There are two propositions that support the cosmological argument.

1. God is necessary and the universe is necessary (God is P1 and the universe is P2).
2. God is necessary and the universe is unnecessary.

We can follow that in the first scenario the universe is deterministic and in the second one the universe is random

The first proposition fails because God can't be separated from the universe, therefore everything possible in the universe is divine because it's a reflection of God. That includes murder, rape, and everything else.

The second proposition fails because it violates providence since it is random.

In both propositions it means God, God's will, and the universe is arbitrary since there are no prior propositions

>no replies
I’ll take that as admitting defeat

God can still fulfill his purpose without being in control of every action in the universe; evil rape, murder etc. included. Those are consequences of original sin, and the only way humans can have free will in this reality/earth. It does not mean evil is a "divine" reflection of God.

>>17756008
This is just cope. Like I said, either the universe is deterministic or random and both fail to create free will or a divine being that can be distinguished from the universe and has all the properties of God.
>Those are consequences of original sin, and the only way humans can have free will in this reality/earth.
Is there literally anything that substantiates this other than “scripture sez so”.

>>17755762 (OP)
Because I read your post, I need to know if I'm wasting time with a moron. So tell me, do you believe your father was a monkey and your grandfather was a fish? Yes or no.

>>17755762 (OP)
Before I even read your post, I need to know if I'm wasting time with a moron. So tell me, do you believe your father was a monkey and your grandfather was a fish? Yes or no.

>>17756121
cope

Midwit nonsense the post.

>>17757008
>I have no rebuttal

>>17756110
>deterministic or random
False Dilemma

>>17757107
How is this a false dilemma?

>>17757115
Because of infinity.

>>17757120
What does infinity have anything to do with a universe being deterministic or random

>>17757057
You need to have an argument to rebut first.

>>17757125
If you want to make it deterministic, you need a perfect chain of fidelity. This requires trust. Love your neighbor.

>>17757126
Both propositions violate core tenets of God for reasons laid out in the OP and there is no reason why the universe couldn’t have caused itself if we are already giving an expection for the first thing in the chain or things randomly appearing. Now, do you have an actual argument?

>>17757140
They don't, because God's power to choose whether or not He creates the world does not indicate randomness, as it is contingent upon God's will. And the source of evil in the world is material contingent existences' being unable to perfectly participate in and reflect God's nature. Rape as such is not an image of God's perfection, it is the deficiency in the image. This is really basic stuff.

>>17757140
Don't let it be random. You can make a difference.

>>17757150
>And the source of evil in the world is material contingent existences' being unable to perfectly participate in and reflect God's nature. Rape as such is not an image of God's perfection, it is the deficiency in the image. This is really basic stuff.
No, you’re failing to grasp really basic stuff. It’s either God’s will because God made it or it’s random which means there is no will. It’s literally impossible for free will to exist.

I hate to bring allegories but a character in a movie already has all their lines written. The movie is going forward at a constant speed. God is the filmmaker. You can’t just change the copy to make them say different lines. Even granting a creator, which there isn’t a reason to do since the first cause by definition doesn’t need a cause, then it still violates tenets of God. It also shows God’s will is arbitrary since God could have made anything

Aslso, how do you know what God’s will is? You have God’s phone number? Lmao.

>>17757151
Gamblers rerolling the slot machine thinking doing the same action and getting a different result means he caused the different result to happen

>>17757191
Don't allow your dopamine to be controlled by a slot machine.

>>17757187
>It’s literally impossible for free will to exist.
No it isn't. What a retarded argument.

>I hate to bring allegories but a character in a movie already has all their lines written.
It's called compatibilism and God's working through secondary causes according to His foreknowledge.

>It also shows God’s will is arbitrary since God could have made anything
It's not; God wills in accordance with His nature, which is the parameter restricting His choices and determining it. It is only arbitrary from our perspective as to God's choosing to create or not to create the world — the world He does create is not itself random or arbitrary, but in accordance with His self-revelation, love and goodness. Arbitrary is not random either way.

>>17757215
1. omniscience negates free will

2. your bible outright denies it exists in Romans 9 11-23

>>17757215
>It's called compatibilism and God's working through secondary causes according to His foreknowledge.
Ridiculous cope. If the universe was deterministic then you would expect the same thing to happen everytime giving the same propositions. If the universe was random then the universe would butterfly itself everytime even with the same proposition. It’s likely the universe is probablistic and somewhere between deterministic and infinitely random (entropy).

Notice at no point there is a “free will” in the chain. Either there is total predeterminism due to causation, total randomness due to entropy, or a mix that still doesn’t derive any new qualities.

