>you can't have an infinite chain of causes
Why not?

>So there must be an uncaused cause
Why?

>This, by definition, is God
No, I can define 'Zoz' as an uncaused cause that has no other God-like properties, it only has that one property. No need for God.

>has no other God-like properties
Then it cannot be the first cause

>>17752658
By definition it's the uncaused cause. It just doesn't have other properties that would make it God. Ergo, God is not necessary to answer the cosmological argument (even if we accept its other premises).

>>17752662
>It just doesn't have other properties that would make it God
Then by definition it can't be the first cause.

>>17752648 (OP)
It must be God because it must be a being intelligent enough to design the universe while powerful enough to create it. The uncreated creator must be God. The universe is intelligently designed, not random.

>>17752663
It's the uncaused cause by definition. Why are all the other God properties required when this one property is sufficient for it to be an uncaused cause?

>>17752667
If it has nothing else in common with God, then among other things that means it is powerless, inanimate, and non-existent. Atheists are so impressively retarded they consistently act like "God" is a completely meaningless word that can just be slotted in and out with any other word without altering the meaning of the sentence.

>>17752665
This is the cosmological argument, not an argument from design.

>>17752677
If you like, we can say the property of being the uncaused cause entails sub-properties like existence and having the power to cause the universe (these are obviously implicit in being an uncaused cause but ok, let's make them explicit). It still doesn't have all the properties theists attribute to God, intelligence being an important one.

Zoz, by necessity, is the uncaused cause, so it necessarily causes the universe. There is no need for intelligence or thought in Zoz. I see no reason why the other God properties would be necessary, the cosmological argument is fully explained bt Zoz.

>>17752721
>entails sub-properties like existence and having the power to cause the universe
These are not sub-properties, they are distinct properties.
>It still doesn't have all the properties theists attribute to God
If you wish to continue the trend of conceding until it makes sense, you will eventually get to the point where "Zoz" has all of the same properties as God and is identical to God.
>Zoz, by necessity, is the uncaused cause, so it necessarily causes the universe.
This is just shitposting.

>>17752745
Fine let's call them distinct properties.

>If you wish to continue the trend of conceding until it makes sense
But it already makes sense, there's an uncaused cause that causes the universe by necessity, per its definition. You would not call it God because it's lacking qualities that would make it God like intelligence, omnibenevolence, etc. Those aren't needed to answer the cosmological argument.

>>17752677
>powerless, inanimate, and non-existent.
All of these are postcessions of the first cause, and don't really make sense at this level. It's an absurd argument.
>Atheists are so impressively retarded
Not as retarded as dumbfuck abrahamists and platonists who run blindly into the metaphysical wood with zero capacity to understand what ultimate primordiality actually fucking entails. Honestly, it's because of your languages. Indo-europeans and afro-asiatics can't even form true non-dualist sentences with your caveman grammars.

>>17752648 (OP)
>Why not?
Things are being actualized as we speak, meaning under your worldview an infinite amount of causes had to be traversed. Even if we grant an infinite amount of time for it to happen, then that just moves the problem to another domain. Eternal time as opposed to infinite causal chains. This introduces further problems for you like needing evidence of such a thing, and also an explanation of how we could have possibly traversed the eternity amount of elapsed time required to get here.
>Why?
To avoid the infinite regress of causes you need a foundation. The final cause causing the first again is just a restricted form of the infinite regress problem above solving nothing. Retrocausality does not remove the dependence on an infinite amount of things either. What you could do is reject causality altogether which is not something we observer (or predict) for future events. An alternative is to do it only for one event which is what the uncaused cause is.
>No, I can define 'Zoz' as an uncaused cause that has no other God-like properties, it only has that one property.
That would be a concession on your part so congrats. You can indeed have a different prime mover but your suggestion is nonsensical. This thing must have all the necessary internal states to launch the chain from eternity past. Why is this moment happening now ~13.8 billion years after the big bang as opposed to an eternity ago? Only an eternal immaterial will inside a single indivisible being can explain this, because no matter what mechanistic explanation you have this will only introduce further uncaused causes otherwise. You're right though that this does not automatically prove God just some of his properties.

>>17754564
>bearded sky magician dun it hehe
Not an argument. Grow up.

>>17752745
Damn you're a dumb nigger

>>17754578
>can't contest anything so he relies on straw men
sad gaytheist don't you have reddit cartoons to watch?

>>17754584
>argument is literally "I'm the sperm that won, therefore there must've been a superhero in the clouds who wanted me to win"-tier babbling
You're a manchild. No wonder you're so familiar with children's cartoons.

>>17754599
>more straw men
>confuses the fine tuning argument for the contingency argument
yes of course I am familiar with atheist propaganda meant to indoctrinate impressionable children into your religion, I fight against it all the time to keep people on the righteous path so we all can attain salvation. Why do you waste your precious seconds from your only life again?

>>17754630
>can't read
>believes he's not a manchild because his main calling in life is to convince random people a superhero walked on water
Grow up.

