If everything that exists needs a creator then God needs a creator too because it exists. Creationism is fricking moronic.
Creationism is retarded
If everything that exists needs a creator then God needs a creator too because it exists. Creationism is fricking moronic.
God is the Transcendent One, he is beyond your comprehension.
There is only one thing: God, and it is everything you see and do not, and you are part of it.
How crazy is that? See if you can grasp the idea before attacking it. Ask yourself, "What of a Transcendent Being is all that exists or ever did exist or ever shall? ...where do I fit into the Transcendent Being??"
God did not think the universe was complete without you. Find out why.
>God transcends universe
Then it's possible to a greater being transcends your supposed God
What point are you trying to make here?
Can you prove nothing transcends God?
>can you prove that the being that by definition transcends everything, transcends everything
Just because something has a definition doesn't mean that things exists dumbass
He wouldn’t be god if something transcends him
>can you prove that a chair isn't a chair?
Are you moronic?
>God is the Transcendent One, he is beyond your comprehension.
That's an excellent reason to NOT base our entire lives on him.
I don't.
Welcome to atheism.
Depends what you mean by base your entire life around him
For example following the 10 commandments would do no harm
>1. You VILL abolish the 1st amendment
Yes, it would do a frickton of harm.
Friendly reminder that in that scene, God lied and the snake told the truth. 🙂
>God lied and the snake told the truth
Thanks for conceding.
>umm sweaty forcing religion on everyone would do no harm
>it would do no harm to kill everyone who expresses skepticism of my magic israelite in the sky sweaty
>nobody died in the st bartholomew's day massacre sweaty
Why are Christians like that?
I didn’t force anything on anyone
Neither do people voting for dictators.
What does that have to do either?
The commandments tell us NOT to kill
It doesn't. It says to not "murder."
Who are you quoting?
You know exactly what.
Are you moronic? Or are you purposely diverting away from who did the killing and why?
>who did the killing
Romanists
>(who was killed)
Christians
>why
The same reason you want to
There's not a single person on earth I want to kill for believing in a different version of the magic israelite in the sky than me. But nice projecting.
Can you explain why you're completely obsessed with israelites?
I don't worship a israelite. What are you talking about?
I'm talking about the mental illness you have where the word "Jew" repeats over and over in your head and then you vomit it out on here
What does people voting for dictators have to do with me telling you that following the 10 commandments is a good thing
Don’t put words in my mouth
You'd vote for the guy "applying" the 10 commandments.
>believes a magic israelite told a 600-year-old man to build a floating zoo because a talking snake told a woman to eat a magic fruit right after creating the earth 6000 years ago
>calls anyone else mentally ill
A dictator wouldn’t honor the 10 commandments
>you can force everyone to follow the 10 commandments without dictatorship because... YOU JUST CAN OKAY
Perfect reason to not use the 10 commandments as a model for society.
So why do you wanna kill babies so bad?
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
>Do you even know what the 10 commandments are?
Yes.
1. Kill all people who don't worship God.
2. Kill all people who depict God.
3. Kill all people who say they don't believe in God.
4. Kill people who take their baby outside on a stroller on Saturdays.
5. Kill all people who refuse to stay in touch with their abusive parents.
6. Kill all people who killed someone for a reason other than violating a commandment.
7. Kill all people who have sex outside the scope of this institution not specified in this document.
8. Kill all people who steal a paperclip at work.
9. Kill all people who lie, but ONLY IF THEY LIE IN COURT.
10. Kill all people who want to own something.
Awomen transsister, kill all people who believe in God or misgender us
Thanks for conceding.
Holy cope
I’ve never seen such a bad interpretation of the 10 commandments
1. Tells you not to put any gods before God himself
2. Don’t disrespect his name
3. Go to church on sunday (and not work)
4. Honor your parents
5. Don’t kill or murder
6. Don’t commit adultery
7. Don’t steal
8. Don’t bear false witness against your neighbor
9. Don’t covet your neighbor’s wife
10. Don’t covet your neighbor’s goods
>1. Tells you not to put any gods before God himself
Or else?
