Thread 17902993

>>17902993 (OP)
But this is true though.

>>17902993 (OP)
I think it is in the very name
Creature - created
God - Uncreated

>>17902997
G-uncreated
Go-ncreated

>>17902993 (OP)
>making arguments to debunk my jew worshipping cult is le bad and it is le reddit
>>17902997
>arguing semantics
This is the reason why no honest and intelligent person ever takes seriously Christkikery and apologetics, while the greatest minds love Pagan and Eastern philosophy.
You know you're dishonest with your arguments btw because you're defending a dishonest god

>>17903031
why is it so hard for atheists to comprehend the concept of infinity?

>>17902993 (OP)
Your conception of god is not god but rather a mere abstract object in your head who have created for the purpose of your control over it. Simples categories made and maker break down when considering the ultimate.

>>17902993 (OP)
>I'm too afraid to confront the argument so here's a basedjak
Thanks shitskin. You make this board a better place.

Not OP but here's the best overall argument against Atheism: If you are trying to argue for the existence of the old-testament version of god you are probably going to lose every time as there is 0 evidence outside the bible. However, pretty much all Atheists/Agnostics base their understanding on the old-testament version of god. There are 1000s of variations of God that belong to various religions, traditions, and philosophical systems. In an introductory philosophy class you are often provided a description of God that is like follows: God is omnipotent, all-knowing, benevolent. But I doubt 99.9% of people who are theists really believe in such God, so this description is obsolete. It is effectively a strawman used by Atheists to take down the concept of God. For example, "If God is all-powerful, can he create a stone so powerful that he cannot lift it?" that is a common argument used, and these discussions are not helpful/interesting or really that relevant to religion imo. God is really just a way of 1) visualizing the world through some meaningful way, and 2) a system for providing objective morality. That's just my definition, though most definitions of God provide at least one of those criteria and sometimes more. Keep in mind there are 100s of philosophers who have put forth some definition of God: Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Spinoza, Kant, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, many Hindu philosophers, etc. I think looking at the world through a purely materialistic, scientific, and rational mode is self-destructive and leads to nihilism (I am a physics student btw..). Religion and philosophy are human-inventions used to help redefine reality through a human lens, and this is not always bad thing. (Part 1/2)

A while ago Jediism and Pastafarianism rose in popularity when nu-Atheism was rising in popularity. I honestly believe if you make your own religion (even if it was made to mock existing religions), and then over the course of 1000s of years you develop scripture, mythology, philosophy, music, architecture, government, and ultimately a church with a large outreach, no matter how ridiculous your religion is you still have something valuable. This applies to Christianity. Even if it was all made up, every single word, I don't have an issue with cultural Christianity and no one should. Atheists exclusively mock the fundamentalist, creationist, and otherwise corrupt side of organized religion. What are some arguments against Christians who go to church weekly yet still overwhelmingly believe in science (this makes up the majority of the religion) and believe in a more nuanced version of God then the one you constantly attack? The majority of people in the US are neither Christian nor Atheists. The majority are cultural Christians/Catholics who sometimes participate in religious activities, or people who broadly believe in some type of God but don't follow any religion. Imagine you are at a dinner table with friends and someone brings up the word love in some type of romantic context. You reply love isn't real in the context of romance, its just a chemical reaction in the brain that motivates you to breed. You would technically be 100% correct, at least scientifically. But this would be an absurd thing to say. You would probably lose your friends. Now imagine a similar conversation where someone brings up the word "God". It would be equally absurd to object and say something like "There is no God, because that would be scientifically impossible". 'God' is basically a human invention, but so is morality, law, and government. I would rather live in a world where these things are assumed to exist. (Part 2/2)

>>17903095
>(Part 1/2)
You're not as insightful or intelligent as you think you are
What you're really trying to say is that religion itself makes claims that are actually testable in the real world, and so are very easy to debunk, whereas the idea of God himself is purely metaphysical, and thus any claims made both for and against him are equally as valid, so all Christians should just convert to Deism

There, summarized your wall of text before part 2

Also, I don't like the word Atheist. It think it would be more conscientious to call yourself a spinozist, pantheist, deist. Or call yourself a theist and designate that you are not Christian. Or just say you are irreligious. Or say you are culturally christian. Atheist is a lame and defeatist term.