>>17754636
>reads about a miracle
>oh no dawkins will punish me if I don't worship science immediately and pretend to have a million iq points
you still haven't stopped doing it? you never convinced anyone into your death cult sorry

>>17754659
>if I call my capeshit magic "miracles", it won't be embarrassing anymore!
Manchild. It's also funny how you assume I'm like you "people" whose goal is to poz everyone with your nonsense.
I'm not here to turn you into an atheist. You so not have the raw brainpower for that.

>>17752648 (OP)
I was literally thinking about the cosmological argument on the toilet just now, Jungian synchronicity

>>17754584
>strawman
Christians LITERALLY believe a man with holes in his hands caused the universe
be humble

>>17754665
>anything I can't immediately explain is muh comics because my epistemology is retarded and that's all I have read
>heh I am totally not trying to brainwash anyone that's why I am on the religion board!
it's honestly pathetic but I should ease with the bullying or else we'll end up with another statistic

>>17754564
>and also an explanation of how we could have possibly traversed the eternity amount of elapsed time required to get here.
That relies on a specific theory of time. In B-theory, all past, present, and future is equally real in the same way, there is no need to have "passed through" a series of events for the present to be real.

>This thing must have all the necessary internal states to launch the chain from eternity past.
Yeah it's the uncaused cause that starts the causal chain. It doesn't need to do anything aside from starting the chain, everything contingent that follows on from that has a cause and doesn't need further explanation.

>Why is this moment happening now ~13.8 billion years after the big bang as opposed to an eternity ago?
Because of the causal chains that proceed from it. The argument doesn't explain every single specific about physics, and neither does the cosmological argument for God, the arguments aren't meant to do that, just explain the causal chain without infinite regress. Zoz works just the same as God at solving this, ergo it's not an argument for God.

>Only an eternal immaterial will inside a single indivisible being can explain this, because no matter what mechanistic explanation you have this will only
You haven't actually argued for this, just asserting that you need a will in an indivisible being. But you haven't argued for why that's necessary. What is contradictory about Zoz? It's an uncaused cause that, by necessity, causes the universe. That's its definition. Lacking intelligence or will creates no contradiction within this argument.

>You're right though that this does not automatically prove God just some of his properties.
Yeah that's all I'm arguing, except for your assumption that these properties must only be properties of God, which I've shown you can't assume as necessary because one can define something with those properties which is not God, and I haven't seen any contradictions of it.

>>17754680
>uuuuh actually ghosts and vampires are real and you're a manchild if you disagree!
>by the way please stop saying capeshit isn't real, it's threatening my faith and making me upset
Kek I love how you're so deep into your cult that you think everyone else is a cultist whose raison d'etre is to poz as many people as possible with his mind virus. Not surprising though, this sort of attempt at normalization by projection is common among cultists and grifters.

>>17754584
>SOMETHING needed to create thr universe!
>Ergo it's a sapient being who contacted specifically and exclusively a tribe of desert goat herders until he decided the desert goat herders didn't listen to him just enough times that he reincarnated into earth as his own son and was executed at the request of said tribe of desert goat herders so that anyone who believed in him could not be tortured forever which he otherwise does even though he is omnibenevolent

>>17754688
Even with the B-theory you still have the causal links though so I am not sure what you are solving here. They might all happen at the same time but in relation to each other there's still an infinite chain from each observer window in >>17754564 which must still be traversed to get to the next part in limited time.
>It doesn't need to do anything aside from starting the chain
>The argument doesn't explain every single specific about physics
Who said that it has to? The whole point is that without an eternal immaterial will there's nothing that stops this perfectly capable Zoz from launching the causal chain from any point. You have to find a non mechanistic explanation why it happened then as opposed to now. It must have had all the energy and internal states required from eternity past. So what triggered it? Remember whatever else you are going to bring must not be susceptible to causality. So you can't say for example it was just programmed that way because then there must be a reason why the timer was programmed in such a manner and where is it stored, how is it executed, etc. It's like saying the uncaused cause needs a cause within itself. A mind acting on pure will sidesteps this because it just depends on itself and there's no parts to it (since it's immaterial). Intelligence is not required as far as I can see though except maybe if we bring into it why things are this way as opposed to another which is irrelevant here
>Yeah that's all I'm arguing
I don't disagree with you, but the set of properties you restricted yourself to is insufficient that's what I am saying.

>>17754764
>They might all happen at the same time
Nta, you just confirmed you don't understand B theory. This is likely why you don't understand why your criticism doesn't apply to it.

>>17754768
What part did I get wrong? All of them are equally real so they are actual. perhaps it is poor wording idk

>>17754775
You're imagining B theory as a block of weird time hanging out in a regular old A theory time that serves as some sort of meta-time.
That's not how it works. On B-theory, it's not like yesterday and today happen at the same time. Yesterday happens yesterday and today happens today. It's just that both yesterday and today are both equally real. Not real at the same time, just real.

