Believer
>Universe can not come from nothing because something can not come from nothing

Atheist
>Okay so where did God come from?

Believer
>God is eternal you chud

Atheist
>Okay then universe is also eternal

Believer
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU FUCKING HEATHEN NOT LIKE THAAAAAT UNIVERSE CAN'T BE ETERNAL BECAUSE....BECAUSE IT CAN'T OKAY!!!!! OKAY!!!!!

>>17865875 (OP)
Well, the believer would respond that God is transcendent and that that to God, Universe is contingent, since God is the limit of what we imagine as eternity.
Then the atheist would get angry since he doesn't understand what this means.

>>17865875 (OP)
the universe lacks the internal homogeneity necessary to ever be considered eternal
If the Universe changes, either internally or unitarily, then it cannot be eternal.
Or did the big Bang never happen and the Universe as always been as it is right now?

>>17865875 (OP)
>where did God come from
Everything has a cause, either internal/necessary or exterior/contingent. Do you agree that “Nothing exists” is a contradiction? If yes (correctly), you believe in a necessary being, this necessary being is eternal, or else he would not be necessary, and we would return to the contradiction of nothing existing.
>universe is also eternal
Except your scientists believe the universe had a beginning. In other words, they believe there was a time the universe did not exist (Around 13.8 trillion years ago). Since the universe did not always exist, it is not eternal nor necessary.

>>17865884
>>17865887
>>17865888
Cope

>>17865890
seethe harder, antichrist

>>17865875 (OP)
Did you know subatomic particles pop in and out of existence all the time and some of those subatomic particles continue to stay in existence, rinse & repeat for billions of years and that can add up to a lot

>>17865875 (OP)
Believer
>God exist and is Omnipresent, so you are God and I am also God

Atheist
>noooooooooo! I do not exist

>>17865890
Do you at least understand why the universe cannot be eternal or be the necessary being?
To add, the universe itself is not simple, it is made up of parts such as matter (for example), therefore it is contingent to those parts to exist. If it weren’t for matter, the universe would not exist. If the universe is contingent to another being, it is not the necessary being.

>>17865887
Kind of a misconception, a vacuum of space could be localized and thus unchanging and essentially eternal. The difference is that in order for the universe to create itself it must be unchanging, which is what fits your argument.

>>17865875 (OP)
Things can come from nothing

>>17865893
Keep cope subhuman

>>17865898
I have no problem with this argument. I think that things can come from nothing

>>17865899
There is no evidence of self

>>17865903
Nothing is necessary.

>>17865917
>nothing is necessary
Is “nothing exists” a contradiction?
Does everything that exist have existence in itself or another?

>>17865875 (OP)
Believer
>Universe can not come from nothing because something can not come from nothing

Atheist
>Okay so where did God come from?

Believer
>Irrelevant to the question, God has already been established at that point and atheism as been refuted.

>Atheist
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU FUCKING CHRISTKEK NOT LIKE THAAAAAT GOD CAN'T BE EXIST BECAUSE....BECAUSE HE CAN'T OKAY!!!!! OKAY!!!!!

>>17865921
>Is “nothing exists” a contradiction?
I don't know, I might be a brain in a vat

All of the believers speak of G-d as if they're above him

Really makes me think

>>17865932
Can A be non-A?

>>17865948
How would they be believers then, not giving an example to such a claim is baseless generalisation

>>17865884
The universe is transcendent; prove me wrong

>things can't come from nothing
>energy cannot be created nor destroyed
>there is energy
>the energy of the universe always existed
Theoschizos forever btfo'd

>>17865875 (OP)
Atheism is form of dogmatic faith.
Official narrative is their bible.
Their words heretic and unbeliever is schizo and mentally ill.
So lets that sink in, faggot.

>>17865887
>the universe lacks the internal homogeneity necessary to ever be considered eternal

Meaningless statement; omogeneity is irrelevant

>>17865888
>Except your scientists believe the universe had a beginning.

Modern science doesn't take tge big bang as a creation out of nothing; just the expansion of something, you've outed yourself.

>>17865898
Those particles aren't out of nothing; they are just energy from quantum fields, they do not violate conservation of energy

>>17865994
But something must've come from something else, so your something is a secondary cause. If it were to create itself it would have to be from something non changing;immaterial

>>17866001
You are assuming something can't be eternal

>>17865990
Energy can be transformed, it is not immutable, it can also decay, therefore it cannot be the unmoved mover described by Aristotle.

>>17865994
Than why does modern science ascribe an age to the universe if it is eternal? Whether or not you believe the big bang is a creation out of nothing, this is besides the point. The universe is not eternal if it has an age. You have completely ignored my post.

>>17866008
>Energy can be transformed,
Irrelevant

>it can also decay
It is always conserved

>therefore it cannot be the unmoved mover described by Aristotle.

Aristotle is irrelevant to the discussion; the syllogism just shows how there was always a material reality

>>17865997
atheists think nothing is actually something
>>17865994
eternal inflation is not a proven theory, the fact is nobody knows what the universe was like "before" the big bang

>>17866004
What is the something you believe to be eternal?

>>17866009
The age of the universe is the furthest back we can go with the maths we have right now; no one is saying that before the big bang there was actually nothing, you know very little about this stuff

>>17866012
>atheists think nothing is actually something

Noone said this

>eternal inflation is not a proven theory, the fact is nobody knows what the universe was like "before" the big bang

Noone said anything about eternal inflation, you seem confused

>>17866010
>Irrelevant
See the point regarding the necessary cause and Aristotle.
>it is always conserved
If it is eternal and has been infinitely decaying we would reach your “heat death”.

>always a material reality
Completely ignoring that this material reality must be immutable to be the necessary cause.