>2. Don’t disrespect his name
Or else?
>3. Go to church on sunday (and not work)
Shabbat is Saturday, not Sunday you fricking mouth-breathing dork.
>4. Honor your parents
Unconditionally?
>5. Don’t kill or murder
Doesn't say not to kill at all.
>6. Don’t commit adultery
Define adultery.
>7. Don’t steal
Or else?
>8. Don’t bear false witness against your neighbor
Only in court.
>9. Don’t covet your neighbor’s wife
Or else?
>10. Don’t covet your neighbor’s goods
Or else?
1. God still forgives
2. God still forgives
3. You moron I’m referring to the new testament where it is not the shabbat that is honored but sunday
5. Catechism of the catholic church has it as “kill”
6. >voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse
7. In this case you will also have problems with the person you stole from, bad for you (but god forgives)
8. Always
9. Or else? Have fun dealing with your neighbor when he discovers
10. You will basically feel jealousy
I’m trying to explain them in a simple way
4 needs a longer explanation
You somehow think christians want to beat you up for not following these commandments
4. Parents aren’t only parents by blood they must also treat you well
Not written anywhere in the Bible.
Jesus called is brothers, we were not his brothers by blood
Same for Jesus calling his father Joseph “Father” even though he isn’t his father by blood
>if you call your friends bros that means there's this hypertranscendental connection between you
Why do Christians keep saying ridiculous shit like this?
And for the term father?
>if you play house with your friends in kindergarten and call someone daddy that kid now has obligation towards you
moron.
Why in the name of frick do you think I demand a verse? To prove it indeed stems from that new covenant, you astronomical fricking moron.
Yes, it is.
>if you play house with your friends in kindergarten and call someone daddy that kid now has obligation towards you
It’s not how that works and it’s not how jesus called his father “father”
>Why in the name of frick do you think I demand a verse? To prove it indeed stems from that new covenant, you astronomical fricking moron.
You seem to be a colossal gigamoron so I have to make sure that I tell you
>Yes, it is.
Okay here is proof you are officially gigamoronic
Anyways it was fun debating you anon and I respect your knowledge on religion despite you being atheist
>It’s not how that works and it’s not how jesus called his father “father”
Jesus called his father "father" because God is supposedly his father, not because God takes care of him.
>You seem to be a colossal gigamoron so I have to make sure that I tell you
So you don't have any verse.
>Anyways it was fun debating you anon and I respect your knowledge on religion despite you being atheist
I was talking about St. Joseph not God the father
I showed you the verses, here I was responding to you calling me moronic for telling me I was moron
>I showed you the verses
and I explained how they absolutely don't back your claim.
No they still do because it shows we worship on sunday not Saturday
>because "the first day of the week" is mentioned
Actual rock-bottom cognitive abilities.
No
Not because the first day is mentioned it is because the first day is the day they broke bread
1 corinthians 16:2
On the first day of the week
Breaking bread doesn't mean worshiping God, you desperate mouth-breathing dork.
It’s the eucharist you homosexual
Jews break bread literally every single meal.
Not for the same reason you mega-ultra-colossal-gigantic-ginormous homosexual
Early Christians were literally israelites.
My point still stands
Anyways, hebrews 4
Check we enter god’s rest when we believe in him not on the seventh day
So here you go christians don’t have to remember saturday
Or to “observe” saturday
Romans 14:5-9
We’ve now entered the true shabatt and that shabatt is every day until jesus returns which is why now that we are in god’s shabatt day we can set a side sunday honor jesus who rose from the dead on that day
**To honor
If you even check in Genesis
Every day has morning and evening except for the sabbath which doesn’t end proving we are in god’s sabath by believing in
*bored male leaves
Hebrews 2:11 it is definitely not a simple bro relation
>I don't want to force religion onto anyone else, but them having no gods other than mine would be good.
that god's name is the science btw trans rights
I didn’t force anyone
You can’t force anyone to “believe” in something anyways it won’t be real belief
All I did was say they’re good commandments to follow
I never even mentioned forcing people to follow the 10 commandments, you’re again putting words in my mouth
I only told you it would be a good idea to follow them
>Perfect reason to not use the 10 commandments as a model for society
Do you even know what the 10 commandments are?