>>17754788
>Yesterday happens yesterday and today happens today.
But there are no such thing though under B-theory, that's just subjective experience. You can replace yesterday with 10th of June 2025 and today with 11th of June 2025. When I mean they all happen at the same time I mean each exist as in they are real. Not that the 10th and the 11th merge into one

>>17754764
>Who said that it has to? The whole point is that without an eternal immaterial will there's nothing that stops this perfectly capable Zoz from launching the causal chain from any point. You have to find a non mechanistic explanation why it happened then as opposed to now.
I see where you're coming from, but I think you're just asserting this without providing enough reason for it. Zoz causes the unvierse by necessity so it's either timeless or instantaneous, or however you want to think of a purely mechanistic origin of the universe. There's no timeline independent of Zoz, it's the only necessary cause, time follows from Zoz. There's no need to think of it waiting around in a timeline, in fact there is no timeline sans the initial cause, so Zoz itself is untouched by this objection as far as I can see.

>I don't disagree with you, but the set of properties you restricted yourself to is insufficient that's what I am saying.
I'm really not seeing how intelligence is required at all.

>>17754764
>They might all happen at the same time but in relation to each other there's still an infinite chain from each observer window in >>17754564 which must still be traversed to get to the next part in limited time.
Forgot to address this part. From what I understand, there's no need for reality to pass through an infinite series of times under B-theory. Only from a subjective observer's standpoint do you pass through it. But it's more like an infinitely long block that's "always" there. My understanding (maybe I'm wrong) is that if B-theory is true, there couldn't be a way for any point in time NOT to exist. Every point in time "already" exists.

It strikes me as being like an infinite series, not exactly the same since it's not just numbers, but you get where I'm going. Every element in the infinite series is real in a mathematical sense. It doesn't make sense to object "But it would have taken an infinite amount of steps to count to a certain place in the infinite series, so the infinite series isn't mathematically real," because there's no need to do that. The infinite series exists without needing some observer to pass through every number in the series.

Someone correct me if that analogy doesn't work, that's how I've been thinking about it anyway.

>>17754815
>But there are no such thing though under B-theory, that's just subjective experience.
It should be obvious that I was indexing said times with regards to me here and now.
In any case there is nothing that "needs to be traversed" under B theory because all times exist. The only reason why you can say time needs to be traversed under A theory is that the past doesn't exist anymore and the future doesn't exist yet. This isn't the case under B theory.

>>17754823
>Zoz causes the unvierse by necessity so it's either timeless or instantaneous, or however you want to think of a purely mechanistic origin of the universe.
Wait why does it have to cause the universe necessarily? The chain starting from Zoz could have at any point stopped before there was a universe. But speaking about that Zoz also has to always exist (eternal and not merely uncased), if it just disappeared there would be nothing since the whole chain would go down. This is true even if it ceases to exist in the future. I believe the effects would be observable today, especially under B-theory. So if that's the case that is another attribute it must have to replace God.
>time follows from Zoz.
Are you saying Zoz causes time or something? I don't believe time is a created thing. If that's the case then Zoz can do nothing because it would just be a frozen image that can never update itself. Like when it must have done when beginning to cause.
>I'm really not seeing how intelligence is required at all
For this argument yeah I agree there's no need for an intelligence at all. Just when choosing between different possible worlds because I don't believe there's any evidence to conclude that everything is necessary. btw I have to go outside now, but this thread interests me so God willing when I come back I will respond to the other post you have made

>>17754890
(1/2)
>Wait why does it have to cause the universe necessarily?
Because that's how I've defined it. An uncaused cause that necessarily causes the universe. Unless you can point out an inherent contradiction in that, it's worthy of consideration. Why should I skip over Zoz and go straight to God? I need a very good reason to rule out Zoz.

>The chain starting from Zoz could have at any point stopped before there was a universe.
There's no 'before' in this model, Zoz causes the universe by necessity, you're assuming there's some kind of delay or longer process, but you would have to prove that those are required. In fact this objection would apply moreso to God, who could have stopped at any point if it's not necessary for him to create the universe.

>But speaking about that Zoz also has to always exist (eternal and not merely uncased), if it just disappeared there would be nothing since the whole chain would go down.
I don't necessarily think so. Imagine a force of x Newtons pushes a block in a vaccum. Once the block is moving it will keep moving even if the initial force dissappears. The block has momentum and will keep moving, it doesn't stop because there's some kind of mysterious connection to the force that pushed it, the force already had its effect.

>This is true even if it ceases to exist in the future. I believe the effects would be observable today, especially under B-theory. So if that's the case that is another attribute it must have to replace God.
Disagree for the reason stated. And let's say it's eternal or timeless. It's still nowhere near to being God

>>17754916
(2/2)
>Are you saying Zoz causes time or something? I don't believe time is a created thing.
That's a big assumption to make about time. Why couldn't time follow causally from Zoz, or God? Is time self-existent? In that case, this seems to make a problem for your position since in almost all models of theism, God is eternal or timeless. If he's eternally in time, he needs to have passed through an infinite series of times to reach the point when he makes the universe, in your view he would never reach that point.

But even if B-theory is true and we skip over that, if we accept your proposal of uncreated (thus I assume uncaused) time, that still leaves an issue for most theist models God would exist in time without having caused it since you say it's uncreated. So God is dependent on time to experience time, but most theist models say God is entirely self-sufficient and not dependent on anything for anything whatsoever. But even if we leave that aside, there's still the issue that you've proposed a second self-existent uncaused thing, so you admit it's possible for an uncaused thing which causes other things to exist (since presumably time causes things to be in time).