>>17903103
Nobody cares what you think or that you're too spineless to call a spade a spade.

>>17903105
>Nobody cares what you think
You cared enough to reply to my post. I care what you think ;)

>>17902993 (OP)
>>17902997
Things can't come from nothing so god had a creator

>>17903128
>something with no mass needs to follow the conservation of mass

>>17903156
Things with no mass trade their mass for energy and vice-versa.

>>17903167
can you measure gods energy?

>>17902993 (OP)
Christians and Basedentists literary follow the same logic with the prime mover, just replace God with the Big Bang.

>>17903169
technically the net energy of the universe is 0, because all the positive energy and mass in the universe is balanced by gravitational potential energy, keeping everything balanced.

Christians still can't answer a simple question.

>>17903173
You're missing the point of OP. OP is calling out a double standard with regards to how theists treat their God vs how Atheists treat the creation of the universe itself. Theists don't think "The Universe always existed in some way" is a valid answer but think "God always existed in some way" is.

>>17903173
Physicists don't generally treat the big bang as the start of the universe. It's just about as far back as we can push agreed-upon physics before it breaks and more speculative models take over. Some of those speculative models include processes that lead to things like a multiverse and an infinite past.

The idea of an uncreated creator isn’t difficult to understand or to accept. Atheists don’t like it because they can’t argue against it.
Atheists not having a response to something doesn’t make that phenomena true or false.
But atheism as it is understood today is the product of revolutionary and critical impulse which all civilizations express and produced a number of people who have an emotional and psychological and spiritual need to express, the atheist of our time, among others, fills this role, they literally are not capable of accepting a good argument in favor of Christianity or even an argument which is incontrovertible such as the uncreated creator.
No one knows and there’s no way to test it nor has philosophizing given us a satisfying level of speculation. Yet the atheists will not accept this as an unknowable. They will strike it with derision and mockery what they can not penetrate with reason.
The purpose being they can only attack, they can only criticize, they can’t actually accept anything.
It’s sort of like how in other areas the revolutionary critics can’t just accept people are racist, un-democratic, illiberal, sexist, and so on. They must attack. They have a need to express this anti civilizational rhetoric.

Engaging with these types is unproductive. It is about as productive plucking the dying leaves from a tree in the autumn. It’s a natural process and no matter how many leaves you pluck the process will continue and repeat itself the following year completely independent of you.

So too with atheists and liberals these late stage critics. Civilizations necessarily produce them, just as necessarily as we produce art and science and economy.
Ignore them.

>>17903196
>The idea of an uncreated creator isn’t difficult to understand or to accept.
You're right
So we agree that the universe always existed and didn't need a creator
I don't really understand why it's so difficult for you to come to terms with your own double-standards without resorting to loaded language and wordsalad. You must've come from the Jordon Peterson school of philosophy, and you're not as intelligent or profound as you think you are.

>>17902995
>>17902993 (OP)
>>17903128
>>17903031
Have you heard of a necessary cause? Assuming you are atheist you believe that energy is eternal and uncreated. So you can’t accuse us of dishonesty.

>>17903202
>something exists necessarily
>therefore magical man in the sky made universe!

>>17903202
>So you can’t accuse us of dishonesty.
Nobody is accusing anyone of dishonesty, you're hilariously missing the point

>>17903198
If the universe were eternal it still would not be the necessary cause. The universe itself cannot exist without space, energy and matter. But at the same time matter and energy cannot exist without space and space itself is undefined without matter and energy. So first, the universe is composite and cannot be necessary. Second, the universe’s compositors are dependent on each other, so none of them is necessary. So an eternal universe if it were true would not answer anything.