>>17866004
If it is eternal, always was, is, and will be it also must be a logical limit to what we consider as infinite as well as the primary cause. If this primary cause caused everything else to be caused it must've also been unchanged, since a change to this cause would have to be caused by something else, so logically it wouldn't be a primary cause and it wouldn't be eternal.
But since we see the Universe change we conclude that it therefore isn't eternal.

>>17866013
The universe in its entirety

>>17866015
Again going back to the big bang, the original point made by OP was that the universe is eternal. You know very little about the point I’m addressing in the first place.

>>17866023
There was no primary cause; things always existed one way or the other

>>17866024
Is the universe made up of anything?

>>17865990
Only if you deny modern science which states that Universe is around 13.8 billion years old. I.e. not eternal and limited

>>17866027
And I'm saying that the big bang doesn't say the universe is not eternal; again you do not know what sciemce says about it.

>>17866030
Yes
>>17866031
That age is just the furthest back we can model what h

>>17866035
>That age is just the furthest back we can model what h
Happened; again you do not understand the big bang

>>Universe can not come from nothing because something can not come from nothing
Universe is nothing, because come from nothing to be nothing. God is eternal because He existed before and will exist after all.

>>17866018
The guy in my previous picture said this, yes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nCGywFr_00 Then what else are you proposing the no-boundry theory?

>>17866029
The burden of proof is on you now, so wehere is your argument

>>17866044
See:
>>17865990

>>17866040
God gives us value, and we give it to things, and that's how it goes.

>>17866021
Nta. My intuition however is that causing something else would be an action, making the thing doing the causing not immutable, so the idea of an uncaused cause is incoherent, and it's preferable to suppose that there are just mutable causes going back indefinitely.

>>17866021
>If it is eternal and has been infinitely decaying we would reach your “heat death”.
You don't understand the difference between energy and entropy

>Completely ignoring that this material reality must be immutable to be the necessary cause.

I already told you there is no such thing

>>17866047
... The post just says that things alswas existed, reiterating is not at argument

>>17866052
*the idea of an immutable uncaused cause is incoherent.
I guess there's nothing strictly incoherent to me about uncaused causes that pop into existence spontaneously. Also, don't theists usually believe in free will? If you believe in that as a fundamental metaphysical notion, then why doesn't that count as a spontaneously appearing sort of uncaused cause that is constantly messing with the universe?

>>17866052
It's incoherent if the uncaused cause is material, existing and being dependent on other material things, observing the uncaused cause to be transcendent fixes the problem since the secondary causes would be contingent

>>17865970
Why not? It's all belief

>>17866069
I don't see how it does. What provoked God to create the universe? Presumably the proper answer since God is immutable is that nothing provoked him. But then his intention for the universe to exist should be eternal and so the universe, mutable though it may be should have always existed as well. But then if the universe always existed, and we can perceive the universe but not God, then it seems simpler to leave God out and just have the universe.

>>17866061
>I guess there's nothing strictly incoherent to me about uncaused causes that pop into existence spontaneously.
do you think nothingness is chaos?
>why doesn't that count as a spontaneously appearing sort of uncaused cause that is constantly messing with the universe?
libertarian free will would but absolutely, I believe compatibilism is true

>>17866073
if you are abandoning logic then anything goes

>>17866089
logic is retardation
>then anything goes
based. it's just that theistic arguments doesn't appeal to my mood.

>>17865875 (OP)
The universe can't be eternal because infinite (past) time would imply infinite entropy (today). Which is contrary to all observations. Please use an LLM for these.

>>17866086
>do you think nothingness is chaos?
Existence is weird no matter how you look at it. I take the rule that things don't come from nothing to be a bit more of an empirical observation than an intuitively obvious fact.

>>17866093
>theistic arguments doesn't appeal to my mood
Nice grammar, also thanks for the concession! Discussion with an illogical person is fruitless.

>>17866033
The big bang admits the universe expanded from a dot, what actualized the potential of the universe to expand? Did the universe exist constantly and suddenly expand?
>>17866035
Is the universe made up of parts? >>17866052
Immutable would mean it does not change. The action affects something outside of it, so the change is not occurring within the being.
>>17866061
The uncaused cause does not pop into existence. It’s existence is necessary therefore it always is.

>>17866073
Do you believe in the laws of logic?

>>17866096
What we know could be a small part of a larger universe, so that you concluding it can't be eternal would be like someone watching a single raindrop fall, hit the ground and spread out, and concluding that this is an ultimate irreversible fate of the water, so in order for it to have gotten up in the air in the first place a transcendent deity must've put it there.

>>17866099
>more of an empirical observation
Aren't you supposed to be all about muh hecking science? If you even reject empirical observation then what the fuck is your epistemology?
>than an intuitively obvious fact
Things coming from nothing is an intuitive fact for you?

>>17866058
It's a syllogism that shows how things always existimg is logical

1. Change is a real feature of the world.
2. But change is the actualization of a potential.
3. So, the actualization of potential is a real feature of the world.
4. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it (the principle of causality).
5. So, any change is caused by something already actual.
6. The occurrence of any change C presupposes some thing or substance S which changes.
7. The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent actualization of S's potential for existence.
8. So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existence.
9. A's own existence at the moment it actualizes S itself presupposes either (a) the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence or (b) A's being purely actual.
10. If A's existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer.
11. But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitute a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.
12. So, either A itself is a purely actual actualizer or there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A.
13. So, the occurrence of C and thus the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.
14. So, there is a purely actual actualizer.
15. In order for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer, there would have to be some differentiating feature that one such actualizer has that the others lack.
16. But there could be such a differentiating feature only if a purely actual actualizer had some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.