>It's not; God wills in accordance with His nature, which is the parameter restricting His choices and determining it.
Ok, God’s nature is arbitrary whatever. Still could and could have been literally anything.
>It is only arbitrary from our perspective as to God's choosing to create or not to create the world
Then he can’t be defined since there is no possible way to know. He is basically a singularity. It still fails to seperate God from the universe, build any morality seperate to a materialist one, or confirm any afterlife.
>the world He does create is not itself random or arbitrary, but in accordance with His self-revelation, love and goodness.
It’s necessary abritrary because he is the first cause. If it wasn’t then he wouldn’t be the first cause
>but in accordance with His self-revelation, love and goodness.
Circular reasoning

>>17755762 (OP)
>cannot destroy made up horse cock

>God is necessary and the universe is necessary (God is P1 and the universe is P2).
>God is necessary and the universe is unnecessary.

False dichotomy right out the gate. These aren’t the only two ways to frame contingency and necessity in the cosmological argument. Aquinas, for instance, held that only God is necessary, and everything else (universe included) is contingent on His will. The idea that necessity must be shared between God and the universe (P1 and P2) is already a step away from classical theism.

>The first proposition fails because God can't be separated from the universe...
This sounds more like pantheism than any coherent cosmological argument. If God is indistinguishable from the universe, then you've abandoned the concept of a transcendent Creator entirely. That's not Thomistic, not even deistic; it’s Spinozan at best. A Traditional Catholic understanding holds that creation reflects God's goodness, but isn't itself divine. A reflection isn’t the source. Evil doesn't "become divine" just because it exists in creation; that would erase the entire distinction between being and moral order.

>The second proposition fails because it violates providence since it is random.
This assumes that if the universe is unnecessary, it must be random. But contingency ≠ chaos. A contingent universe can be created with purpose and order by a necessary God. That’s the whole point of divine providence: God chooses to create a world He didn't have to, but He does so in wisdom and love. No contradiction here.

>In both propositions it means God, God's will, and the universe is arbitrary since there are no prior propositions
You're trying to force God into a philosophical system He isn't bound by. God is the first principle. There are no "prior propositions" because there is no prior being. That's not arbitrariness, that's divine simplicity. His will isn't irrational, it's uncaused because it is the cause.

>>17755762 (OP)
Your premise is wrong. The universe is not necessary. God was already fully satisfied, he alone was already more than enough before he created anything.

The universe is his will. It exist because he wants it to.

>>17756008
Evil is temporary. There is going to come s time when evil will no longer exist. All that is evil will be wiped away. Anyone who took refuge in evil will be wiped away along with evil. But those who took refuge in the Most High and did what was right will inherit the new world free of all evil.

An evil-less age is coming. Those who reject evil on earth will enjoy it.

>>17757315
>The universe is not necessary.
Prove it

>>17757259
Romans 9 does not deny free will at all. This delegitimized anything you had to say. St Paul is entertaining a hypothetical that he ultimately rejects, as is evident by the rest of his corpus.

>>17757318
>if you let your dad rape and beat you he'll take you to disneyland someday

ah christians

>>17757140
The universe is intelligently designed. Life is not random. Life is tuned to mathematical precision to be able to work properly. The sun is the perfect position to not scorch the earth or freeze it to death. The moon perfectly control the tides. The stars are always at their right formation. The waters never overstep their boundaries, the oceans are never full. Everything is in perfectly working order by design. Plants take carbon and give oxygen, people take oxygen and give carbon. We're part of a design. This was made by hands. By divine hands.

>>17757336
Cope. He does not reject it

It's literally his answer on free will.

>who can resist the will of god
>no one

therefore free will does not exist. even your salvation/damnation is not your choice

>not by works you are saved but by grace
>no man can come to me (Jesus) unless the father draws him

you are too stupid on your own doctrine to reply to me

>>17757348
All of this is either false or confirmation bias

>>17757325
God existed for eons of ages before the universe existed. The universe is necessary for us but God doesn't need it. It exist because God wants it to, not because it has to. It is God's voluntary creation.

>>17757348
This is the dumbest argument ever

>less than 1% of water on earth is drinkable
>getting a small cut can kill you due to infection
>you can choke to death because you breathe and drink from the same tube
>if you stay outside without clothes you will die from exposure
>cancer killing your body for no reason
>if you don't cook and prepare your food you'll probably die from diseases
>etc

there's plenty of this erroneous shit in your "perfect creation"

>>17757350
Neither.