See there you go again, randomly screeching about israelites for no reason. Does the asylum know you're on here?
Ignore him. He’s just mindbroken
A dictator wouldn’t honor the 10 commandments let alone apply them
>believes a random bang in space created space shifting monkeys who evolved into humans
No human could perfectly and properly apply the 10 commandments anyhow
Everyone sins, nobody is perfect
Amen, that's why Jesus died, so that anyone who believes in Him will not suffer judgement, but have peace with God.
In your case where you claimed christians think there is no harm in killing people who don’t believe in god
It would count as murder as well
So the commandment still stands
>knocking on your door and asking if you heard the good news is forcing your religion on others
>we must behead them for questioning the Science(tm)
Who died in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre? Was it atheists?
What?
>That's an excellent reason to NOT base our entire lives on him.
But he speaks to us anon. Every moment he is manifesting and revealing himself. It is up to us to listen or not.
There is no god but God. There is One Almighty. If there were two almighties, they could undo the other. There is One that Transcends above all else. One Majestic and Infinitely Infinite Power. This is not the only universe. But That is the only God.
>But he speaks to us anon.
All of Reality Unfolding is the Speech of the Divine One. Hear it in the winds, see it in the glimpse of outstretched wing, feel it as cool water on your body, or fiery heat burning from the sun.
Sign of the times: truth is called madness and madness is called truth.
you sound like a realllllly uneducated, less emotionally cable , and reallllly philosophical shallow lovecraft. can you type more?
You sound like someone who is so verbally incapable that they need to repeat letters for emphasisssss.
>Monke evolves into x
>x evolves into y
>y evolves into z
>z evolves into human
why are there only monke and humans today? What happened to all the species in between?
Do you have any evidence for noahs ark, Adam and eve, moses parting red sea, Jesus walking on water and other Christian bullshit or only atheists need to have evidence?
What does christianity have to do with my question
Atheists always ask deists for evidence not the other way around
The biggest problem with atheism is that it demystifies everything. People love a good story. When you just have cold hard facts life just becomes routine and boring. Max Weber talked about this in his theory of institutions.
That to me is why I prefer the idea of agnosticism,
While atheism is a lack of belief, agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. All atheists are also agnostic, but not all agnostics are atheists, the key difference is how much you're willing to accept the possibility of the metaphysical. I've been atheist for much of my life but lately I've started leaning more towards agnosticism.
You also don’t realize that Darwinism is the mythology of the British Empire
funnily enough, nobody did and nobody can answer the question
>What happened to all the species in between?
we killed them
their skulls are in the ground
Thank you for the answer, but why weren’t monkeys killed?
monkeys are not our ancestors
the ones that could mix with humans got killed
I was referring to those who claimed monkey were our ancestors
what's so outlandish about other great apes being brother species? you accepted Black folk
they have the same IQ
You don't even understand evolution and are unable to
You probably don’t either
you're wrong however
Darwinism is still a british empire myth
Evolution concept was literally from a book made to propagate anglo-saxon superiority so if you want to believe the british empire’s myths go ahead
Monke and human have a common ancestor
I was referring to those who claim we evolved from monke
I wasn’t referring to you
Dumbass
Uh actually, our cousins the "monkeys" never stopped evolving and are different from our common ancestors with them you refer as "monkeys". Even if that difference might not be obvious to you who sees only monkeys.
God is not a material entity
Everything that is physical needs a creator. As God is beyond the physical realm He does not.
Why are you this desperate for your magic israelite when it would be much simpler and less arrogant to just say "I don't know where the universe came from"?
Why are you obsessed with israelites?
>if u don't worship israeli sky daddy you're obsessed with israelites
>everything physical needs a creator
[citation needed]
Also nothing is "beyond the physical realm"
>God is
Thus "God" is *nothing*
You're a pagan.