>>17903202
>Assuming you are atheist you believe that energy is eternal
I don't see why an atheist should be obligated to believe this specifically. Atheists in the distant past wouldn't have even had the idea of energy. And not all cosmologists agree that energy is best understood as conserved. It's just a quantity in a mathematical model of the universe which is subject to revision over time.

>>17903209
One of the posters I replied to did. At least read the context of what I’m saying.
>>17903205
This was not even my point in the reply.

>>17902993 (OP)
>I PORTRAYED YOU AS A BASEDJACK THAT MEANS I WIN!!!!

>>17903128
God is a logical neccesary being given creatures are contingent.

1.
Creatures can't come from nothing.
God isn't a creature.
Therefore, God can come from nothing.

2.
Beings which and who are contingent (humans, rocks, water, planets, an statue or the universe itself) need an efficient cause to be put out causes.
All creatures are contingent, this is, there was a moment in which they didn't exist.
That which doesn't exists but could exist given an external efficient cause, can not create themselves.
Therefore, a neccesary being which/who put contingent beings out of causes does exists eternally.

>>17903215
They are not obligated, but many atheists I talked to did.

>>17903202
> Have you heard of a necessary cause?
That's just special pleading. Everything must have a cause... except magical first cause which just doesn't.

>>17903222
It does have a cause. It just is an internal cause not an external one.

>>17903218
Any coherent argument without special pleading?

You can just do special pleading to universe itself (it just can come from nothing, duh) and avoid magical God alltogether.

>>17903198
The universe isn’t a creator. The elements composing the universe aren’t necessarily magical. I don’t look at matter and think “this made itself”.
The uncreated creator comes from a need for a will to creation.

Rest of your post is you (unironically?) embodying the very thing I was critiquing a kind of spiritual termite.

>>17903224
Any example of internal cause except God? I find it dodgy to just invent magical causes just for him.

>>17903224
>It does have a cause. It just is an internal cause not an external one.
What evidence do you have of this?

>>17903212
>>17903226
If nothing created God, then nothing needed to create the universe

If you struggle understanding why the uncreated creator is a bad argument regarding the necessity of religion, then you might need to go to a doctor to get your brain examined. I honestly don't know what else to say

>>17903226
There is no need for a will to creation. Universe is all there is, so logically it can't come from anything but itself or nothing. There is no way God is a logical option.

>>17903097
>What are some arguments against Christians who go to church weekly yet still overwhelmingly believe in science (this makes up the majority of the religion) and believe in a more nuanced version of God then the one you constantly attack?
They really don't get constantly attacked except for maybe some internet weirdos

>>17903225
Einstein and other pantheists who attributed to the universe the same characteristics than to God did think that but their arguments were proven wrong a century ago.

The Jesuit Priest Georges Lemaître refuted the idea of eternity of the universe by discovering the Big Bang, which proved that the universe in itself is a contingent entity subject to generation and corruption.

The universe as a material and physical entity is subject to the same categories than other creatures such as humans, a piece of wood or fire.

>>17903229
>>17903230
>>17903232
To avoid writing a wall of text, “nothing exists” is contradictory. So being is necessary, something must always exist. This necessary being is alone because if another being existed its own existence would not be necessary. Which is why the necessary being is one. You also believe in a necessary being, the difference is that you do not believe it is God. We say its cause is necessary because there is no other way it can be. If it were caused by something else it would no longer be necessary.
>>17903232
>if nothing created God
If you seriously believe any theist/deist believes this than you seriously need to inform yourself. If you actually read my reply and concluded that I believed nothing created God than you seriously need to return to elementary school to learn basic comprehension.