Hope that's clear! Hard to write about this stuff without sounding pretentious.

>For this argument yeah I agree there's no need for an intelligence at all.
I guess we just agree then lol, my only point is that the cosmological argument doesn't do much for God since multiple essential properties of God aren't supported by it.

>Just when choosing between different possible worlds because I don't believe there's any evidence to conclude that everything is necessary.
I guess that's a whole other argument about universal necessity (hitting word limit so have to stop here).

>btw I have to go outside now, but this thread interests me so God willing when I come back I will respond to the other post you have made
Look forward to it, I always want to learn and improve on this stuff.

>>17754948
Correction, in the second paragraph I meant to say:
>so you admit it's possible for an uncaused thing which isn't God to cause other things to exist

>>17752648 (OP)
Because the universe wouldn’t exist then as there would be an infinite chain of entities creating other entities and we can see that the universe does exist.

See slide 12 on where we get the "necessary attributes" of the prime mover and why Zoz has other characteristics by being the uncaused cause.

>>17754983
>commentary only relevant if you subscribe to aristotelian metaphysics
Into the trash it goes.

>>17754971
Now apply the same logic as a reason to why God cannot exist

>>17754983
I've always been concerned that Thomists kinda just make up what "perfection" and "good" is, and it just happens to be whatever they personally prefer or is convenient for the argument at the time

>>17755023
Actually, mormonism falls apart because it asserts that we are apart of an infinite chain of gods being raised to godhood by our "Heavenly Father" who was once a man and ascended to godhood himself. If Heavenly Father has a Heavenly Father, why shouldn't we worship "Heavenly Grandfather," or "Heavenly Great Grandfather" ad infinitem into where did the first "Heavenly Forefather" come from?

>>17752648 (OP)
Uhh sorry sweaty, the uncaused cause has to be Yahu the jewish storm god, husband of Asherah, whomst are originally of the Canaanite pantheon. The reason is because the torah is true. Class dismissed, you can venmo some shekels to me, Rabbi Aquinas.

>>17754983
Hmm I assume its missing out a bunch of Aquinas' argumentation since those don't really follow from slides 1-11. I'll go through them one at a time with the assumption that slides 1-11 are true (highly debatable):

>Omnipotence
An uncaused cause doesn't need to have every potential nor does it need to have every potential actualised. Under this model of potentials and actuals, the uncaused cause only needs the actualised potential to start the causal chain. Omnipotence doesn't follow.

>Non-physical
There needs to be a demonstration that a physical thing must change by necessity, not just that we see physical things change. Also, as per my response to Omnipotence, it doesn't matter if it's got unactualised potentials. And by physical I mean something describable by physics, so an EM wave would be physical, and so would a quantum system.

>Eternal
I'd be happy to grant eternal (or non-temporal even), but in this slide it relies on the argument for being purely actual omnipotent, which I dispute.

>Omniscient
Slides 1-11 don't even touch on 'all true propositions' and this paragraph implicitly relies on the Omnipotence argument, so again, I dispute the original Omnipotence argument.

>Perfect
>Immutable
>Only one
These also rely on the Omnipotence argument

>>17752665

Are we stuck on this planet?

>>17754848
>there's no need for reality to pass through an infinite series of times under B-theory.
Of course not because there's no such thing as an overall past/future, all dates are equally real. This does not change the fact that for every observer within time going from one day to another they will still experience 24 hours and it doesn't also change the fact that day 11 will point to 10 and 12 depending on direction. The chain is still there
>>17754850
>The only reason why you can say time needs to be traversed under A theory is that the past doesn't exist anymore and the future doesn't exist yet.
Why? An eternity has to be traversed in both cases. Under A theory the path taken by an observer gets "destroyed" in the past and "created" in the future, but under B theory the very same path is still traversed except that part isn't happening since you just have the whole path where every part is equally real.

>>17757031
Different anon here. You're talking about an observer passing through time, but that only happens from the POV of an observer. In B-theory eality itself exists at every point in time in the same way, it's not passing through as if it was a subjective observer.

>>17754916
>An uncaused cause that necessarily causes the universe.
That's another property though. Even God doesn't have this when we call him the creator. For him it is a potential attribute that he can choose (or not) to use. Zoz is not just a creator (as in it merely has the ability to cause the universe), it is forced to create and the universe becomes necessary in all possible worlds. Why is this the case?
>There's no 'before' in this model
Oh okay so it creates time and it eternally existed at t=0 as a frozen picture. This just further makes my point that whatever Zoz is has to have an immaterial will, because otherwise it could not do anything to change from a state where it was not creating to one where it was. Creation has to be infinitely old since there's no delay. And Yes God could stop at anytime but I don't make the claims that the universe necessarily has to exist (in fact I think it will be destroyed) nor do I have to subscribe to B theory to get out of an infinite regress.
>Once the block is moving it will keep moving even if the initial force dissappears
Then this is not B theory. Zoz cannot disappear because every moment is equally real, even the one where it still existed. But also under such a scenario we can get to the point where today just exists for no reason at all (since it disappeared). btw yes it is nowhere near to God but the whole point of arguments like this is to posit an existence that gets us there.
>>17754948
>Is time self-existent?
I don't believe time has a substance so it can "exist" independently or be created in that sense, it's a relation. You can think of it more like an attribute of God to be able to cause and experience change in the state of reality and knowledge (he knows today is the 12th, and tomorrow he will know today is the 13th). He literally calls himself time, so no he doesn't exist "inside" it as if time was a box you can step in and out of.