17. So, there can be no such differentiating feature, and thus no way for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer.
18. So, there is only one purely actual actualizer.
19. In order for this purely actual actualizer to be capable of change, it would have to have potentials capable of actualization.
20. But being purely actual, it lacks any such potentials.
21. So, it is immutable or incapable of change.
22. If this purely actual actualizer existed in time, then it would be capable of change, which it is not.
23. So, this purely actual actualizer is eternal, existing outside of time.
24. If the purely actual actualizer were material, then it would be changeable and exist in time, which it does not.
25. So, the purely actual actualizer is immaterial.
26. If the purely actual actualizer were corporeal, then it would be material, which it is not.
27. So, the purely actual actualizer is incorporeal.
28. If the purely actual actualizer were imperfect in any way, it would have some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.
29. So, the purely actual actualizer is perfect.
30. For something to be less than fully good is for it to have a privation -that is, to fail to actualize some feature proper to it.
31. A purely actual actualizer, being purely actual, can have no such privation.
32. So, the purely actual actualizer is fully good.
33. To have power entails being able to actualize potentials.
34. Any potential that is actualized is either actualized by the purely actual actualizer or by a series of actualizers which terminates in the purely actual actualizer.
35. So, all power derives from the purely actual actualizer.
36. But to be that from which all power derives is to be omnipotent.

>>17866083
I think that assuming something that would provoke God would be unproductive since God is the limit of our, observed and material reality, and I don't think a clear answer will ever be observed...
Things only change if we revert back to what was revealed to us, where those who believe will say that we exist because God created us out of love and His own glory and thar out of same love God wants us to partake in creation and gravitate towards Him, the ultimate good. It's bot an argument for your post but it does show the moral reason why people would reject the notion that the universe always existed eithout reason.

>>17866109
At this point the scientists would disagree with energy being eternal. It also is not immutable, so it cannot be the necessary being.

>>17866102
>Immutable would mean it does not change. The action affects something outside of it, so the change is not occurring within the being.
Going from not causing something to causing something is a change in the state of the being doing the causing.

>>17866102
>The big bang admits the universe expanded from a dot, what actualized the potential of the universe to expand? Did the universe exist constantly and suddenly expand?

Possibly black hole boumce; even if the cause was uknown it doesn't mean the universe started existing from there

>Is the universe made up of parts?
Immutable would mean it does not change. The action affects something outside of it, so the change is not occurring within the being.

There is nothing in physics that says movement can't be eternal; also you keep bringing up greek philosophy which has no authority in the description of the natural world

>>17866116
Energy is always conserved; immutability is irrelevant; what aristotle thought is also irrelevant

>>17866117
No, it’s state of existence/being is not affected by causing anything else. It is immutable as it does not change, decay, get destroyed, etc…

>>17866106
To believe in an infinity of data that are contrary to all current observations takes so much faith that you might as well believe in God, brother.

>>17866125
I don't believe in God because of the Epicurean Paradox plus no evidence of a being like God. However I can see the universe. And assuming that the universe is bigger and more complicated than what I can currently see and understand is an inductively supported hypothesis. Our idea of the universe has been getting bigger and less human-centric throughout history, and our understanding of it has also been developing, and we're quite sure we haven't reached the end of it.

>>17866118
>Black hole bounce
Just not to misrepresent you, you believe the universe always existed, it was a dot that expanded by the black hole bounce (as an example it can expand by something else).
For the eternity of the universe, don’t many of your scientists theorize that this resulted from the bounce of another universe?
>the action affects something outside of it
Thank you, I agree with you, I was just answering the post I linked, I apologize for not linking it in the line below.
The only thing I was asking you was whether or not the universe was made up of parts.
>Greek philosophy
We were specifically talking about the necessary being with OP, it then reached this. Science has authority in the description of the natural world, but science itself is nothing without philosophy.

>>17866123
Defining it as something for which going from not causing something to causing something doesn't count as a change feels contradictory and desperate.

>>17866122
But if the energy decayed and has existed forever, it must have infinitely decayed in our universe by now, do you accept this?
>>17866134
The Epicurean paradox assumes we know all ends, what is good/bad from our end is not the same for one who can see all ends.

>>17866139
Explain how this being changed by causing something else.

>>17866140
Epicurean paradox does not assume we can know all ends. Look it up.
>>17866141
He goes from not causing something else to causing something else.

>>17866134
The universe might be as big and human-de-centered and complex as you wish. Our observations are still exactly incompatible with it being eternal.

Epicurean Paradox is an expression of wonder, not an argument.
There is plenty of evidence (like presence of the Spirit), you are just powerless to evaluate it with your current methods and you refuse to adapt traditional methods like mysticism. Inspect it closer and you'll see your demand for evidence are basically meaningless until you develop methods to test it.

>>17866145
>does not assume
It does when he talks about God and the prevention of evil. He assumed that we perceived as evil from his end is the same for a deity that knows all ends.
>not causing something else to causing something else
Did this being’s nature change or form or etc… change?

>>17866083
>What provoked God to create the universe?
It's the immaterial divine will which can be eternal like all his other attributes, no problem. However it does not necessitate that the universe is also eternal. If I will to go tomorrow to the dentist then I actually do it, am I at the dentist today? Of course not because you can order for things to happen that will actualize in the future.

>>17866148
>you refuse to adapt traditional methods like mysticism
I personally am probably very weird in that I believe in a lot of stuff that would normally be called supernatural, but I still don't believe in God. Buddhists do not conclude that there is a creator deity from deep meditative experience which is supposedly sometimes associated with supernatural powers. I've had lots of weird hallucinations and other strange things happen but I've had no experience of anything I would call God. And I was raised Christian, was taught Christianity in school, and studied/practiced it on my own to this day. But never any contact with anything I would recognize as God or like God.

