Thread 17951063

why may the creator be uncreated by the universe cannot be spawned from a state with completely different rules than what we know?

>>17951068
>a state with completely different rules
so not nothing

can the creator even prove itself?
If so, why dosen't he?

I'll entertain it.

Perhaps our understanding and perception of existence and creation is limited. Nothing can only exist in comparison to something, but to God, who precedes time and oppositions, these categories simply don't apply.

>>17951063 (OP)
So, who did?

>>17951247
me

>>17951271
>Presumed to be from the Greek kochlias (snail with a spiral shell) + myia (fly) and the Latin hominis (man) + vorax (consuming)

>New World screwworm flies are obligate parasites, as their larvae require living tissue for food. Screwworm females lay 250–500 eggs in the exposed flesh of warm-blooded animals. The larvae hatch and burrow into the surrounding tissue as they feed. Should the wound be disturbed during this time, the larvae burrow or "screw" deeper into the flesh, hence the larva's common name. The maggots can cause severe tissue damage or even death to the host.

What did god mean by this?

>>17951237
>>17951271
Posts like these have to be ragebait to make christkeks look bad

>>17951281
Coping
>>17951280
Seething

>>17951286
You didn't answer; what did god intend when he created the screwworm fly?

>>17951067
Nonsensical questions require no answer. Who wets the water? Who cooks the chef? Who caused the uncaused cause? None of these questions are coherent yet one of them is always said as though it were profound.

>>17951229
He did. You just didn't follow.

>>17951299
>Who caused the uncaused cause?
You are assuming there is such thing as an uncaused cause; you can't use it as a definition

>>17951299
>Nonsensical questions require no answer
It's not a nonsensical question, it's a a legit question from the idea that everything has a cause.
>Who wets the water?
Water is wet because of natural phenomena.
>Who cooks the chef?
The chef is a person, not a food to be cooked.
>Who caused the uncaused cause?
No reason to believe such a thing exists.
You're dumb and dishonest, like all apologists.
>>17951281
Nope christcucks are legit idiots.
>>17951286
Case in point.

>>17951318
I can definitely use a concept's definition regardless. And it's not much of an assumption, it's a conclusion following from the contingency argument. Please note I am not interested in correcting bad faith strawman versions of the argument here.

>>17951325
>the idea that everything has a cause.
I don't see this idea proposed anywhere in here.
>>Who wets the water?
>Water is wet because of natural phenomena.
QED.
>>Who cooks the chef?
>The chef is a person, not a food to be cooked.
QED.
>>Who caused the uncaused cause?
>No reason to believe such a thing exists.
I disagree but I respect your minority opinion.

>Nope christcucks are legit idiots.
I'm nta but please elaborate. What argument was the picture making and why is it idiotic? Please make sure to actually verbalize the argument in the picture, I'm very interested to see your understanding.

>>17951325
>Nope christcucks are legit idiots.
You say that as if materialists have an answer.

Keep in mind the big bang theory was invented by a priest to prove God

>>17951332
>I don't see this idea proposed anywhere in here.
It is actually implicit in the argument the OP was making, it is always part of such apologetics. Are you dumb?
>QED
Yes, you are.
>I'm nta but please elaborate. What argument was the picture making and why is it idiotic? Please make sure to actually verbalize the argument in the picture, I'm very interested to see your understanding
The person is asking for proof God exists, and the retard who made the pic thinks natural phenomena such as the day and night cycle and the rising of the sun proves God exists, when it doesn't. It's the same bullshit christcucks come up with when you ask them to prove God and they just say "just look at the trees." The most idiotic non sequiturs.

>>17951340
>>I don't see this idea proposed anywhere in here.
>It is actually implicit in the argument the OP was making
Please read the actual contingency argument.
>>QED
>Yes, you are.
No idea what this is but it piqued my interest. What is meant by this lol
>natural phenomena such as the day and night cycle and the rising of the sun proves God exists
How? What's the argument there? Day & night therefore God?

>>17951333
>You say that as if materialists have an answer
Materialists have infinitely better answers than retarded religious people, even if they don't have all the truth.
>Keep in mind the big bang theory was invented by a priest to prove God
I'm pretty sure it wasn't to prove God, even if some redditor atheist scientist opposed that theory for that exact reason. Either way the fact that a catholic made the big bang theory (which now is rightly not taken to be the beginning of the universe but the earliest measurable point in time) proves nothing.

>>17951346
>Materialists have infinitely better answers than retarded religious people, even
Wrong, materialism can't even fullfiment the same niche as religion, it doesn't even give purpose or meaning, and it has no established origin.

>>17951346
>Materialists have infinitely better answers
Lmao. "It all boils down to uhhh particles and stuff" is such a great answer, I wish religious people could give this answer. Oh wait, they can. Materialism contributes nothing.

>>17951345
>contingency argument
You mean the kalam cosmological argument? It's just one big non sequitur mixed with false assumptions.
>>17951345
>Day & night therefore God?
Basically yes, christcucks sometimes use this argument.
>>17951350
>>17951348
You're idiots. Materialists have much science behind their claims, while your religions have only lies and apologetics.
But like I said, materialists have only part of the truth which is infinitely superior to the complete lack of truth found in mainstream religions.

>>17951362
>>contingency argument
>You mean the kalam cosmological argument?
No.
>>Day & night therefore God?
>Basically yes, christcucks sometimes use this argument.
Right. You've had Christians say "Day and night therefore God." to you. This is what you're telling me...
>Materialists have much science behind their claims
As much as religious people do. There isn't a single study a materialist accepts over a religous person. There is no added value at all. It just makes you feel better not having to face existential questions of religious proportions. But you'll have to face them one day. I hope you fare well.

How the fuck do Christians even know Yahweh is the true creator of the universe? For all we know he could be some less deity who likes lying and fucking with humans.

>>17951394
It by definition could not be a lesser deity, since those are many of a kind. The Prime Mover is necessarily one. That it's YHWH is a matter of revelation.

>>17951325
>Nope christcucks are legit idiots.
>No I can't refute them and I have no excuse

>>17951394
Yahweh is Jewish shit. Christians believe in the monad

>>17951394
>>17951399
Yhwh is the petulant son of El-Elyon the true God

>>17951419
I've heard this take before but most passages that were presented in its defense were incredibly ambiguous. The theory doesn't really offer any additional explanatory power over the Trinity which explains the same ambiguous passages plus many more.

Humans created God

>>17951063 (OP)
The creator

>>17951226
from a state we cannot meassure or know anything about yeah. one that makes the concept of a creator superfluous

>>17951063 (OP)
Hatched out of the cosmic egg obviously

>>17951299
>Who caused the uncaused cause?
If it is such a nonsensical question, I could just as well say that the universe was caused by some first, uncaused cause but which has nothing to do with the Christian god and which was entirely "non-conscious", and you'd be silly for questioning me about any of the properties of this uncaused cause

it's a valid question

bonus round

if one thing can be uncreated why can't there be many?

"Uncaused Cause" by the way is not proof of anything

>>17951271
What would you do and how would you act after God revealed Himself to you? You would spend all day complaining, that’s what you would do. And this is why He doesn’t reveal Himself to you.

>>17951271
>A ball of plasma that will literally blind you if you stare directly into it is proof of God

Just because creation has a beginning, doesn't mean the creator has one too.

>>17951299
all things are created. not all things are made wet or cooked.