. Millions of dice perhaps. Every single dice which scattered on the floor rolled a six. On the barrel is a note which says "if you are reading this, congratulations! If any of the dice landed not on six, then poisonous gas would have filled the room and you would have died in your sleep."
            Following this which one is more likely?
            1) It was actually very likely that the dice would all land in such a way, that's because you're here to read the note after all.
            2) There is some intelligent force or agent that arranged the dice to be in such a way so that you could live.
            3) The million dice just happened to all roll this way and here you are.
            4) There are infinitely more people all trapped in a similar room, so there had to be people that survive, and you are one of those people.
            It seems to me that given the information we have, 2 is the most likely.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is an excellent post, especially
            >Probability is a thing even if there is no one to observe it.
            Really makes me think if that is truly so.
            Anyway, per your example I'd say that 3 is most likely. Can you give a reasoning why you an intelligent being had to arrange the dice? If I were to win the lottery, would that also be an act of God?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's because the possibility of such a thing (the physical laws allowing the development of a universe that does not instantly end, allows for stars to form, or allows for life) is so astronomically small, and I mean really really really small, that a thing happening randomly given a single universe is pretty much impossible. So impossible that it demands an explanation. Something like winning a lottery is something that is incredibly improbable but does not demand an explanation. Why is that? Because someone has to win a lottery after all, it could be you as much as any other person. However, something like winning a billion to one lottery ten times in a row is so egregious that it demands explanation. Its likely that some sort of outside interference is happening. I'm not saying that because of the fine tuning argument it IS the case that there is a creator, but it is evidence that supports the existence of a creator.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >However, something like winning a billion to one lottery ten times in a row is so egregious that it demands explanation.
            How often do I have to win the lottery for it to be God's will?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sure if you won the lottery even three times in a row you'd have the government investigating you for fraud.

            >Given the current state of affairs, it's rather reasonable to think that something interfered with the laws than to think they all developed randomly.
            It's actually not reasonable at all. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean that God is behind it. Even the church recognizes that. Saints aren't pronounced saints because they did something unlikely, but because they did something impossible.

            How is it not reasonable? The universe is incredibly complex, very often, complexity and purpose implies creation. If an asteroid landed on Earth and it contained something that was extremely complex and could do one specific task very well, don't you think most people would use it as evidence for alien life? Or would you say that such a thing just happened to randomly form, and this is a better explanation. It really does seem logical to think that complex goal oriented things are designed.

            >4) There are infinitely more people all trapped in a similar room, so there had to be people that survive, and you are one of those people.
            If you believe in multiverses this sounds like a reasonable explanation. There could be billions of other universes that didn't meet the perfect requirements for life to exist. We just happen to be in one that does.

            You could think four, but where is the evidence for those infinite people in other rooms, all you see is yourself in a room? At least with option two there is something that you can see, something that is basically impossible to happen by chance is right in front of you.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >At least with option two there is something that you can see
            You can't see God either. In the analogy you presented I assumed the intelligent force was imperceptible like God.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm sure if you won the lottery even three times in a row you'd have the government investigating you for fraud.
            Okay, so winning the lottery two times in a row is luck, but after that it's an act of God? Understood.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not that it's an act of God, its just something that demands an explanation.This has been stated multiple times and I think you're just pretending to be stupid at this point.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Probability is mathematical, not divine. There is absolutely no need to attribute chance to God. The only reason you would do it because of personal bias. If you miraculously survive a car crash you are of course tempted to attribute it to God. The hundreds of people who had a near identical crash as you but died did not have the chance to do so. The only difference between you and the people who died is pure chance. No divine intervention, no providence, no greater plan.
            Same with the universe. That we live in a universe that supports our existence is pure chance. But our existence itself makes us biased to interpret more into it than there actually is to it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            With option 2, you don't feel like there should be an explanation for why the agent has the desire to cause a this particular world with us in it, instead of some other desire?