God I just want a history board and not this edgy 17 year old redditor tier atheism discourse
there is no logical beginning to the universe, whether you are a theist or not, the root of every presupposition or theory is supralogical by nature, both from the angle of a fixed point or infinite regress, neither makes any "rational" sense
word salad
>cant into basic reading comprehension
ight
God is the one whose nature is being uncreated, ever existing.
Which is why He says His name is 'I AM'.
Everything else only exists because it was caused by Him.
Aristotle figured it out ages ago.
Aristotle's God isn't the cartoon tier shit that is Jesus and Yahweh.
You're the only cartoon character I see
We, uhh... just started making video games about 40 years ago. I wouldn't be so quick in my shit-slinging.
Imagine being the "big man" in a snow-globe.
>no but you see sky israelite doesn't count.
God doesn’t exist in the universe like an apple or the moon. God is more like existence itself.
>an eternal being needs a creator
you think a unintelligent eternal universe that somehow has the laws of physics tuned to whats needed for life is more likely than an eternal intelligent force that made it? clearly theres something above reality that must be eternal AND have intelligence to make the laws of reality, which is simpler (occa razor) than a god created by a god created by a god etc etc
Likelyhood doesn't matter even if infinitely small, especially on the scale of the entire observable universe and all of observable time & beyond, what matters is it was possible and it happened.
Occam's razor would go against the idea of adding a third party "intelligent creator God" to a process that needs none. Responding to a problem that does not exist.
The simplest explanation is it happened because it could and so... it did.
God is a necessary being and Occam's razor would thus favor it by default, doing otherwize would be uncesserary by definition.
God is the quintessencial simplest explanation to all
That's a moronic thing to say, literally replace "God'" with anything else and see how silly it is
> muh spagethi monster
It's not 2007 anymore gramps
>literally replace "God'" with anything else
That's not how it works.
Please IQfytorians tell me with all honesty you can muster:
Do you genuinly engage in those pointless arguments, or do you do it ironicaly in an attempt to "troll" the other (or your own) side?
For a supposed high IQ board I see too much of this shit.
Has it always been like this, or did the quality fall greatly in recent years?
>God still forgives
So, nothing.
>3. You moron I’m referring to the new testament where it is not the shabbat that is honored but sunday
Show me the verse where Shabbat is abolished and replaced by Sunday.
>5. Catechism of the catholic church has it as “kill”
I don't give a flying frick that Catholics can't read.
>6. >voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse
Define spouse.
>7. In this case you will also have problems with the person you stole from, bad for you (but god forgives)
So, nothing really.
>8. Always
Not what's written in the Bible.
>9. Have fun dealing with your neighbor
Why would I have to deal with him if I don't tell him?
>10. You will basically feel jealous
Why's that wrong? It could motivate me to sort my life out.
3.
Acts 20:7
1 corinthians 16:2
5. Atheists neither
10. It’s okay if it motivates you as long as it doesn’t lead you to do harmful stuff to get it
>the first day of the week exists therefore Shabbat is abolished
You're actually moronic.
>10. It’s okay if it motivates you as long as it doesn’t lead you to do harmful stuff to get it
Ergo the ten commandments are not a good standard for morality.
We’re in the new covenant we worship on sunday not saturday
It was saturday because the lord rested on the 7th day, but in the new covenant the lord rose on the 1st day
So we worship on sunday
They are still a good standard of morality
>Beacuse... IT JUST IS OKAY NOW MUTILATE YOUR DICK AND GIVE ME 10% OF YOUR INCOME
We don’t circumcise anymore in the new testament
>trannies do this and push it on children all while maintaining smug atheism beliefs and trusting the heckin science
YAAAAS QUEEEN SLAAAAAY
>be an atheist
>wake up mad at God
>spend your day being mad at God
>go to sleep mad at God
>insist that you don't believe in God
>repeat
>If everything that exists needs a creator then God needs a creator too because it exists.
No moron, no. That's not how it goes. Everything that BEGINS to exist needs a creator, like it is the cause with our universe, but God has always existed, therefore He doesn't need a creator.