Atheist is a word Abrahamic NPCs invented to cope with the reality that you can believe in the concept of a soul with or without god. People who believe in god do not believe in critical thinking. They don't believe in anything on a historically verifiable basis; the "Abrahamic ancestry" is a fabricated myth invented in 13th century BC by a tribal cult who practiced blood magic and worshipped a demonic deity called yaweh. They took over all the other tribes with their cult as the official "religion" to "unite" them and proceeded to lose their dogshit kingdom countless times thereafter, for being weak and savage and underdeveloped compared to the rest of the world until the collapse of Mesopotamian civilization. They spread/evolved their cult of yaweh into various sects which took on lives and evolutions of their own, becoming Judaism (first 6 books of the Hebrew bible) the basis for christianity and later islam. This is based on historical facts, verifiable archeological data, something which no bible ever provides + in addition to not providing the foundations for philosophical principles of logic. We know logic comes from polytheistic Greece, and the philosophers who invented things of that polytheistic civilization like 'skepticism'. Everything good in the world was collected by cult lore scavengers and crafted into various forms of mythological narratives, alternative timelines of history, all sharing the Abrahamic-ancestry myth in common. Every "holy book" teaches people to interpret myth as "historical fact", engaging with rhetoric and archaic grammar to assert a narrative but never with the foundations of principles of logic or with verifiable evidence.
>hurr but atheist dumb for rejecting god
When you believe in critical thinking you have no room left for a belief in god described in the bible. It seems easier to terminate your critical-thinking faculties and just have "faith" (vibes) but that's quite literally retarded.

>>17903240
I would describe Einstein as being closer to a Deist than a Pantheist
>The Jesuit Priest Georges Lemaître refuted the idea of eternity of the universe by discovering the Big Bang
You might have brain damage, so let me try and be as clear as possible, because this point always seems to be repeated and ignored

No
Serious
Cosmologist
Thinks
The Big Bang
Was
A Singularity
It's the earliest expansion event we can reliably measure. That's it. Anything prior to the recombination epoch is speculative.

>>17903240
I don’t believe in the big bang but it does not teach that the universe had a beginning. It just is a rapid expansion that occured.

>>17903243
How do I break this down for someone with an IQ of 75?

Let's see
If A = 'Nothing', B = 'God' and C = 'The Universe
Then A = B = C

Thus

A = C

Do you understand why this is a poor argument yet? Or are you just going to retort with more wordsalad?

>>17903243
> something must always exist
And that something is the universe, everything that exists. Case closed.

>>17903243
>“nothing exists” is contradictory
This is a contradictory linguistic statement, but I don't see why this is necessarily true when it concerns the physical. You also can't just assume that a necessary being is God without a proper reason.

How does necessary cause fags cope with that?

>>17903258
A lot of religions believe in Eternal Return theory. Abrahamic ones don't because they're all apocalyptic death cults

>>17903247
>I would describe Einstein as being closer to a Deist than a Pantheist
Einstein did defend the eternity of the universe, that alone fact makes him a pantheist since these are the trait of God. A pantheism very in tone with your typical Enlightment Pantheist Spinozist which defended the universe as an eternal closed system without a beginning and an end.

>You might have brain damage, so let me try and be as clear as possible, because this point always seems to be repeated and ignored
>No
>Serious
>Cosmologist
>Thinks
>The Big Bang
>Was
>A Singularity
>It's the earliest expansion event we can reliably measure. That's it. Anything prior to the recombination epoch is speculative.
That's a lie.
Several models such as Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker model do use singularity. The singularity theorems of Hawking and Penrose (1965–1970) demonstrate that, under reasonable physical conditions, the gravitational collapse or expansion of the universe implies the existence of a singularity in the past.

You fall under categorical fallacies when you have been proven wrong.

>>17903252
>How do I break this down for someone with an IQ of 75?
>Let's see
>If A = 'Nothing', B = 'God' and C = 'The Universe
>Then A = B = C
>Thus
>A = C
>Do you understand why this is a poor argument yet? Or are you just going to retort with more wordsalad?

You are the one with an IQ below 10.

It is more likely.
A = God
B = The Universe

For Christian theologists before the Universe, God is eternall. And the eternity of God implies that there was nothing before he ever was. The Nothing in itself is categorically impossible since it existence implies some degree of Being, and the nothing is the non being.