            Keep in mind, the chance of the agent having this desire is 100 soldiers and a gorrilion dice.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There isn't really a good explanation to WHY the agent has the desire to save you, its something that we can't really know. Exactly why did God create the universe and all the life in it? What is the purpose of everything? It's not something that I can answer definitively answer. It is possible that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being would simply want to create. Why it was us and not something else I don't know.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then why think 2 is more likely than the other alternatives?
            Seems like you agree that 2 doesn't explain why things are one way, instead of another.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >4) There are infinitely more people all trapped in a similar room, so there had to be people that survive, and you are one of those people.
            If you believe in multiverses this sounds like a reasonable explanation. There could be billions of other universes that didn't meet the perfect requirements for life to exist. We just happen to be in one that does.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That we see a single observable universe is evidence for the big bang being a singular event rather than one that happened multiple times. Why? Because we can't see any other observable universes. There is no good reason to believe in a big crunch. It is just a hypothetical possibility of what could happen when the universe expands to a certain point.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That we see a single observable universe is evidence for the big bang being a singular event rather than one that happened multiple times. Why? Because we can't see any other observable universes.
            We wouldn't be able to see other universes.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So the argument is that you should believe in something you can't see? If so then how is that any different than a belief in God

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No the argument is that God is not the only invisible explanation for our universe.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Fine-tuning is a shit argument
            You're asking why things are this way, instead of another way
            Then answer the question by say God has a desire, nature, or some other reason that explain why he caused the universe to be the way it is

            But then for some reason you're satisfied with that, you stop asking questions.
            Why is God nature this way instead of another way?...
            Unless you got an answer for this, you're just kicking the can. It's an explanatory sleight of hand, a trick. Nothing was explained.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            God created the universe in such a way that life could exist because God wanted to create life. What is so hard to understand about that? You're asking me why God is this nature instead of some other nature? Well, because a God that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent would have good reason to create.

            Probability is mathematical, not divine. There is absolutely no need to attribute chance to God. The only reason you would do it because of personal bias. If you miraculously survive a car crash you are of course tempted to attribute it to God. The hundreds of people who had a near identical crash as you but died did not have the chance to do so. The only difference between you and the people who died is pure chance. No divine intervention, no providence, no greater plan.
            Same with the universe. That we live in a universe that supports our existence is pure chance. But our existence itself makes us biased to interpret more into it than there actually is to it.

            I'm not saying that probability is not mathematical, but do you really understand how astronomically low the chance is for a universe to form in such a way that allows for life? Given the current state of affairs, it's rather reasonable to think that something interfered with the laws than to think they all developed randomly.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Given the current state of affairs, it's rather reasonable to think that something interfered with the laws than to think they all developed randomly.
            It's actually not reasonable at all. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean that God is behind it. Even the church recognizes that. Saints aren't pronounced saints because they did something unlikely, but because they did something impossible.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            WHOA WHOA WHOA
            Now the fine-tuner "Agent" is suddenly God, with all the omni-properties of (Christian?) theism? Slow down.

            >You're asking me why God is this nature instead of some other nature?
            Yes, exactly. And you should treat this question seriously, not just handwave it away.

            Would you be satisfied if I just said the universe had some mysterious disposition to cause humans, cuz that's what the universe does. (this is what I take you to do with God, when you assert omnibenevolence as an explanation for why humans)
            Of course not. You shouldn't be.
            But if we change the word Universe to -> God. Then it's a-okay with you.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I spoke using God because you were addressing God as the object which brought about fine tuning and asking about His qualities? If you were trying to pull a fast one it's in poor taste.
            >why does God have the nature God has rather than any other nature, don't just handwave it away
            I mean I'm not just hand waving it away? I'm just saying that it's not something that I know. God has the nature and characteristics that God has. How would a universe that has no consciousness dispose itself to cause humans? Sorry but you're not really making any sense.

            >At least with option two there is something that you can see
            You can't see God either. In the analogy you presented I assumed the intelligent force was imperceptible like God.