If something exists outside of time then it doesn't need a start point.
>t. believes in the bigbang
you will eat the bugs
you will get the vax
you will live in the pod
you will consoom the next A24 slow-burn flick
you will sacrifice your first born to molech
you will trust the science
you will own nothing
you will be happy
incorrect
God is the Creator, not the creation
Complexities such as intelligence and consciousness require complex systems to host them. This in itself requires time/space and motion. To organize and process information.
Thus if God is anything complex he must require time/space&motion to even be. Meaning he is not above those things.
>Nothing is above Time&Space thus God is Nothing
All arguments making him some esoteric above everything force thus fall flat.
Either "God" is not almighty and the creator of everything but some being that rose from the inert and complexified which is already what science makes us being making it unecessarily redundant, or "God" only a force of creation in the Universe lacking a conscious self and intelligence thus unable to be referred as a "god" due to its lack of individuality. Or there is no such a thing as "creation".
And all evidence points toward "creation" not being a thing, all the universe shows is *transformation*.
Creationism, the very concept of animism behind theism thus deism, is merely humanity's attempt to understand nature through their social brain. By humanizing it. God is merely the personification of the Universe by us humans.
God was made in the image of Man.
>And all evidence points toward "creation" not being a thing, all the universe shows is *transformation*.
The universe is finite in both space and time, and it requires something beyond itself to explain how it came into being. The laws of physics that it follows had to be imposed from a supernatural cause.
>Thus if God is anything complex he must require time/space&motion to even be. Meaning he is not above those things.
False.
>Complexities such as intelligence and consciousness require complex systems
This is not necessarily true.
>it requires something beyond itself to explain how it came into being
Let's just say we don't know and not pretend that "something" is a magic israelite that drowned millions of babies because something a talking snake did, shall we?
Natural revelation and observations about the world we live in lead us to conclude in God. One can talk about the attributes of God such as God's triune nature, what happened in history and what the relationship of God to this world/universe is, which is dependent on special revelation instead of general. But to know that the universe has a Creator is something that literally anyone in any situation could deduce.
>Natural revelation and observations about the world we live in lead us to conclude in God.
Is that why all the arguments Christians ever had were "pure logic" pseudointellectual bullshit like contingency and first mover while atheists are the ones who actually point to stuff happening in reality?
>But to know that the universe has a Creator is something that literally anyone in any situation could deduce.
Even if I conceded that, it's not your position. You'd still have to prove the 6000 years, the talking snake, the floating zoo and the trumpets destroying a city or the Bible is W R O N G.
>You'd still have to prove the 6000 years, the talking snake, the floating zoo and the trumpets destroying a city or the Bible is W R O N G.
There are true things that some people won't accept, but that doesn't make them any less true. In fact sometimes the majority is wrong on an issue, but that possibility shouldn't deter our investigations.
>Even if I conceded that, it's not your position.
It literally is, which is why I said it. Whether or not you concede it, that is the simple fact.
>Is that why all the arguments Christians ever had were "pure logic"
Let me get this straight: you are saying that you see Christians only use pure logic? That's what you seem to be saying in this statement. Or are you only talking about arguments for the existence of God? Even then, I don't think that's the case because there are many different facts you can appeal to to show God exists.
For instance, the fact that everyone realizes there is an objective good and that there are degrees of good proves it. There is one objective reference point for good which is God, and things are found to be objectively "good" if they are closer to the reference point and bad otherwise. People inherently recognize this because they use terms like right and wrong, and similar language that implies some things are better than others.
>that possibility shouldn't deter our investigations.
So show me your investigations for a 6000-year-old Earth with talking snakes and floating zoos that you haven't been deterred from.
>It literally is
"Creationism is not moronic!"
"Prove it"
"God exists!"
"Not your position."
"It literally is"
Stop lying.
>Or are you only talking about arguments for the existence of God?
Yes.
>For instance, the fact that everyone realizes there is an objective good and that there are degrees of good proves it.
Objective good existing means that morality precedes God. You don't believe that. Stop lying.