>>17757282
>If the universe was deterministic then you would expect the same thing to happen everytime giving the same propositions.
Okay so? This presupposes a nominalistic definition of free will that entails absolute arbitrariness and unrestricted options. All it really entails is self-directed motion, which does not entail no prior influences of the direction.

>Ok, God’s nature is arbitrary whatever.
I was literally pointing out the opposite retard.

>It still fails to seperate God from the universe
Incoherent statement. The image is deficient and diluted compared to the archetype, and its inability to embrace the fullness of the imprinting of its paradigm is what produces flux, alteration and thereby evil. Good actions require synergy between God and the created actor, God allowing through His grace for the created being to participate in His good nature, and the created being freely willing to collaborate with His activities.

>build any morality seperate to a materialist one, or confirm any afterlife.
Non sequitur.

>It’s necessary abritrary because he is the first cause.
This completely fails as a syllogism.

>Circular reasoning
Not at all.

>>17757309
>Aquinas, for instance, held that only God is necessary, and everything else (universe included) is contingent on His will.
That's just the second proposition, which fails because it's random and there's no causation, as I've already said.

>The idea that necessity must be shared between God and the universe (P1 and P2) is already a step away from classical theism.
Is it really? It's just saying that God must necessarily exist and he must have necessarily created the universe which isn't out of line with most theist thought.

>This sounds more like pantheism than any coherent cosmological argument. If God is indistinguishable from the universe, then you've abandoned the concept of a transcendent Creator entirely. That's not Thomistic, not even deistic; it’s Spinozan at best. A Traditional Catholic understanding holds that creation reflects God's goodness, but isn't itself divine. A reflection isn’t the source. Evil doesn't "become divine" just because it exists in creation; that would erase the entire distinction between being and moral order.
I'm not advocating for that, I'm saying theist are unable to prove the distinction.

>This assumes that if the universe is unnecessary, it must be random. But contingency ≠ chaos. A contingent universe can be created with purpose and order by a necessary God. That’s the whole point of divine providence: God chooses to create a world He didn't have to, but He does so in wisdom and love. No contradiction here.
There is no way to prove what his will is or if there even is one other than by looking at the universe (see the third point).

>You're trying to force God into a philosophical system He isn't bound by. God is the first principle. There are no "prior propositions" because there is no prior being. That's not arbitrariness, that's divine simplicity. His will isn't irrational, it's uncaused because it is the cause.
See third point again

>>17757349
His point is that all evil that men is foreordained to produce an ever greater good which it facilitates. The entire point of Romans is St Paul dealing with the question of whether God has a right to judge the Jews when He had foreordained their being evil in killing evil so that through Him the world might be reconciled to God and saved. His conclusion in Romans 11 is that God will grant everyone the final opportunity to repent of evil and be saved. St Paul says in Romans 9:16 that salvation is not up to he who runs but up to God who has mercy, but in Philippians 3:14 he says he runs towards the goal that is the prize of God's heavenly calling, in 1 Corinthians 9:24 he instructs believers to run in such a way so as to get the prize, and in 2 Timothy he says "I fought the good fight, I ran the race, I kept the faith"; his model is a synergistic one where God must move first with His grace, and the recepient must collaborate with it and accept it.

You subhuman piece of shit, you mentally ill faggot who deserves to be raped to death, monergism and double predestination are specifically Calvinist doctrines absent in historic Christianity. Ignorant subhuman retard. Christianity has always been synergistic.

>>17757387
You are making shit up and doing everything to not read the plain text lol

Cope all you want but your book denies free will

>synergistic

lol

>Jewgod creates man in his image. Declares his work very good.
>1000 years later
>WHY DO YOU HAVE A FORESKIN. CUT IT OFF RIGHT NOW OR I WILL KILL YOU.

>>17757358
None of this is a refutation of irreducible complexity, it's just complaining corruption exists when composite existents don't participate in God's activities acting upon to grant them simplicity and incorruption.

>>17757348
You wouldn't be alive to tell otherwise because "you" wouldn't exist. This also presupposes any universe has to be made out of matter. And doesn't solve the problem of death or seeming randomness.

>>17757365
>Okay so? This presupposes a nominalistic definition of free will that entails absolute arbitrariness and unrestricted options. All it really entails is self-directed motion, which does not entail no prior influences of the direction.
My point was that free will can't exist because everything either has to be determined by a first cause, i.e. deterministic, is random, or is both, i.e. probabilistic.