            You can't see God, but you CAN see the impossible odds in front of you. You can either accept that what happened to you is basically impossible, or there is some force that willed the odds in your favor. You don't see the force but see the impossibility. Compared to the idea of an infinite multiverse it is less justified to think that there are infinitely many other people and rooms and barrels of dice than just a single force that willed it so that you would live, especially if you see a note explaining to you the situation. You can assume that someone set everything up.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Same way magnets have a disposition to attract iron fillings, despite not having consciousness

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah no shit homosexual, any first cause can't have a cause itself. The question of course is what this first cause is and if there is even a need for a first cause. But again, if you presuppose God as that first cause his eternal existence is entirely logical.

            I don't have a problem with that idea, you're the one who has a problem with the idea of an eternal uncreated universe.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God has a logical explanation for His existence, it is that God always existed.
            This isn't a logical explanation. You're basically saying it's true because it's true with no real explanation for why it's true.
            >There are plenty of creatures on this world that would never die of old age. They would thus be effectively immortal if no other creature besides them existed.
            If there was nothing around to kill them they would eventually die when the Sun becomes a red giant and makes Earth uninhabitable. Even stars eventually die. They may last for billions of years, but not forever.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you presuppose God, as you would if you see him as the first cause, he logically can't have a cause himself. As he has no beginning, he also can't have an end. It's honestly not that hard to get.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you presuppose the universe, as you would if you see it as the first cause, it logically can't have a cause itself. As it has no beginning, it also can't have an end. It's honestly not that hard to get.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah no shit homosexual, any first cause can't have a cause itself. The question of course is what this first cause is and if there is even a need for a first cause. But again, if you presuppose God as that first cause his eternal existence is entirely logical.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if you presuppose the belief that you're trying to prove, it's proven!
            lol

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I understand it's not hard to get. I'm saying it's lazy bullshit people made up because they don't have a real explanation. How can you honestly think an omnipotent being has always existed and never question how that's possible?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Omnipotence is not logically deduced from the first cause line of reasoning. What is however logically deduced is that God is both immortal and eternal, as something with no beginning cannot have an end. It's not lazy bullshit at all and it is not made up. It's entirely reasonable to ask for the first cause and we have done it for 2000 years. It's only now that quantum physics may shift our understanding of causation. Theology and Cosmology will follow these developments.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God is both immortal and eternal, as something with no beginning cannot have an end
            This is just an assertion on your part. I would like to hear an argument for this.

            The causes I know of, they change.
            Is there something that prevents the first cause that exist by necessity, to cause the universe, and then change?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The causes you know of themselves have a cause and therefore can change. In Latin it's a bit clearer, where it's also called the primum movens, the first mover. The first cause is not moved by anything. God does not change.

            >This is just an assertion on your part. I would like to hear an argument for this.
            I would think it's logical, don't you? Only things with a beginning can end, because beginning and end are points in time. Something without a beginning is not bound to time and therefore not subjected to it. If God is therefore outside of time, he cannot end, because ending is a feature of existing in time.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nooo you can't say that a triangle has three sides definitionally, you have to give me an explanation to why a triangle has three sides.

            >The heckin sun would explode so they would die.
            Ok, in a possible world where the sun does not explode that creature would never die. So, it is immortal. You can't say that immortality is logically impossible, because there is no contradiction contained within the sentence "something that lives forever"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Everyone can see a triangle has three sides. It doesn't need an explanation. You can't even prove God's existence, let alone explain how an omnipotent infinite being is possible.
            >Ok, in a possible world where the sun does not explode that creature would never die
            But that's not the real world we live in. In reality the Sun and everything else will die.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can see a triangle has three sides because someone defined a triangle as something that has three sides. There was no evidence which justifies a thing which has three sides as being a triangle.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Something doesn't need to be in the world that we are in for it to be logically possible.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >in a possible world where the sun does not explode
            there is no such thing, there is no possible world were a main sequence star like our sun don't turn into a red giant or die in any way

            Something doesn't need to be in the world that we are in for it to be logically possible.

            logically possible under imaginary conditions=/=possible in reality=/=real

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Not true by any known measure.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It’s not heckin verifiable by experimentation
            Ok, don’t care. It’s logically possible, and is revealed to us. Religious position doesn’t hinge on science

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      the universe did not begin to exist, so it does not need a cause

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        There was a period when the universe did not exist. Which was before the Big Bang.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          the big bang was not the start of the universe, just a period of rapid expansion

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      This argument commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

  7. 5 months ago
    ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇

    >Who created God?