>There is one objective reference point for good which is God
Good, now you're not lying. Now for the questions you've never asked yourself in all that time you spent thonking and reading the best intellectuals that Christianity has had 2000 years to offer.
1. How do you tell what your god thinks is good or wrong since morality is purely subjective to him and he may change his minds anytime?
2. If you could be convinced that God wants you to rape and torture kids, would you do it or would you stop worshiping him?
>So show me your investigations for a 6000-year-old Earth with talking snakes and floating zoos that you haven't been deterred from.
The Bible.
>Objective good existing means that morality precedes God.
God provides the measure for goodness. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a thing as correct/incorrect, or right and wrong. You wanted to say something I said was "wrong" earlier, but in doing so you implied that there is such a thing as being objectively right.
>2. If you could be convinced that God wants you to rape and torture kids, would you do it or would you stop worshiping him?
I don't go into pointless hypotheticals. It would be like me asking you, "what if false proposition X is true, what would you do?" Or if I asked, what if 4+4=10? If you provide the answer, I can act like you believe false proposition X or that 4+4=10 is true. That seems to be the reason why these questions are asked. There is really no point in exploring hypotheticals that we know to be untrue.
>1. How do you tell what your god thinks is good or wrong since morality is purely subjective to him and he may change his minds anytime?
Well, it's not just me. People generally recognize that some things are good and some things are better than others. Of course, there is room for subjective opinions, but for some things at least there is no question that one proposition is objectively better (or closer to the truth) than an alternate false proposition.
The only way to deny this would be an absolute relativist and to say that nothing is better than anything else. Then the question is why would an absolute relativist use language like "right" and "wrong." Why would someone who is really an absolute relativist claim they are correct or more right than someone else? They wouldn't be able to, or else they've abandoned their position. They would have to stay silent.
>what if 4+4=10?
Then the number system is base-8
Equivocation.
>The Bible.
And I should take the Bible as seriously as all scientific research put together because...
>God provides the measure for goodness.
So morality is not subjective. Thanks for admitting you lied.
>I don't go into pointless hypotheticals.
You now have the burden to prove that God would never do tell you to rape and torture kids. Show proof or I will consider you'd rape and torture them in a heartbeat like a good Christian.
>If you provide the answer, I can act like you believe false proposition X or that 4+4=10 is true.
Unlike Christians, atheists are actually intelligent enough to engage with hypotheticals.
>People generally recognize that some things are good and some things are better than others.
If I show you one person who recognizes that some things are good and some things are better than others and doesn't appeal to your daddy israelite to justify it, will you behave like a grownup and immediately admit that your argument is bullshit?
>Of course, there is room for subjective opinions
This doesn't make sense. If the only metric of morality is "what le daddy israelite thinks," there CANNOT be any room for subjective moral opinions.
>for some things at least there is no question that one proposition is objectively better (or closer to the truth) than an alternate false proposition.
First, muddling "moral" and "true" is a very good litmus test for pseudo-intellectual morons, and you just failed it. Second, for objective morality, this would need to hold for all things, not just "some."
>The only way to deny this would be an absolute relativist and to say that nothing is better than anything else.
Or to accept that morality is a social construct and is thus neither objective nor subjective.
>They would have to stay silent.
Like you about raping and torturing children?
>So morality is not subjective.
objective*
>there CANNOT be any room for subjective moral opinions.
I said subjective opinions in my sentence, not subjective moral opinions. Big difference. I was thinking of, for instance, having different preferences for ice cream flavors as an example of subjective opinions. I know people like to bring that up as an example. But everything isn't like that.
>First, muddling "moral" and "true" is a very good litmus test for pseudo-intellectual morons, and you just failed it.
There is never a time where untrue is better than true.
>Like you about raping and torturing children?
We both know the Bible doesn't say to do such things to anyone. Other books might, but I don't believe in them.
I don't get your reasoning here. God is unchanging, He is the Alpha and the Omega. So all of morality is unchanging as well.
>I said subjective opinions in my sentence, not subjective moral opinions. Big difference.
The biggest difference it makes is that you were off topic.