>I was literally pointing out the opposite retard.
Like I said, you're wrong and you can't prove God is distinct from the universe

>Incoherent statement. The image is deficient and diluted compared to the archetype, and its inability to embrace the fullness of the imprinting of its paradigm is what produces flux, alteration and thereby evil. Good actions require synergy between God and the created actor, God allowing through His grace for the created being to participate in His good nature, and the created being freely willing to collaborate with His activities.
Wrong again as laid out in multiple points

>Non sequitur.
Still fails to prove the distinction between God and the universe

>This completely fails as a syllogism.
It's true unless only the first proposition is valid which still fails to separate God from the universe.

>Not at all.
Yep.

>>17757409
Philippians 3:14, 1 Corinthians 9:24 and 2 Timothy 4:7 are the plain text. Lmao.

And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. (Romans 11:17-21)

Grace is resistable and there is no assurance of salvation, as confirmed by verses like 1 Thessalonians 5:19 ("Do not quench the Holy Spirit"), 2 Corinthians 6:1 ("As co-workers of God, we beseech you not to receive the grace of God in vain"), Ephesians 4:30 ("Do not grieve the Spirit with Whom you are sealed unto salvation"), and others. Indeed, Romans 8:29 says that God foreknows those who will accept His grace, on account of which He predestines them.

>>WHY DO YOU HAVE A FORESKIN. CUT IT OFF RIGHT NOW OR I WILL KILL YOU.
What does this have to do with the conversation? Guess sis didn't take her pills today OR dilate her neovagina. Sad. To be expected from someone who thinks bears can become whales by "gradually evolving" kek.

>>17757410
Pointless semantic obfuscation and deflection

>something works
>WOW GOD IS GOOD
>something is fucked
>UHHH ITS SIN OR SOMETHING

fucking christkikes

>>17757437
>I'm gonna reference everything except Romans 9 11-23 which explicitly say free will doesn't exist

According to the verses I already reference those actions are not your decision and it is for god's purpose and god's will. He is potmaker and you are the clay.

You're more of a blasphemer than me for denying his word lol

>>17757414
>Still fails to prove the distinction between God and the universe
You have your own nominalistic presuppositions that are completely idiotic that lead you to that conclusion. This entire thread is just your asserting idiotic presuppositions without proving them and failing horribly.

>My point was that free will can't exist because everything either has to be determined by a first cause
Which is not mutually exclusive with self-directed motion. God permits agents to make their own freely willed choices, and foreordains all events on the basis of His foreknowing all said choices depending on variegated different circumstances. This was already explained but you are incapable of getting it.

>Wrong again as laid out in multiple points
You spewed forth a bunch of useless nonsense, you didn't make an argument.

>>17757456
But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work. (2 Timothy 2:20-21)

People *choose* to become clay pots for either honourable and dishonourable purposes. Still a synergistic account. This is just ignoring the entire context preceeding and suceeding Romans 9.

Kek not really disproving the "atheists are just seething evababies" allegations.

>>17757438
Holy fucking shit you really a subhuman braindead retard lmao. The existence of a complex system of natural processes implies a designer; any complex mechanism nor matter how well-designed will inevitably go awry in natural circumstances, and requires maintenance from the designer. Your point is basically that because a highly complexes mechanism has not receiving fixes and maintenance from its designer that the designer necessarily does not exist. This is complete nonsense. God's choosing not to intervene in the world does not disprove the argument that an intelligent designer was required in the first place.

>>17757476
It outright says it's not your choice though meanwhile you only think it implies you have a choice

God's will cannot be thwarted blasphemer. Enjoy hell lmao.

>>17757494
God designed you to choke from the mouth you eat from

Nice. Very intuitive

>>17757462
>You have your own nominalistic presuppositions that are completely idiotic that lead you to that conclusion. This entire thread is just your asserting idiotic presuppositions without proving them and failing horribly.
>It's wrong because I don't like it

>Which is not mutually exclusive with self-directed motion.
Yes, it is.

>God permits agents to make their own freely willed choices, and foreordains all events on the basis of His foreknowing all said choices depending on variegated different circumstances.
Again, this is just randomness, not free will. You are imply there is some third force but there is no justification for it.

>You spewed forth a bunch of useless nonsense, you didn't make an argument.
>It's wrong because I don't like it

>>17757494
>Holy fucking shit you really a subhuman braindead retard lmao. The existence of a complex system of natural processes implies a designer; any complex mechanism nor matter how well-designed will inevitably go awry in natural circumstances, and requires maintenance from the designer. Your point is basically that because a highly complexes mechanism has not receiving fixes and maintenance from its designer that the designer necessarily does not exist. This is complete nonsense. God's choosing not to intervene in the world does not disprove the argument that an intelligent designer was required in the first place.
It's scientifically proven the universe is and always has been expanding and is heading towards a state of entropy. And you have still failed to separate the identity of God from the universe.