There is God and the Universe that comes and is always coming from God.

>>17903252
>How do I break this down for someone with an IQ of 75?
>Let's see
>If A = 'Nothing', B = 'God' and C = 'The Universe
>Then A = B = C
>Thus
>A = C
>Do you understand why this is a poor argument yet? Or are you just going to retort with more wordsalad?

You are the one with an IQ below 10.

It is more likely.
A = God
B = The Universe

For Christian theologists before the Universe, God is eternall. And the eternity of God implies the non being, the absolute Nothingness was impossible. The Nothing in itself is categorically impossible since it existence implies some degree of Being, and the nothing is the non being.

There is God and the Universe that comes and is always coming from God.

>>17903252
None of what you said is true or even makes sense. Did you even read your reply before posting it?
>If A=nothing, B=God, C=universe
>then A=B=C
This is a sub-10 iq moment, simply false, you just jumped to this conclusion for no reason and you couldn’t even explain why.
>>17903255
We already addressed this above. Here >>17903212.

>>17903256
I did not assume the necessary being is God (even though I believe so), I was just pointing out that you also believe in a necessary being, and I also went out of my way to discuss why it is not the universe.
For the physical, if A cannot be non-A. Replace A with being/existence or another synonym of it, you get that being cannot be non-being. Non-being is non-existence which is nothing, so non-being cannot be (being). Non-existence cannot exist. I recommend reading Immanuel Kant’s take on this.
>>17903258
It does not answer the necessary cause question, see this >>17903212

Once you get outside of Abrahamism and into more purely philosophical territory, to what extent is atheism vs theism just a vibes disagreement over whether we should personify (if only in the sense of ascribing mind-like qualities to) the fundamental whatsit? Especially when things like "pantheism" are accepted as a type of theism.

>>17903272
> It does not answer the necessary cause question.
This question looks like a cope. Why can't space/matter/energy just exist as it is? Just because you don't like them being 'composite' whatever that means?

>>17903202
>necessary cause
We can either;
Assume the universe came into existence
Or
Assume God came into existence, and then created the universe
Does the latter not require 1 more assumption than the former?

>>17903269
There is no need for God. Universe is all that exist, there is nothing beyond it. So it's either self-caused or came from nothing. If we pretend that Universe should be caused by X beyond it, nothing stop us from asking what beyond X caused X and so on and infinite regress will be a viable solution.

>>17903299
Yes. It's against occam's razor. In fact, God which is beyond universe is self-contradiction. Beyond a universe only non-existence becayse universe is all that exists.

>>17903297
>space
It is an accident and can not be in itself but in relation to an entity.
>matter
It is quite proved that matter is subject to corruption and destruction, thus is not eternal.
>energy
The measure of accidental changes.

>>17903304
> matter is subject to corruption and destruction, thus is not eternal
Matter|Energy is one eternal thing (E=MC2). That is why there is law about energy which can't be created and destroyed.
> space can not be in itself
Why? Because you don't like it and want magical god?

>>17903301
>There is no need for God. Universe is all that exist, there is nothing beyond it. So it's either self-caused or came from nothing. If we pretend that Universe should be caused by X beyond it, nothing stop us from asking what beyond X caused X and so on and infinite regress will be a viable solution.

Universe started to exist according to scientists 14 billion years ago, this prove it is contingent, there was something that did act as efficient cause to create the universe. Atheists during previous centuries, bounded to Spinoza, did believe that the universe was an eternal closed system. Not the case.

Not to forget that the universe is made up by matter, space, time and other categories own of contingent substances, ie, creatures. The universe was as well created.

>but what about God, how can he be eternal if that blow up my mind
God is by essence, the being himself. Eternal in his actions, eternal in his opinion, eternal in himself, not subject to any creation. Ontologically he is totally appart from the Universe, which depends from God as first cause.
How can we put God under an epistemologycal system we made up based on creatures. Theologists always stated that we do talk about God throught analogy, God is beyond our own categories.