>>17866160
>Buddhists do not conclude that there is a creator deity
That is a fair point but you have to remember that Buddha did not primarily offer a narrative or metaphysical model to his followers. He offered a set of psychotechnologies (the 4 noble truths and the 8-fold way) that set you on a course to transcend your current limitations. Some forms of Buddhism have deities, some do not, it's not their main concern. Just like to an animist the source of all being is not a concern and so he does not necessarily even investigate a monotheist God although he might produce a quantity of claims that are exactly consistent with it.

>But never any contact with anything I would recognize as God or like God.
Me neither, but I'm not even close to the level of the saints that did. It seems to be proportional to how far along the Way you are so it makes no sense for me to complain or draw conclusions just yet.

>>17866160
>I personally am probably very weird in that I believe in a lot of stuff that would normally be called supernatural, but I still don't believe in God.
You absolutely aren't. Godless commies in China for example still pray to their ancestors. Even in the west you have women believing in astrology and witchcraft without any deities involved. Atheism is just a belief that God(s) do not exist

>>17866153
So the eternal God eternally willed for the universe to come into existence X billion years ago. There's something intuitively off about this to me but which I'm not sure how to phrase, so I think I may have to concede the point until further notice.

>>17866137
>For the eternity of the universe, don’t many of your scientists theorize that this resulted from the bounce of another universe?

In the sense that the same stuff formed what existed befire yes

>We were specifically talking about the necessary being with OP, it then reached this. Science has authority in the description of the natural world, but science itself is nothing without philosophy.

Science doesn't need philosophy to function; that's what you guys tell yourselves

>>17866140
>But if the energy decayed and has existed forever, it must have infinitely decayed in our universe by now, do you accept this?

I assume you are talking about entropy; regarding the universe it's not knowm if will reach a maximum and then just stop, that's why big bang/big crunch is still considered a possibility

>>17866208
So in short, the “stuff” the universe is made up of are eternal?
>science doesn’t need philosophy to function
Any assumption or axiom in science cannot be verified by this science. So sciences cannot examine their own rules and axioms. So there must be a science above them all to judge them, philosophy does so through logic and metaphysics.
The way scientific experiments themselves are conducted is judged by philosophy, not science. For example, the scientific method is unfalsifiable so if it were up to empirical science itself to judge/examine it, it would be entirely rejected by the current axioms of empirical science (Anything that cannot be falsified is not scientific).
Furthermore, the scientific method itself cannot be proved by empirical science. Therefore it is judged by something outside of this science. Disclaimer, I am in no way claiming science is unimportant or useless or anything similar.
>>17866210
What are your thoughts on the “heat death”?

>>17866243
>So in short, the “stuff” the universe is made up of are eternal?

Not necessarely every single partivle but there is always a vessel for energuly to move to

>Any assumption or axiom in science cannot be verified by this science. So sciences cannot examine their own rules and axioms.

Science doesn't need to analyze axioms; philosophy has offered no actual answers either

>>17866140
(NTA)
>it must have infinitely decayed in our universe by now
See
>>17866106
I don't think the answer to the question hinges on whether there's a cyclic big bag/big crunch. There could be many universes coming into being according to some process and reconstituting themselves through some totally orthogonal process. Like raindrops falling, spreading out when they hit the ground, and slowly evaporating. The fact that we can't yet say exactly how it would work to me doesn't make "a creator deity did it" a suitable alternative anymore than it would've been however long ago when people didn't understand how thunder and lightning worked, so maybe some people imagined a god doing it.

>>17866243
>What are your thoughts on the “heat death

It's a possibility but it's still not knowm if the universe should be considered an open or closed system

>>17866254
>Like raindrops falling, spreading out when they hit the ground, and slowly evaporating

The problem with that is that that process needs energy to function

>>17866261
I remember coming across the claim that actually energy isn't fully conserved according to modern physics, so maybe energy isn't the basic quanitity it's commonly taken as, and there are still yet more basic quanities governing the universe at a deeper level. But I don't understand physics to that level, and I don't think modern physicists pretend to have a definitive theory of everything for the most part. I chose the raindrop imagery to give a sense of how many possibilities there could be to explain why the universe could continue far beyond the apparent starting point and endpoint that we can discern given that our current understanding as imperfect. For another analogy, maybe it's like someone inside a house seeing that they're surrounded by walls on all sides, noting that the walls look pretty sturdy and opaque, and concluding that therefore there's nothing on the other side of them

>>17866294
>actually energy isn't fully conserved according to modern physics, so maybe energy isn't the basic quanitity it's commonly taken as, and there are still yet more basic quanities governing the universe at a deeper level

Never heard of a violation of conservation of energy

>>17866297
I googled something for you although this isn't where I came across the claim so it may or may not mean it in the same sense.
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
But for what this author is discussing, he says that it's partially a matter of word-choice that physicists have different opinions about, and in his view it's more natural to say "Energy isn’t conserved; it changes because spacetime does."

>>17866252
>vessel
Are said vessels eternal? Just not to misrepresent your position.
>science does not need to analyze axioms
It can’t either way, it is built on axioms it cannot analyze. This shows that within science it wouldn’t even begin to function.
>philosophy has offered no actual answers either
Philosophy has offered the axioms. By no answers, do you mean that philosophy has offered no answers to the examination of axioms or to natural phenomena?
>science doesn’t need to analyze axioms
By analyze do you mean to examine?
It is late here, I might not answer before tomorrow morning, good night anon.
>>17866254
>see
At this point these are agnostic beliefs, we have reached a circle. Do you want me to try and falsify your analogy?
>>17866256
How do you believe it would change anything if it is external or internal? (Out of curiosity)
It is late here, I might not answer today, good night anon.

>>17866365
>At this point these are agnostic beliefs
Depends on what you mean by God. As said a while ago I fully reject the usual tri-omni God because of the Epicurean paradox, and now I've been arguing against the need for a transcendental, immutable uncaused cause-type God. I think immutability and causing things are at least intuitively contrary activities (though maybe not strictly logically opposed if God can eternally will for something to happen at a certain time) I think that ordinary mutable non-transcendemt causality could just keep going back indefinitely, so I've been defending the viability of that view.