>>17757031
You're still implicitly working under a paradigm where times are sequentially actualized and a time is only actualized after the actualization of the preceding times.
Until you drop this A theoretic view of time, you will keep strawmanning the B theory.

>>17757069
>but that only happens from the POV of an observer
I am aware of that. It would still mean that we observers can look back and see reality as being infinitely old. So yes from our perspective we have traversed the infinite and this would be true for every date we pick.

>>17754578
>MOM I POSTED IT AGAIN

>>17757092
>a time is only actualized after the actualization of the preceding times
I didn't say that, all times are actualized but you still have the infinite chain that from our perspective has been traversed, that's all I am saying. See highlighted part of pic here >>17754764

>>17752662
>It just doesn't have other properties that would make it God.
Except God's attributes are mutually entailing, mutually necessitating and complementary, logically derivable from one another. You should read up before you spout retarded shit.

>>17757110
No they aren't.

>>17757108
Yeah but our perspective is A theoretic and therefore wrong if B theory is true.
The highlighted picture talks about linguistic conventions, and I don't see how that helps your argument in any way.

>>17754746
I don't see the issue here. Personal incredulity is not an argument.

>>17757114
Yes they are. You are just too much of a midwit to get it.

>>17754690
Capeshit is when you don't think bears can become whales or monke can come from soup chemistry based on mechanical processes alone. The more you think bears can become whales the less capeshit it is.

>>17757116
Our perspective is not wrong or necessarily A theoretic, just subjective. It talks about how a coin landing tails at 4pm on 1 June can only happen at all later and no earlier times. Again this doesn't mean that not all times are not actualized, it just forms a dependency chain where any sequential moment can still point to a next or previous sequential moment. They are all still there and equally real

>>17757119
cope

>>17757124
You're literally an Indian. You have no frame of reference or what is or isn't capeshit, your entire country is a big smelly soup of superstitious nonsense.

>>17757128
>a coin landing tails at 4pm on 1 June can only happen at all later and no earlier times
A coin landing tails at 4pm on 1 June can only happen at 4pm on 1 June.
The dependency only means that times are ordered with regards to their content, it doesn't imply that anything is passing.

If you’re here to debate god, you’re a faggot.

>>17752648 (OP)
The chain of causes *is* more likelier than not infinite. Try a fractal pantheistic approach: your mind, imagination, microcosmos is 100% a part of you with all the shit you came up with in your fantasies. What/Whoever created our universe, it is something that we all are the part of. And whatever created our demiurge, it also exists as a part of something larger adn this process goes on forever. At almost every cosmic tier there should be a self-aware creature or something created by a self-aware creature with the purpose of creation. GOD is an infinite chain of sentient creatures that cause eachother and everything else.

It feels like a curse to be pretty much the only one that understands this. Platonists, Gnosticists and Hermeticists came close but not quite.

>>17757130
Oh my science bros, the pile of horseshit on the floor just gradually developed the ability to speak! Still no sign of intelligence, though.

>>17757130
Such a coincidence that white country became more dysgenic as they became more atheist. What a cosmic coincidence.

>>17757138
That's not horseshit, it's cowshit that you placed in your home because of its ability to ward off evil spirits.

>>17757134
>only means that times are ordered with regards to their content
Yes exactly that's the infinite chain I am talking about. What is "passing" is only from subjective (which again does not mean wrong or fake) experience and not an universal one, and we have traversed that infinite in that sense according to your suggestion

>>17757142
>he's an actual indian
kek it's over

>>17757145
>Yes exactly that's the infinite chain I am talking about.
Of course the B series time is ordered, nobody is denying that. It also does absolutely nothing for your argument, so I don't know why you brought it up.
>What is "passing" is only from subjective (which again does not mean wrong or fake)
It is wrong on the B theory because B theoretic time does not pass. That's the whole issue.

>>17757147
What a bizarre non sequitur. You must be suffering from severe delusions. Par the course for a man who believe butterflies can become cats though.

>>17757152
>he can't even actually deny it because he's afraid of the skyman punishing him for lying
Indians are so funny.

>>17757149
What do you mean why? You still have an infinite sequence of events that has been observed to have passed from a subjective point of view. And yet we see an universe that seemingly is only ~13.8 billion years old from a subjective experience again

>>17757160
>that has been observed to have passed
But they didn't actually pass, they just exist. Hence the observation is wrong.
If B theory is true, that is.

>>17757144
You mean like fedoras vaxxing themselves to keep the evil juju (corona) away.