>There is never a time where untrue is better than true.
"You have cancer."
>We both know the Bible doesn't say to do such things to anyone.
How do you know? The original manuscripts are long lost. What if we found one from your favorite book that does exactly that?
>I don't get your reasoning here. God is unchanging
He literally changed his minds about killing mankind. Why would he never do that about raping children?
>So all of morality is unchanging as well.
Except for eating nonkosher food, violating shabbat, writing the tetragrammaton and then erasing it, and so on and so fourth, amirite?
>"You have cancer."
I don't want to be told a lie though if that is the truth.
>The original manuscripts are long lost. What if we found one from your favorite book that does exactly that?
I use the received text, which reflect the originals. It can't be changed, and if someone found a new manuscript it wouldn't change what the received text (or the original) is.
>How do you know?
How do I know it doesn't say to do those things, you mean? Because there is no place where it does.
>Except for eating nonkosher food, violating shabbat,
You seem to be missing the application of those things. If you really want to get into it, their intended application is explained in Hebrews and Colossians. For instance: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17).
So, you seem to have misunderstood what those laws were really about or what their intent actually is. It's true that the Law is not abolished, but you probably just missed the context by not reading the Old Testament extensively enough. For instance, the Bible says that the Lord is our rest, which is the fulfillment of the Fourth Commandment.
>I don't want to be told a lie though if that is the truth.
That's absolutely not what the point was about.
>I use the received text, which reflect the originals. It can't be changed, and if someone found a new manuscript it wouldn't change what the received text (or the original) is.
So you don't give a flying frick about the authenticity of the Bible.
>If you really want to get into it, their intended application is explained in Hebrews and Colossians. For instance: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17).
So violating shabbat went from death sentence to "don't judge" but nothing changed morally? That doesn't make sense.
Also, you didn't answer, so I take it you would rape and torture the children.
>So violating shabbat went from death sentence to "don't judge"
Actually it says, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
In other words, it's up to God to decide who is fulfilling these commandments. It's not according to man's judgement, who has a faulty understanding of the Law. The fulfillment of it is up to God's judgement, who gave the Law.
If some guy comes along and thinks I'm breaking some part of the Law, he could just have a wrong understanding of what it really means, and that's why he's not the judge or the enforcer. You might think you understand what keeping the Sabbath day means in the Old Testament, but maybe you only think you do and you've totally misunderstood it.
>That's absolutely not what the point was about.
What then?
>Also, you didn't answer, so I take it you would rape and torture the children.
I said here
"We both know the Bible doesn't say to do such things to anyone."
>the universe is finite
No it's not.
>limited in both time and space
Neither this
The Observable Universe isn't all there is, it's all we can observe from the Earth due to the limited nature of light and we deduce way more in the unobservable with nothing to base a limit off.
The big bang was the expansion of a past condensed state of all observable matter, not the start of reality as some may claim it to be. We are simply unable to observe beyond the observable space and time relying on light alone, claiming it's all there is is geocentrism-like ignorance.
>The Observable Universe isn't all there is, it's all we can observe from the Earth
The observable universe is everything that can be empirically observed and measured in some way, and we can speak of things beyond that but that is getting into metaphysics. The observable universe follows the laws of physics based on empirical observation, but anything that isn't part of the natural universe doesn't have to follow those laws. It isn't sound to extrapolate the natural/physical laws to everything that exists beyond the physical universe. Some people who are materialists even think that's all there is, but I disagree with that.
>laws
Misleading term
"Behavior" fit better, describing these as the consistant observations they are not the absolute statements they are claimed to be.
>false
>not necessarily true
Care to explain why?
Intelligence, implying cognition, is the flux and processing of information for thought-making, analyzing and problem solving.
It necessarily requires a system to operate that flux. A system as such is necessarily partially closed. Flux necessarily involves motion which necessarily occurs within space-time. Thus intelligence necessarily necessitates a partially closed system in motion existing within space/time.
"Infinite intelligence" is a silly phrase with no real implications. Intelligence is merely the efficiency of cognition, it doesn't define it.
>Care to explain why?