>>17866365
>Are said vessels eternal? Just not to misrepresent your position.
Not necessarely

>How do you believe it would change anything if it is external or internal? (Out of curiosity)

If you mean open/closed system; it's something from thwrmodynamics; in closed systems entropy reaches a maximum and there is no more available energy to use

>>17865875 (OP)
The universe is intelligently designed with y mathematical precision. It has to have been created by an intelligent and conscious being. And the only logical conclusion is that this being must have always existed. There is no other explanation.

>>17865875 (OP)
All matter and systems decays entropically. The universe cannot be eternal.

>>17866419
All the intelligent beings we know of seem to have come from less intelligent beings down to basically unintelligent beings over long stretches of time by evolution. They themselves are, either in large part or in whole, complex mechanisms, manifestations of mathematical laws. Why should we expect the order of priority to suddenly be reversed with God?

>>17866430
>All matter and systems decays entropically

False

>>17866459
>banking on Proton-decay being proven false
Who’s anti-science now?

>>17866099
On second thought, it isn't even an empirical observation, since no one has observed a proper nothing to say what a nothing would do. Maybe with nothing to limit it, it would do everything.

>>17865884
So the believer would just use a bunch of flowery language to assert that god is eternal and the atheists is a chud for questioning just like OP said and you think its a flaw in the atheists logic to expect a clear concise answer instead of excessive technical jargon that completely skirts the issue and still just ends up with god coming from nothing?

>>17865887
>If the Universe changes, either internally or unitarily, then it cannot be eternal.
So if god has to become a man, it can't be god because god can't be a man because men change over time and can not be eternal?

>>17865887
>If the Universe changes, either internally or unitarily, then it cannot be eternal.
That makes no sense whatsoever, its like saying if water conforms to any container, its not actually the same water because it changed its shape.

>>17865888
>the contradiction of nothing existing.
No contradiction, nothing exists to such a degree that it can be directly empirically experienced, anyone can open their hands, hold it and see it with their own two feet, everyone can experience numbness and know exactly what its like to feel nothing at pretty much any point on their body.

Nothing is the background to everything else, the smallest possible amount of anything and everything, x= 0+x for all x.

>>17865997
>fields
The lowest level of field is an empty field which is just a bunch of 0d points of nothing spread over an infinite array of empty nothingness.

>>17866013
Since you yourself named nothing, are you implying nothing is eternal, therefore nothing must not only exist, it must exist everywhere forever?

>>17866018
>>atheists think nothing is actually something
Its actually mathematicians who not only think nothing is something, but have assigned a specific value, 0, to it and built the concept of the empty sets and by extension empty fields around it, atheists aren't the only ones who rely on math, plenty of theists have to accept the axiom of the additive identity in order to do their jobs and make a living.

Why do Christards NEED a scientific basis for their God?

God by necessitydoes not exist in physical reality, he is purely metaphysical. This means his existence can never be proven or disproven, and thus any concrete claims made regarding his existence can logically be disregarded.

The point of religion is that it's rooted in faith and faith alone. If there was scientific evidence for God, then he would no longer be a religious concept, he would just be a scientific fact. It makes no logical sense that Christians or any other theists would be throwing this much of a fit over real scientific observations about our universe. The Big Bang and Cosmic expansion, which are both things we can observe with our own eyes and infer with real world evidence. We can see cosmic expansion happening in real time and and the cosmic microwave background as the remnant heat of a time when the universe was hotter and more dense. We also know that the Earth must be 4 billion years old because of the ratios of radioactive isotopes in the soil from when they were first formed and have since decayed from Uranium to Lead, and elements change weight as they decay which helps us determine their decay rate and half-lives. But these scientific facts have NOTHING to say about whether or not God exists, so why even try and argue against them? There are many Christian cosmologists and chemists out there, the two fields do not have to be mutually exclusive

>>17866015
>no one is saying that before the big bang there was actually nothing
I am. Also every point in space is nothing and every boundary is necessarily defined by nothing since things can't come into direct contact unless nothing is between them.

>>17866403
Are some particles eternal particles?
>>17866394
But the epicurean paradox is not a reason to reject the existence of God, besides I showed you why it is fallacious.
>immutability
It means his form and essence does not change, has nothing to do with his actions. Causing or not causing something does not change its form or essence.

>>17867624
>no contradiction
A cannot be non-A.
Being cannot be non-being.
Being is existence.
Existence cannot be non-existence (nothing).
Nothing cannot exist.
When you “feel nothing”, you are not feeling anything to begin with.
>smallest possible amount
Do you agree existence is what distinguishes something from nothing?

>>17867632
>besides I showed you why it is fallacious.
NTA and I'm not going to shift through this schizoid flamewar but the Epicurean paradox exists because Christians assume that their God must be a necesary good, which many other religions don't. The point is to point out how fallacious the idea of a necesarry-good God is in the face of his actions and evidence. If we assume God is not wholly-good or is idiosyncratic in his actions (like what most polytheists, Jews, and Gnostics already believe) then there is no paradox. It's mostly just a thing directed to Christians and I guess Muslims

>>17867634
>Existence cannot be non-existence (nothing).
Nothing isn't nonexistence, just like 0 isn't a nonvalue, nothing is is the smallest possible amount of existence just like 0 is the smallest possible absolute value.

>Nothing cannot exist.
Nothing must exist, if there there was no nothing separating you from yourself, you would explode from the infinite multitude of things in between you an yourself.

>When you “feel nothing”, you are not feeling anything to begin with.
Yes 0 = -0, nothing can be approach from both of those directions.