>>17903309
Matter and energy aren´t eternal, they started to be at some point. Energy was not before the Big Bang given energy is the measure of movement.

>Why? Because you don't like it and want magical god?
It is the accidental result of the interaction of several substances, the universe in which and any other entity that exists in the universe.

Aristotle has a good take on the space in his Physics. It is totally accidental.

>>17903297
It is not a cope. It is a simple answer to why the universe is not necessary, and it shows that none of them have existence,
so they have existence somewhere else.
>>17903299
We do not hold that God came into existence, or else he would not be necessary.
>>17903301
>Universe is all that exists
We already went through why it is not necessary. Either way, the universe cannot explain conceptual existence as they are immaterial while the universe is material. So the universe is not all that exists.

>>17903317
> Premise 1
For any being posited as "God," it must either:

(a) Be a part of the universe (i.e., the totality of existence), or

(b) Not be a part of the universe.

> Premise 2
If (a) God is part of the universe, then God is a contingent being—dependent on the broader framework of existence and thus not metaphysically necessary.

> Premise 3
If (b) God is not part of the universe (i.e., transcends it), then God does not exist, as existence is coextensive with the universe (the sum total of all that is).

> Conclusion
Since both disjuncts lead either to contingency (undermining divine necessity) or non-existence, the concept of "God" as a necessary, transcendent being fails. Therefore, God does not exist.

>>17903320
> Matter and energy aren´t eternal, they started to be at some point.
Matter and energy existed and will exist at every point of time which means they are eternal.

>>17903342
>For any being posited as "God," it must either:
The historical definition of God taken from all Scholastic thinkers from the revelation of Moses in the mount Sinai, to Aviccena to Averroes, Aquinas, Scotus, Cajetan, Suárez, etc., is To be the Being in himself "Deus est suum esse" from which all the Metaphysics derive from. The existence of God is part of his own essence. Creatures have essences that don't include existence, the essence of the man is "to be a rational animal". As has been said in the thread several times, God is neccesarry, creatures are contingent, the very core of the matter is in the essences.

>If (a) God is part of the universe, then God is a contingent being—dependent on the broader framework of existence and thus not metaphysically necessary.
God is not part of the Universe, but the Universe depends from God to exist and to develop its movements since God isn't just the creator but the First cause of all changes.

>If (b) God is not part of the universe (i.e., transcends it), then God does not exist, as existence is coextensive with the universe (the sum total of all that is).
God is a neccesary being, his own essence declares that his existence is linked to his own being. The universe is contingent.

>>17903347
Not before the Big Bang. They came to be at some point and that's not mistery, before the Big Bang the universe didn't exist in no way and matter came to be millions of years later of big bang according to scientists.

>>17903353
> God is not part of the Universe
Then he doesn't exist. Universe is all that exists, to not be part of it is to be demoted to non-existence.

>>17903361
The Universe can't be all that exist since at some point it started to be.

Universe / Contingente / Needs an efficient cause to be.
God / Neccesary / Is the efficient cause of the Universe.

>>17903355
> before the Big Bang
There is no 'before the big bang', time started to exist with big bang and being eternal only makes sense in a context of time.
> matter came to be millions of years later of big bang
Matter was just in the form of energy. Matter|energy is one eternal thing and not two different entities.

>>17903364
> The Universe can't be all that exist since at some point it started to be.
You just don't like that everything started to exist at some point, but it isn't an actual argument against universe being everything there is.

>>17903364
There is no cause beyond the universe. Universe is everything there is, all caused beyond it do not exist.

>>17903365
>There is no 'before the big bang', time started to exist with big bang and being eternal only makes sense in a context of time.
There is a before Big Bang, this is, God, eternal, unmutable, which was, is and will be the Being by essence.

>Matter was just in the form of energy. Matter|energy is one eternal thing and not two different entities.
Energy and matter can't be eternal since Universe started to be 13,8 billion years ago, and matter millions of year after the Big Bang.