>>17757161
They did pass from a subjective point of view and not an universal one where they all just exist. How does that necessitate our subjective point of view being wrong?

>>17757164
>They did pass from a subjective point of view
No, you just subjectively feel like they passed. They didn't actually pass.
(If B theory is true.)

>>17757169
>you just subjectively feel like they passed
Not just "feel" we measure it that way. They passed from an observer's perspective, this isn't "wrong" as you are claiming without evidence, it just is another point of view and not the universal one

>>17757156
Yeah, I bet your wife's boyfriend gives you a thumbs up every time you show your le epic jokes. Say hi to Jack for me btw; haven't seen him in church lately. I keep telling him that he'll go to hell if he keeps sodomizing you, but he only says he's getting tired of you because you're the town bicycle taking it from every nigger in Detroit. Pretty shameful, honestly.

>>17757174
>Not just "feel" we measure it that way.
Not if B theory is true. The fact that the times are ordered such that at one time the big clock hand points at 30 and at a time 15 minutes in the future direction from it it points at 45 does not mean time actually passed, only that times are ordered in this way.

>>17757163
Keep eating shit, Ranjeet.
>>17757177
Pajeets and racially charged cuckold fantasies, name a more iconic duo.

>>17757181
>>Not just "feel" we measure it that way.
>Not if B theory is true.
So you're saying we can't measure the passing of time from a subjective pov? Then what does a clock measure again?

>>17757188
Under B theory, a clock doesn't measure the passing of time but rather the placement of a given time slice within the overall ordering.
And yeah you can say that this is silly nonsense, but the fact of the matter is that this is the B theory and what you are talking about all along is the A theory.

>>17757192
>the placement of a given time slice within the overall ordering
This is the subjective pov time we experience. You're just giving it a different name. Clocks measure time, nobody said they had to measure universal time

>>17757182
>he actually got quadruple vaxxed
Kek, I wonder what'll kill you first, the myocarditis or the AIDS.

>>17757194
>Clocks measure time, nobody said they had to measure universal time
If B theory is true, they don't measure the PASSING of time because time doesn't PASS.
I don't think there's any point in taking this further. You're just going to keep implicitly saying that A theory is true under B theory and I'm going to keep telling you that what you're describing is not the B theory.

>>17757196
Two more weeks. Enjoy getting killed by a train btw, can't wait for the webm.

>>17757200
You're saying that B theory doesn't allow us to measure time from the observers pov. This is nonsense and no wonder you have to resort to straw men. Time doesn't pass from the universal pov under B-theory I agree. We clearly have a subjective experience of time passing though and we have built all sorts of devices to measure it.

>>17757203
>You're saying that B theory doesn't allow us to measure time from the observers pov.
You are a brazen liar. Shame on you.
I said that it does not allow us to measure the PASSING of time because on the B theory, time does not PASS. I did not say that clocks don't measure time. On B theory, they measure time the same way stakes in the ground measure a plot of land. Yet the land doesn't pass anywhere, curious.

>>17757202
Uh oh. Someone is a heckin science denier! Sorry cuck for nigger bulls, but the science shows the Pfizer mRNA vaccines gave young men myocarditis.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109730
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535224000545?via%3Dihub

Keep listening to Dr Rajesh, though.

>>17757209
>I did not say that clocks don't measure time
That's literally the same thing. What does it mean not to measure time except not measuring elapsed time?
>they measure time the same way stakes in the ground measure a plot of land. Yet the land doesn't pass anywhere
Again you're speaking from an universal perspective. Someone going from point A to B will still experience walking from A to B even if the land does not move but he does the moving. That is the subjective experience measured by an observer

>>17757212
>people with bottom of the barrel genetics get filtered
How is that a bad thing? Not my problem.
>Keep listening to Dr Rajesh, though.
No, I'm not going to keep listening to you.

>>17757213
>That's literally the same thing.
It's the same thing on the A theory. This is just going exactly the way I knew it would.
>What does it mean not to measure time except not measuring elapsed time?
I already told you. It means to measure the placement of a given time slice within the overall ordering.
>Someone going from point A to B will still experience walking from A to B even if the land does not move but he does the moving. That is the subjective experience measured by an observer
I knew you would use a false analogy like this. Your problem is that you think there's an A theory observer moving within B theory time. This is false under the B theory, and if you don't drop this idea, you will keep talking about the A theory.

>>17757214
>how does the collective health of society impact you in any way lol
Sure thing Moshe. I don't know why you are so intent on proving atheism is a Jewish mental illness, but alright. It doesn't even work as edge, since the actual "social Darwinistic" position would have been to let the elderly die. And the mass vaccination campaigns were justified as being for the collective good anyway.

But such are the wages of craving cock like a subhuman godless faggot (three synonyms in a row).

>>17757224
That's a cute little spergout, but watch this:
>You're an Indian.
There's nothing you can say about me that's worse than this.

>>17757214
Myocarditis deaths most heavily impacted young men who strained their hearts playing sports, though.

>>17757225
Being a faggot and an atheist is worse than being an Indian. Keep coping though, this is really funny.