>Do you agree existence is what distinguishes something from nothing?
Nope, nothing is what allows for something to come to exist in a place and a time, if the space at that time was already completely full of other things, there would be no space to even place the first thing to begin with, you can only place something in a space filled by nothing or by bumping up against adjacent things that are separated from each other by nothing.

>>17867630
>God by necessity does not exist in physical reality, he is purely metaphysical
They do generally believe that God exists in physical reality though, as the resurrected Jesus, in heaven, which I guess also has to be physical to accommodate a physical Jesus.

>>17867636
But Epicurus assumed he knows all ends, what he sees as good form his end is not necessarily good for someone who can the entire picture.
>>17867645
>nothing isn’t nonexistence
> not anything; no single thing.

>separating you from yourself
By and myself are you referring to my body and soul?

>nothing can be approach from both of these directions
What is your point here? That 0 and -0 are nothing?
>space at the time was full of other things
The omnipotent deity can at once create a space filled with what he desires.

>>17867762
>no single thing.
Correct, zero things, the smallest amount of a thing you can have, rather than a single thing.

>By and myself are you referring to my body and soul?
No.

>What is your point here? That 0 and -0 are nothing?
No, the point is that zero can be treated as a positive or a negative since it is its own opposite number.

>The omnipotent deity can at once create a space filled with what he desires.
Yes that is epicuru's point, if reality is the product of an omnipotent deity and it contains any evil then the deity is some degree of evil since the reality is entirely filled with only what it desires and it clearly desires evil instead of good to fill space.

>>17867778
>nothing
But less than a single thing counts as anything, nothing is not anything.
>No.
What are you referring to?
>it is its own positive number
What is your point from it?
>epicuru
He still is assuming that his perception of evil from a limited end is the correct one. Someone who can see it from all ends will not necessarily see it as evil.

>>17867762
>But Epicurus assumed he knows all ends, what he sees as good form his end is not necessarily good for someone who can the entire picture.
That's the beauty of it
He doesn't.
It's simple logic anon
Evil Exists
If God cannot prevent Evil then he is not all powerful
If God does not know about evil then he is not all-knowing
If God does not want to prevent evil then he is not wholly-good
If Evil exists to test us, then God is not all knowing, as an all knowing God would have the test results before even testing us
If God cannot create a universe with free will and not evil, then he is not all powerful

If your argument is that God does not abide by simple cause-and-effect logic, then his actions for good and evil are thus unknowable and can be disregarded. It's a paradox because you insist on characterizing God as a wholly-good agent. It's not possible to characterize an agent that cannot abide by logic. The only valid answer to the epicurean paradox is that God is not wholly-good

>>17867788
>But less than a single thing counts as anything, nothing is not anything.
Nothing is the thing that remains when you take away any and every other single thing.

>What are you referring to?
You, the whole thing, not just some part, real or imagined.

>What is your point from it?
That you were just describing two different perspectives of nothing since it can be approached as both a positive thing and a negative thing.

>He still is assuming that his perception of evil from a limited end is the correct one.
No or he would have defined evil himself or given some examples, he left it to be any evil as perceived by anyone since a perfectly benevolent omnipotent creator should be able to avoid it from every perspective and every possible perception.

>>17866013
>>17866023
Literally nobody believes that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything anymore. Under eternal inflation and adjacent theories, and most of string theory, the universe is infinite in both directions of time. Theists literally fall into the loop of the same 3 lines every fucking time, it's crazy. How about you go and actually be a cool Christian and accept that it's entirely rooted in faith, and that true belief in God only is through faith. Then stop shitting up /his/ with your low IQ contortions of words you don't understand

>>17867845
Christians still can't decide on whether or not the Big Bang is proof of their God as a singularity event or if it's a tool used by scientism to discredit their retarded Sky-Jew-Kaiju 6 day creation event. (In reality it's neither, but that's besides the point)

>>17867799
>Evil exists
Depends what you mean by evil, are you referring to evil people existing? >>17867808
>nothing is the thing remains
>every other single thing
Is nothing half a thing for example?
>you
Me and myself, what is myself in this case?
>+ve thing or -ve thing
It would not matter as there is still isn’t a thing.
>evil
What do you mean by evil in this case, evil people?
>>17867845
What was before the big bang? We can keep going through this, if you bothered reading, OP believes the universe is eternal.
>only belief
See this >>17866110

>>17867874
>Depends what you mean by evil,
I mean evil as defined by the Sky-Jew-Kaiju specifically, since that's the God that's relevant here. And evil is defined by the Bible as essentially anything in opposition to Gods will, in violation of the 10 Commandments etc

God himself is admitted to creating Evil in the Bible itself. One of the tactics I notice Christards on the internet do when they want to play-pretend theologician is to convert to Deism temporarily whenever they're losing an argumnt

>>17867874
>Is nothing half a thing for example?
Sure, nothing is half of nothing, 0=0*1/2, but you can't really take away nothing, it is the additive identity the way it is defined is that which remains and doesn't change other values, you can only add something else to nothing.

>Me and myself, what is myself in this case?
That is for you to figure out, but its laughable that you think you have all the answers to reality, but you don't even know if you are yourself or not.

>It would not matter as there is still isn’t a thing.
There is the most base thing and it is always there, even when other things are there if you list them all out, nothing else will be the last in the list because it is the first thing in any list which is why the empty set is the underlying set of all sets.

>What do you mean by evil in this case, evil people?
Any evil, evil people for sure, but evil things, evil events, evil byproducts, evil results, any perceivable evil by anyone.

>>17867884
>opposition to God’s will
Since God is omniscient and all-good, he knows what is good, thus he sets his commandments. Being all good he gives you the choice to rebel or obey. Being all-good and not giving you the freedom to obey or rebel is logically contradictory. Omnipotence does not entail the ability to realize logical contradictions.
>Isaiah 45:7
The “create evil” is better translated as “bring calamity”, which you would expect from a just God. If he wanted to punish someone evil he would counter it by bringing calamity upon him.