Stop trying to avoid the matter of the question.
1. Every contingent being as the universe and all in it, needs an efficent cause to exist. God is the Being in himself, thus neccesary and eternal.
2. Before the Big Bang there was God who is by essence the Being in himself. Derived from the previous, from the Nothingness nothing comes, your try to defend a falacious sentence such as from the Nothing Something comes. You are claiming it has some degree of Existence, which is a paradox.
3. The Universe wasn't before the Big Bang.

>>17903367
>>17903369
Again, stop avoiding the premise >>17903374

Just answer instead of claiming paradoxical things.

>>17903367
Universe cannot be everything that is as our thoughts are immaterial and do not exist in space. If I thought about a dragon for example, it does not exist any where in material space, it is only conceptual and a product of my mind, therefore it exists beyond the material universe.

>>17903378
He knows.
But he is soo butthurt he just entrenched in his own falacy and does not care anymore.

>>17903376
> There is a before Big Bang.
According to current scientific consensus (general relativity and cosmology), time itself began at the Big Bang. Therefore, there is no meaningful "before" the Big Bang, as time did not exist prior to it.

> Energy and matter can't be eternal
Something is eternal if and only if it exists at every point in time. Matter and energy exist at every point in time (as they are conserved and cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed). Therefore, matter and energy are eternal.

> Every contingent being as the universe and all in it, needs an efficent cause to exist.
The claim is flawed when applied to the universe. The universe, by definition, is the totality of all that exists... There is nothing outside of it. If a cause were required for the universe, it would have to exist beyond the universe, which is impossible (since nothing exists beyond the totality of existence). Therefore, the universe does not require an external cause to exist.

>>17903378
> thoughts are immaterial and do not exist in space
If something is truly immaterial, it does not depend on physical matter or spatial existence. Thoughts are dependent on the brain, they change or cease when the brain is damaged. Therefore, thoughts are not immaterial and independent of physical processes.

>>17903392
Time is just the measure of the movement. Time implies there are being in potentiality of something. God is pure act, non subject to change, he is unmutable, eternal.

You quite don't even know what to be eternal means. Well, let me enlighten you a little.

Eternal / Doesn't goes throught any kind of change such as corruption, generation, growth, decline, commutation, locative movement, etc.

Temporal / Subject to any kind of change such as any kind of change such as corruption, generation, growth, decline, commutation, locative movement, etc.

>Matter and energy exist at every point in time (as they are conserved and cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed). Therefore, matter and energy are eternal.
They didn't exist before the Big Bang. They suffered a movement of generation from which they started to be. Also, their existence is not neccesary for the Universe, it can go into a state of Entrophy without changes (unlless God applies some changes on it) and the Universe would still exist without any problem.

>The claim is flawed when applied to the universe.
The Universe is a being. The Universe came to be 13,8 billion years ago and that's a fact. You may deny it, but the Big Bang was the beginning of the Universe.

>>17903425
> Time is just the measure of the movement.
Relativity already btfo'd this Aristotelian cope. Time is part of spacetime, not your schizo "potentiality" nonsense.
> God is pure act, non subject to change, he is unmutable, eternal.
Prove it. Oh wait, you can't. "Pure act" is just a fancy way of saying "I made this up".
> Eternal doesn't goes throught any kind of change.
Then how does God "act" without changing?
> They didn't exist before the Big Bang.
Big Bang =/= creation ex nihilo. We don't know what was before. "Suffered generation" is just your cope for "I don’t understand quantum fluctuations".
> The Universe is a being.
No, it's a collection of beings. "Being" is a vague metaphysical term you’re abusing to smuggle in God.
> Big Bang was the beginning of the Universe.
Prove there was nothing before. Oh right, you can't.

>>17903439
>Relativity already btfo'd this Aristotelian cope. Time is part of spacetime, not your schizo "potentiality" nonsense.
Einstein just demostrated that the Kantian model was right. And Kant himself just inverted the epystemological model of Aristotle.