    >The question that destroys monotheism.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      average low iq manolo Hispanic who cannot come with any counterargument and just resorts to posting his shitjak image while trying to appear as someone understanding the situation.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >counterargument
        for what? the op's post is moronic, that's the counterargument in itself

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Do you hold to the principle that energy cannot be created or destroyed?

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    God never began to exist and therefore was never created

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    it doesn't
    God didn't come from anywhere. That would imply that He is not omnipresent or eternal, which are both the attributes of God.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >eternal
      God was a baby, then a man, then died, then un-died

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        yes, God incarnated Himself as human and experienced the life of a human being

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          that is incompatible with being eternal

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            it's not

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            changing from a boy, to a man, to a corpse- it's the opposite of being eternal

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The one that created god created the one that created the one that created the one that created the one that created the one that created the one the created ad infinitum because god is infinite

  12. 5 months ago
    FATHER POOPENBUTT

    The prime mover was created by the final mover
    >אני האלף והתו הראש והסוף הראשון והאחרון׃
    Revelation 22:13

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      God the unmoved mover and final teleological cause.

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You're an insect with no concept of eternity and perfection or where you're truly at or what life actually is. Any questions or approaches you have on this level are irrelevant and mentally and physically impossible for you to investigate. It is only grasped by revelation.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >insults the question asker and tries to belittle him into accepting a stupid answer
      wow so profound, really makes you think

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's something kind of cute in seeing a Christian trying to sound deep and profound.
      Yes, Christian, God's son sure is special and also incidentally him. Which makes him super special. Yay!

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >perfection
      meaningless term

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Good is what God wills, and he wills it according to his nature.
    If God's nature was different, and God will for a universe filled entirely with black holes, then it would be good.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >good is what god wills
      Refuted By Euthyphro Dilemma

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        What do you think you are trying to tell me?
        Was there something problematic with what I said?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I told you plainly enough. Refuted by Euthyphro Dilemma.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What's refuted? Me defining the good in terms of God's nature?
            Please explain

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You defined it in terms of god's will, and that definition is refuted by the Euthyphro Dilemma.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you want to try to explain how "I'm refuted" ?
            Or are you just going to keep saying 'Euthyphro Dilemma' like it's a magic spell..

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Euthyphro Dilemma proves that good cannot simply be what god wills

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why is that?

            Good is whatever God wills -> perfectly coherent
            If God had a different will, IE; God had a different nature, the good would be different.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Does god will it because it is good, or is it good because god wills it?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Good because God wills it, 3rd time I'm saying this
            I'm literally just using 'Good' to refer to the preferences and values of a particular agent. Should be entirely uncontroversial.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Therefore, morality and goodness is arbitrary.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, why are you telling me this?
            Did you see me making an argument for stance independent moral values? No.

            My very first post talking about how the good could be DIFFERENT, if God's will was different.
            Then you start reply to me like a mong, about how I'm debunked, because my view entails my view; that the good could be different.
            I've always granted that it's "arbitrary".
            That should tell you that I take divine command theory, to be some kind of moral subjectivism.

            I think this is called "taking the 2nd horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma".
            You should be able to understand this from the 1st post. But you just keep repeating slogans, with zero comprehension.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            This collapses morality into "you have to do what the desert demon likes because he's the biggest, meanest and most vengeful fricker in town".

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Amusingly, that literally is half the morality of the Old Testament. The other half is a blood pact with Yahweh.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do you know god's will? Is there no chance that agents of all religions are rather imposing their morals on god, than the other way around? How do you prove good actually comes from god except for dogmatic belief

  15. 5 months ago
    Radiochan

    god is the uncaused cause
    sorted

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Super God, his name is Jeff. He likes playing Dreamcast chucking frozen eggs at peoples car.

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Its a loaded question doe.

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    What a brainlet question. I bet you feel proud to be this dumb.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      What's the matter? Too afraid to actually refute OP?

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