>Deism
When did I try to convert you to deism you schizo?
>>17867885
>taking/adding nothing
By taking nothing you not be taking anything in the first place, but to be fair I would like to know what your definition of non-being or non-existence is because this conversation has derailed into an argument over the definition of nothing.
>you think you have all the answers to reality
Not at all, this is a false accusation. It is well known by anyone interest in these subjects that we know nothing at worst and very little at best. I’m not asking you what I am, but where do you draw the line between me and myself? I am obviously aware that I am myself, but J want to know where you are making this distinction between me and myself.
>there is the most base thing
I will continue on this point when I understand what you would call non-existence because this point is based on our argument over the definition of nothing.
>evil
Anything evil that is the result of humans is a result of the free-will given to them.
In the case of evil events, like natural disasters, you are assuming that you could see all ends, God has a plan for those affected by it, whether it is for their reward if they were good or their calamity if they were evil.

>>17867930
>Being all good he gives you the choice to rebel or obey.
If he creates things that are not good or can choose to be not good, then he is not all good, by definition.

>Being all-good and not giving you the freedom to obey or rebel is logically contradictory.
No being all good and producing bad/evil things is a contradiction. By your logic, your freedom should include godlike powers and if every individual doesn't have the freedom to completely undue creation, then god is not all-good because he doesn't allow for all-evil.

>what your definition of non-being or non-existence is
Purely imaginary things or being don't really exist and have 0 real existence.

>where do you draw the line between me and myself?
My claim was that nothing separates you from yourself and the only way you can be yourself is if nothing actually physically exists.

>In the case of evil events, like natural disasters, you are assuming that you could see all ends
No I am assuming that from some perspective someone will experience natural calamity as a type of evil.

>>17867632
>Are some particles eternal particles
Probably some; I don't know really and it's not that important

>>17867874
>What was before the big bang?
Basically all cosmologists do not believe there was nothing before it; it's not currently confirmed what though

>>17867982
They generally believe there was nothing in this universe in space or time and whatever there was is outside of the scope of the current spacetime universe since it started at t(0) with the big bang's initial conditions.

To believe or not to believe hmmmm.

Who has believed and who has not? All the greatest men in history were god fearing men even reknown scientists like Tesla, von Braun and Einstein. All of histories greatest leaders, conquerers, philosophers etc all believed in a god of some kind. Even the world’s most powerful people today follow a spiritual system of some kind. Like that saying by J.P. Morgan. Millionaires don’t use astrology but billionaires do. Not making an argument for the validity of astrology but pointing out the tendency of powerful men to follow metaphysical systems.

Meanwhile atheists greatest examples are just fedora grifters and literal who writers.

With such an egregious discrepancy in quality the choice is clear. There seems to be a force that prevents an atheist from ever becoming g truly great. And all atheist from time immemorial have been relegated to nothing but a mere voice in the corner. Never to achieve any greatness of their own, they only exist to act as a counter weight to test the faith and knowledge and resolve of great men.

>>17867951
>than he is not all good
If he gives you the option to be bad but under the condition that he will bring you to justice ad mortem than he is not good?
>all-evil
God allows you to be all-evil if you like to. What do you mean by godlike powers?
>0 real existence
Do you accept that “0 real existence exists” is a contradiction?
>you be yourself
How can I be something other than myself?
>will experience natural calamity
If he was an evil person he will be brought to just and face eternal punishment, if not he will face eternal reward. But unless you believe in these concepts the entire debate is pointless.
>>17867979
Can these particles exist without space?
>>17867982
That’s fine the reason I was talking about our universe specifically is because OP mentioned it. If you care we can continue.

Someone needs to brush up on their Biblical cosmology

>>17865875 (OP)
Why do you think scientists hated the big bang and tried their best to construct eternal models lol. It's just cope to believe in an eternal universe at this point, merely a leap of faith

>>17867930
>Since God is omniscient and all-good, he knows what is good, thus he sets his commandments. Being all good he gives you the choice to rebel or obey. Being all-good and not giving you the freedom to obey or rebel is logically contradictory. Omnipotence does not entail the ability to realize logical contradictions.
Cool
You thus far have not actually debunked the Epicurean Paradox. You just really want to be right so your arguments become more and more obtuse even when presented with actual Biblical evidence. I can't stand disingenuous retards like you. At least Jews and Gnostics are honest about their God.

>>17866134
>I don't believe in God because of the Epicurean Paradox
only works with classic theism, Abrahamic religions that did not copy paste pagan Greek though are immune

>>17869418
You got it backwards, the Epicurean Paradox ONLY works with religions that assert their God is wholly-good like Christianity and Islam. Other religions are immuned to it because they don't put up the same pretence and treat their God as either idiosyncratic in his actions and inherently unknowable in his motivations or as simply not wholly-good

>>17869423
Omnibenevolence require someone to be all loving, the God represented in the Bible and Quran does not meet the requirement. What you're arguing against is different creeds that are not necessarily scriptural

>>17869441
>the God represented in the Bible and Quran does not meet the requirement.
I'm personally not as familiar with the Quran, but I know that God as depicted in the New Testament is made out to mostly be Omnibenevolent as opposed to the Old Testament, which is why I signalled out Christians and Muslims specifically. God according to Jews seems way more personal by comparison, and Christians have a tendency to only selectively follow the Old Testament despite it being canon to their faith

>>17869449
In the Quran God also expresses the same type of idea, William Lane Craig uses this (pic rel) to attack them but he's just being inconsistent as you pointed out with the tendency of other Christians. See the thing is Christianity is just neoplatonic thought which is why they are vulnerable to the paradox.