>Prove it. Oh wait, you can't. "Pure act" is just a fancy way of saying "I made this up".
He himself declared it on Exodus.

>Then how does God "act" without changing?
Thomists separate the eternal act from the temporal effects. It is basic Thomist philosophy.

>We don't know what was before.
God, as stated by the Bible, starting with Genesis 1.1.

And Aquinas at:
Summa Theologiae 12, article II.
Secondly, because the essence of God is His own very existence, as was shown above (I:3:4), which cannot be said of any created form; and so no created form can be the similitude representing the essence of God to the seer.

Summa Theologiae 8, article I.
Now since God is very being by His own essence, created being must be His proper effect; as to ignite is the proper effect of fire. Now God causes this effect in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being; as light is caused in the air by the sun as long as the air remains illuminated. Therefore as long as a thing has being, God must be present to it, according to its mode of being. (...) God is above all things by the excellence of His nature; nevertheless, He is in all things as the cause of the being of all things

>No, it's a collection of beings. "Being" is a vague metaphysical term you’re abusing to smuggle in God.
Yeah, being a collection of beings doesn't erase a being. Humans are a collection of beings such as the hands, the teeth, etc. That's a compositive entity. Aristotle already discused it at Metaphysics. Again, basic Philosophy.

>Prove there was nothing before.
There was something, God. Universe can't create itself if it start to exist at some point. But needs an external agent to make it exist.

>>17903232
>if nothing created God then nothing created the Universe then nothing created this potato sand which.
Do you see the flaw here? Ignorance of origin is not an affirmation of the answer your personally find most palatable. We simply don’t know. But you can’t accept that because you are hard-wired by your destiny to accept nothing can exist beyond the bounds of this twisted hyper-rationalism.
>argument
Argument?
>>17903233
1. our intuition and pre-rational instinct from which we even manifest rationality invites us to Will to Creation.
2. God is a logical option and fits within the rational instinct.
3. The options do not need to be logical. You do not possess the cognitive power to understand why this is the case but you should trust me because I am almost certainly smarter than you and if you respect intelligence and reason you should just take my word. The pre-rational can access fact, reality, and truth similarly to the sensory and the rational.

>>17902993 (OP)
I created God, ama

>>17902993 (OP)
>>17902995
If God is infinitely fast (which he should be, since he is almighty), then he does not experience time. Therefore, it doesn't matter what happened 'before' God since things like "before" and "after" don't apply to his existence

>>17903398
>thoughts are dependent on the brain
I would argue that they are dependent on the mind, not the brain. If you conceive any image in your mind, it does not have any spacial existence and it is not *made* of physical matter. So where does it exist? Not in the material world, and not in our universe. The same can be said about the laws of logic, they are immaterial, but they are conceptual, they are products of the mind that cannot be measured materially like chemical and physical laws. But they would still exist regardless of the human brain, meaning they were not conceived by our material brain. So they exist beyond our material brain and even beyond the material universe as they are immaterial. So immaterial truths exist meaning that the universe is not the whole of existence.

>>17903625
Usually we don't say something "conceptually" exists. We can imagine a horse with a naturally growing horn, but we reject that unicorns exist. And if not the unicorn itself but just the image of the unicorn, then that still would depend on the human brain in order to exist, unless you believe in Platonism and that there exists some perfect image of a unicorn. Anything that you would argue our brains do to render or report something to exist will always rest on shaky ground.

>>17903031
>takes seriously Christkikery and apologetics
what's with this new trend of putting adverbs before objects?

>>17903169
it's over 9000

>>17903629
I would only add that this isn’t a product of our material brain itself or else it would be giving something it does not have. Even if we were talking about real creatures, let us say I conceived a lion in my head, it does not actually exist in my head or elsewhere in material space meaning it does not exist materially, but I’m still imaging it in my head, am I imagining nothing? No, but it does not exist in the material world.

>>17903625
Bro idk about you but personally I do have a physical hippocampus-V1 link.