>>17757223
You're just stating things without evidence. And don't think I didn't notice how you quoted a part and then made an assumption without ignoring the most important part mentioning the observer's pov
>It means to measure the placement
Okay so not the subjective pov of time the observer experiences. What is this placement? Distance?
>I knew you would use a false analogy like this.
You're the one who made it spatial so of course it doesn't work. Under A theory the land moves around you to get you from a point to another and it ceases to exist except at the present location, under B theory it doesn't since universal time doesn't move.

>>17757226
I lift, climb and run 20 miles a week with no problems. Skill issue.
>>17757228
>hahaha saar imagine being white saar couldn't be me hahaha no saar wouldn't redeem that no way bloody benchod

>>17757232
We all know you clean the streets of Islamabad, saar, no need to pretend.

>>17757229
You're now cast into an increasingly emotional confusion because you keep trying to slot A theory time into B theory time.
Let me give you a land analogy with the observer then. You've got a plot of land with the stakes along it. In front of the stakes are frozen copies of you, each of them under the illusion that it had just "passed" from the copy to the left of it and will "pass" to the copy to the right of it.
This is what the B theory says about the observer.

>>17757238
The funny thing is that this is a game for you where you think you can "own" me by saying something about towelheads or whatever. On the other hand, the actual reality of the situation is that YOU DO LIVE IN INDIA. Full stop.
Just think about that.

>>17757239
I don't care about your silly posturing so it will be ignored.
>You've got a plot of land with the stakes along it. In front of the stakes are frozen copies of you, each of them under the illusion that it had just "passed" from the copy to the left of it and will "pass" to the copy to the right of it.
Now do A theory using this analogy. And this doesn't change anything, all of them are real and all of their "illusions" correctly point to the next sequence. Meaning that for every observer they indeed must be able to measure at every instance an infinite amount of events they subjectively passed through. Their subjective experience is not "wrong" in that sense and fully intact even if the "land does not pass" itself

>>17757244
These are quite the severe delusions, Mr Paki. Post IQ result.
https://files catbox.moe/2geu1f.jpg
https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/FSIQ/

>>17757254
>Now do A theory using this analogy.
I can't. Time under A theory is nothing like a static plot of land. They are completely disanalogous. That's what I keep telling you.
>And this doesn't change anything, all of them are real and all of their "illusions" correctly point to the next sequence. Meaning that for every observer they indeed must be able to measure at every instance an infinite amount of events they subjectively passed through.
Don't you get it? The observer didn't pass through anything. There's just a bunch of guys frozen in place staring at stakes.

>>17757261
Only a scamjeet would randomly insult someone by calling him a paki. That's all the confirmation I need.

>>17757262
>I can't
Okay then your analogy doesn't help to demonstrate any difference.
>The observer didn't pass through anything.
Yes from the universal pov of course not. However from a subjective pov they appear to have passed through an infinite amount of sequence and thus every measurement they could make must point to this. Nothing here says their experience is wrong at all

>>17757265
Scams are just the superior strong taking advantage of the vile weak and genetically inferior. No-one seethes more about jeets than pakis, so that's all the confirmation I need. PS: A jeet being infinitely smarter than you is not a good flex.

>>17757272
>Okay then your analogy doesn't help to demonstrate any difference.
The difference is demonstrated by the fact that the A theory cannot fit into the analogy. That's how different they are.
>Yes from the universal pov of course not. However from a subjective pov they appear to have passed through an infinite amount of sequence and thus every measurement they could make must point to this. Nothing here says their experience is wrong at all
Did you completely skip past the part with the guys staring at the stakes?

>>17757277
And here we are back at the beginning. You've had your fun, you feel like you owned me, but at the end of the day, in reality I am still a white European and you are still an Indian.

>>17757278
>the difference is this only works for one thing
Not helpful at all.
>Did you completely skip past the part with the guys staring at the stakes?
Nope, I said "Yes from the universal pov of course not". I can make a distinction why can't you? Are you trying to say subjective experience is just inherently wrong? And again it has to be stressed that this does not require a conscious observer, a machine will do just fine

>>17757283
Alright, I'll try one last time. If you don't get it with this, you will never understand the B theory and this whole thing is pointless.
>A theory
There is a guy walking (lengthwise) along a strip of land 1m in length, but since the land behind him keeps passing out of existence and the land in front of him keeps passing into existence at the exact speed he's walking, he never steps off the strip of land. Think of it like a treadmill, except it's a strip of land. Next to him is a stake on wheels that rides at the same speed he's walking. It has a little monitor that displays the distance it's gone so far.
>B theory
There is a plot of land with stakes running along it lengthwise. The stakes are placed in 1m increments with distance from the first stake written on them. In front of each stake is a man frozen in place. Each man looks like a snapshot of a man taken mid-walk, with the sequence of men looking a bit like picrel. Each man looks at a stake and his mental state is frozen in place too - this mental state reflects the fact that the man sees a particular stake and that he labours under the delusion that he will somehow "pass" into being the man in front of him. This never happens, all men stand motionlessly and stare at stakes.
This is all I can do for you to help you understand the B theory of time.