>>17757500
Why do you keep repeating shit that has been refuted 10 times over? The Jews were God's pots for an unclean purpose, and He still works to save them, because God bound everyone to disobedience that He might have mercy on all (Romans 11:32). He permits all evil because in His foreknowledge He wisely foreordained all things so that the evil might produce more bountiful goodness. I know this is taxing your 85 IQ, but try harder!

>>17757513
Your tranny lower case writing style and sloppiness is very Indian coded. Because you should've stayed on Reddit.

>>17757533
>deploying every buzzword possible

uh oh jew worshiper mad

>>17757521
>>It's wrong because I don't like it
You haven't even provided an argument in favour of nominalism.

>Yes, it is.
You've failed to show that is the case.

>Again, this is just randomness, not free will.
How the fuck is it randomness if it's a product of the nature of the agent?? You're such a brainlet it is impressive.

>It's scientifically proven the universe is and always has been expanding and is heading towards a state of entropy.
It hasn't been actually, nor is that an actual refutation of intelligent design or the argument from fine tuning.

>>17757550
Jews invented atheism to destroy the white race you unself-aware retard kek

>>17757369
That's just the second proposition, which fails because it's random and there's no causation, as I've already said.
No, that's a misread. Contingency doesn’t imply randomness, and saying so is begging the question. Thomistic metaphysics distinguishes between necessity and arbitrariness. God freely wills the universe, but His will is grounded in His nature (ipsum esse subsistens) which is rational, good, and consistent. The absence of external necessity doesn’t mean internal chaos.

>Is it really? It's just saying that God must necessarily exist and he must have necessarily created the universe which isn't out of line with most theist thought.
Actually, it is. You're collapsing divine freedom. Classical theism, especially in Catholic tradition, holds that God could have not created the universe. Creation isn’t a logical necessity; it’s a free act. To say otherwise turns the universe into a co-eternal emanation rather than a creation, again veering Spinozan or Neoplatonic.

>I'm not advocating for that, I'm saying theists are unable to prove the distinction.
And I'm saying the distinction is metaphysically sound and necessary to avoid absurd conclusions. If you deny the Creator/creation distinction, you end up calling evil divine. Catholics don’t need to "prove" the distinction empirically; it’s a metaphysical truth. God is 'actus purus,' pure actuality. Creation has potentiality, contingency, and limitation. That’s already a categorical difference.

cont.

>>17757663
>>17757369
>There is no way to prove what his will is or if there even is one other than by looking at the universe (see the third point).
Of course we look at the universe, it’s creation. But we also reason beyond it. Natural theology doesn’t stop at empirical facts; it uses them as signs pointing to a necessary, immaterial, intelligent cause. Providence isn’t about reading tea leaves, it’s the philosophical conclusion that God orders all things to their end. You’re assuming scientism where it doesn’t belong.

>See third point again
The "third point" just keeps circling around the claim that if we can’t deduce God's will a priori, it must be arbitrary. That’s just false. God’s will is uncaused because He is the cause. You're holding divine simplicity to the standard of contingent systems. It's like complaining a foundation has no floor beneath it. That’s the whole point; it is the floor.

>>17757622
Sure goy. Whatever keeps you from waking up and stop worshipping jews

>>17757670
Whatever helps you cope, Rajesh.

>>17757670

>>17757622
>Jews invented atheism
Who do you think invented christianity bro

>>17757679
God of course. In rejection of the Pharisees. Which is why their descendants hate Christianity to this day. Also lmao at resorting to samefagging after being owned too hard

>>17757583
>You haven't even provided an argument in favour of nominalism.
A ship is just matter arranged into something we would call a ship because it's useful to call it that. There are things we can use to define a ship like it floats and can travel across bodies of water but the basal thing is matter, not the ship. Platonism is like putting the cart before the horse because the ship is the basal thing (form) and it's manifesting as matter.

>You've failed to show that is the case.
Tell me how I failed. You failed to grasp simple logic.

>How the fuck is it randomness if it's a product of the nature of the agent?? You're such a brainlet it is impressive.
The nature is arbitrary because the first cause has no prior cause. Ffs. It could have been literally anything. Even if we presuppose that it has to be some particular form for God to come into existence (which is already stupid because he is supposed to be boundless) then it is impossible for anyone to know the form by your definition.

>It hasn't been actually
You're just flat-out wrong

>nor is that an actual refutation of intelligent design or the argument from fine tuning.
Because it implies there are things that are random, i.e. outside of God's control