>>17865875 (OP)
>realize Genesis speaks of ex materia creation >kalam argument btfo

>>17865884
>>17865887
Ill defined word salads

>>17869441
The problem with removing omnibenevolence as a characteristic of God is that it makes him a more complicated, less philosophically elegant character (which makes him more difficult to argue for and less appealing philosophically), and it also removes the main emotional reason to believe in him. Why would you imagine a personality with seemingly arbitrary, alien values as the eternal foundation of all existence if you don't have to? I guess you could demote him even further so that he's like a demiurge, himself far removed from the true source. But then I'd say you're not really talking about God (TM), just an invisible tyranical space alien or a simulation manager.

>>17869621
>more complicated, less philosophically elegant character
What necessitates that God be simple? If you believe in the Abrahamic God then you know that your ideas about him can never compare with revelation and that he is not able to be fully grasped. In fact it's quite a big problem to invent things about him just because you like it that way for whatever arbitrary reason.
>Why would you imagine a personality with seemingly arbitrary, alien values as the eternal foundation of all existence if you don't have to?
Why would you imagine a deity at all? If a person believes in God he must do it because he is convinced by that reality and not because it makes him feel nice. Also omnibenevolence implies a bunch of arbitrary values too. Usually it's just whatever the person talking about it wants to be the case. It's like saying because you like vanilla ice cream then it just must be a good thing that God also must like

>>17869648
>What necessitates that God be simple
Nothing necessitates it, but if you're arguing for God as a theory of everything, an explanation for the universe, then less convoluted theories are preferred. It's easier to argue for a very simple God with only a few defining traits that we can discern or intuit for ourselves than for an idiosyncratic God with many traits that are difficult to discern or intuit for ourselves.
>If a person believes in God he must do it because he is convinced by that reality and not because it makes him feel nice.
Motivated reasoning is a thing. And I'm not sure how well this holds up, but if the study where they found that disabling part of the brain that deals with threats lowers belief in God is right, then a significant portion of belief in God is probably down to motivated reasoning. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/news/brain-magnets-decrease-faith-in-god-religion-immigrants-a6695291.html
>Also omnibenevolence implies a bunch of arbitrary values too
It implies that God values what's good. I believe the idea is that we would agree with him if we had God's level of understanding, and it's simpler because it means that God and humanity don't value different things, and one true value system is simpler than supposing that while we value what's good, God values what's flarp (which may have little or no overlap with what we value, so maybe God would send someone off to eternal hell despite them being perfectly good by our standards, but not by the flarp standard).
>It's like saying because you like vanilla ice cream then it just must be a good thing that God also must like
I think it's more like saying that God wants you (and everyone) to live lives (here and in the afterlife) that you would, in the final analysis, agree are maximally worthwhile. Maybe that includes ice cream for people who enjoy ice cream unless there's some reason why ice cream isn't actually as good as it seems given perfect understanding.

>>17865884
Reality is transcendent

>>17869721 (cont.)
>I believe the idea is that we would agree with him if we had God's level of understanding
Well, at least with the more religious notion of God there's a caveat here that our free will is supposed to allow us to choose contrary to what's good, so in some sense we can have different values from God, but at the same time there's the idea that we should be able to intuitively recognize what God considers to be good (if we're being honest with ourselves) so that we have the opportunity to choose whether to side with it or against it. Or something like that.

>>17869721
>It's easier to argue for a very simple God with only a few defining traits
A God that is not omnibenevolent is simpler, it's literally one less property he must have. And you don't need to argue for every single thing but just enough where you can reasonably expect divine revelation from this being and then everything else you can take from there. Also I haven't read your link but it seems they are misinterpreting things. If you disable parts of the brain dealing with fear then that just means you no longer concern yourself with what happens to you in general. It shouldn't impact what one thinks is just a fact of reality, as in it doesn't become less real but more like less of a concern maybe?
>it means that God and humanity don't value different things
Well if that's the case then what is good according to humanity? To me it seems you're saying whatever is popular in current year represents that. God would have to be beyond our arbitrary whims and desires if he were a standard, which he is according to Abrahamic tradition. I expect that most people like ice cream and if we just assumed that our standards are the same then it must become God's morals too. But this just seems unsatisfactory and even harder to justify. God's objective morals come from the fact that he created everything and knows everything. That would make him a much better judge of what is maximally worthwhile I would think

>>17869764
>so in some sense we can have different values from God, but at the same time there's the idea that we should be able to intuitively recognize what God considers to be good
I mean that makes sense, but I still think that even if we have different values they will still be just subject to God's even under that scenario. Like for example a person might feel it's good for him to steal but he will be punished for it because God says it is not permissible. As for intuition there's the nous (again inspired by the pagan Greeks) and the fitrah which I suppose is not too alien to what you're describing

>>17869775
>A God that is not omnibenevolent is simpler, it's literally one less property he must have
God needs some kind of value system to motivate him to do things like create the universe, and all value systems add complexity. Omnibenevolence is a good candidate value system for the reason already stated (though it fails due to the Epicurean paradox). A God with no value system would be inert and not really a God or even a being. That's atheism territory.
>It shouldn't impact what one thinks is just a fact of reality
It would if your thinking of it as a fact of reality was emotionally motivated, if it were something you were always trying to convince yourself of in the background of your mind because the alternative was uncomfortable.
>To me it seems you're saying whatever is popular in current year represents that.
No, I'm saying that if we were omniscient, we would agree with God about what's Good (morally). It depends on the idea of moral objectivism, that there are facts about what's good and we can recognize those facts for ourselves. (I don't strictly believe in this, but I'm trying to articulate a view which I think is common among theists). And if the only evidence for God's morality come from some books claiming that he revealed it directly to a few people over a thousand years ago, well, most sensible people have good reason to doubt that claim. So a philosophical theist would like to believe that there are more direct ways of discerning God's will for ourselves.