>>17757281
Atheism is anti-white and anti-European. And I'm the only one who posted evidence of being white and having an IQ two and a half standard deviations above the mean, so this is just pathetic. Randomly inventing nonsensical feverish phantasies about your interlocutors because you were too butthurt about your being incapable of defending materialism and Darwinism really shows what a giant manchild you are. You should call Matt Dilatetranny for comfort, maybe he'll recommend some chicks with dicks that could give you a fun time.

>>17757317
But you're actually an Indian and I'm actually a white European. All that needs to be said really.

>>17757307
I didn't keep track with this entire conversation, since it seemed a bit retarded, but the best analogy for the B-theory of time is a film reel, where all frames exist simultaneously but when arranged in a particular way produce the illusion of motion.

>>17757320
>if I repeat it enough it will come true
Oh I see, you aren't a tranny lover, you ARE the tranny. You are white the same way you are a woman. I guess the myocarditis and AIDS aren't even part of the equation here, you'll kill yourself before you have to deal with them kek.

>>17757307
Okay so you have basically used an analogy I made here >>17757229 for the A theory and repeated yourself for the B theory an analogy I accepted in my reply. What is the point of this post? Address what I have asked of you not this irrelevant nonsense reeking of dishonesty.
>still talking about mental states and illusions
lmao again it doesn't matter, you can literally program these subjective assumptions into an arduino to turn on an LED and somehow it would all still magically work from the observer's pov. How does it work if subjective experience is wrong? It does not change the fact that you as an observer must measure the fact that you traversed an infinite meaning you solved nothing.

>>17757322
Terrible analogy for this purpose. The illusion of motion in film implicitly smuggles in A theoretic assumption, because our intuition tells us that the guy watching the film exists in A theory time.

>>17757333
Dumb argument. If there was perfect correspondance, it wouldn't be an analogy.

>>17757332
>How does it work if subjective experience is wrong?
How does each stake in the B theory analogy display a different number if the subjective experience of each of the guys passing into the next one in sequence is wrong?
You just don't understand the analogy, that's the problem.

>>17757342
The idea of the film observer is basically the reason why the guy I'm arguing with doesn't understand the B theory. Using the film reel analogy, the chances of making him understand would be even lower, though in any case it seems to be impossible anyway.

>>17752648 (OP)
is the anime girl shitting in that picture?

>>17757328
>if I repeat it enough it will come true
No, that's what you are doing. I don't need any tryhard shit like that, I'm simply white. I even have blue eyes!

>>17757424
Sis, you better go dilate rn, the neovagina is gonna close up!

>>17757441
>most loving Christian
How do you expect anyone to believe you're not just larping, acting like this?

>>17757511
This is what a Christian is.

>>17757344
They are all equally right from their subjective pov, that's the entire point. Denying that means you deny that each point is equally real (it is indeed 12th of June 2025 at that point and not just an illusion) so you're essentially saying goodbye to the B theory

>>17758282
Missed the point again award. My point is that they are wrong about the PASSING OF TIME. Because time on the B theory DOESN'T PASS. All the guys in the B analogy think they are the guy in the A analogy. That's what they're wrong about, everything else you bring up is a red herring.
You can use the watch with a led light thing in the analogy as well. Each stake has a watch like that on top of it with internal states corresponding to what they would be in different snapshots in A time. If for instance the led light is supposed to light up every five minutes, it will be permanently lit on some watches and permanently turned off on others because each stake represents a particular time slice.
Anyway you're too low IQ to understand the analogy or B theory in general so it's over.

>>17759341
From a universal pov there is no time passing, we already made this clear long ago so you're just being desperate. From a subjective pov however they can always look back and forward and they would be right in determining their position in the infinite chain of time slices. This is why the watches can be programmed to work that way in the first place. If they were wrong as you claim then going from the 12th to the 13th would not be equivalent to 24 hours and no predictions about time could be made such as the five minute intervals you've mentioned. And this means again that every observer could use instruments to determine that the chain extends infinitely long (but no such observation has been made) to assume that an infinite has been traversed. Your LEDs won't be "permanently" lit that's nonsensical foolishness, we are talking about time itself here. There's no other magical form of subtime that each slice experiences and is somehow eternal. Each slice is an actual instant of time meaning each LED for that particular observer window is actually just experiencing that slice of time and nothing more. There's no passage of time for time itself, all you have is that block of time that is equally real at all moments, and the only measure of time you can make is between the members of the chain not outside of it.

>>17754564
>meaning under your worldview an infinite amount of causes had to be traversed
You can easily conceive of a perpetual descent of cause and effect.
Cause and effect aren't actually ordered. You can reverse their meanings and nothing actually changes.
Do with this information what you will. I've found most are too stupid to even grasp the implication, even when it's laid out in front of their very eyes.

>>17760001
>You can easily conceive of a perpetual descent of cause and effect.
Yes, that doesn't solve anything. A man walking from his house (infinitely distant past) to his workplace (present) will never get there if it's infinitely distant, no matter how close he gets.
>You can reverse their meanings
You mean cause becomes effect and vice versa? That doesn't change their ordering just the orientation of causality