The first proposition I mentioned is false because it assumes the second one. The second one I mentioned is not necessarily true because it was simply asserted and I don't see why it has to be true, no reason why given why it should be true.
>Flux necessarily involves motion which necessarily occurs within space-time.
It can happen in space-time but there is no reason to think that is the only way. Maybe you're playing with definitions and redefining them privately? To my understanding, a "person" is a subsistence or entity that also has a mind and intelligence. It can refer to something in space-time, but again, it doesn't really, by definition, have to. If you define it that way, you're not using the normal usage of the word intelligence.
But those statements are logically true.
If you want an image of what it conveys : You don't get a clock going without clockwork and place for that clockwork to be held.
You'd be claiming that clocks don't need clockwork, that clocks don't need to tick. That there is a clock beyond the need for time and space. A statement that is self-refuting. An attempt at making clocks something mystic so you could claim them to be anything beyond their own well-understood evident logic.
Intelligence, like a working clock, is firmly a physical process, a motion, occuring through time.
>a person
Merely a tag we give those we acknowledge as "one like us".
Is an animal a person? Is a pet a person? Is a foetus a person? Is newborn a person? Is slave a person? Is an enemy soldier on the battlefield a person? Is a brain-dead patient a person? Is a dead human a person? Is a fictional character a person?
A tag, subjectively/collectively decided. Personhood is something granted and acknowledged. Not innate.
Adding unsolicited and unecessary mysticism and magical claims is the entire basis of paranormal believes such as theism.
>A tag, subjectively/collectively decided. Personhood is something granted and acknowledged. Not innate.
It's possible to find out whether an entity is a person or not by investigation, and we might have wrong ideas based on bad information in some situations but the underlying truth is the same. Just because a psychopath or an entire society claims that a person isn't one, that doesn't mean that it's true.
>Adding unsolicited and unecessary mysticism and magical claims is the entire basis of paranormal believes such as theism.
I'm just using the English language as it is defined, and I think it's a pretty good system. The universe exists and the forces in the universe follow certain laws, reflecting the fact that these laws were imposed and are being imposed. Whatever is imposing them is supernatural. People generally don't have a big problem with accepting a supernatural cause, it's just that people don't want to accept that the first cause is intelligent and the implications of that.
>Is an animal a person? Is a pet a person? Is a foetus a person? Is newborn a person? Is slave a person? Is an enemy soldier on the battlefield a person? Is a brain-dead patient a person? Is a dead human a person? Is a fictional character a person?
The only naturally-occurring persons are human beings, as far as the set of material entities composed of energy-matter that follow the physical laws of nature.
>investigation
With your arbitrary standards not everyone may agree with. You are doing humanist universalism.
A slave or even livestock is an object I possess, no matter it's an individual something with cognition. By claiming it as my own I deny its personhood.
It may not look like it for you but by claiming "only humans can have personhood" you are proving my point about the arbitrary nature of the term.
The statement "the universe follows certain laws" remains scientifically erroneous, it is bastardized speech used for vulgarization. The same can be said of terms like "Big Bang" not properly describing what they define.
Words can be misused and misplaced, diverging from their appropriate definition/s. You could say it's part of the natural evolution of language but that's beside the point.
The so-called "laws" are not imposed, they are observed. They occur.
You don't need a "why", science only researches the "how". "Why" implies intent thus a do-er and by searching for one you out yourself rationally. You act within a social framework which is a mistake easily done for our species heavily reliant on it. The reason behind all kinds of superstitions and superstitious claims such as the claimed existence of a God figure behind natural happenings.
God is a mirage, an illusion of our mind trying to make sense of the inhuman through a human, social framework.
>people generally don't have a big problem with accepting a supernatural cause
And that is because thinking beyond the veil of our built-in social framework is an effort in itself. One few are able to make on command and instead rely on the opinion of their peers without extensive skepticism, doing so they propagate superstitious believes.
Will you do the effort and question?
>It may not look like it for you but by claiming "only humans can have personhood" you are proving my point about the arbitrary nature of the term.
No because forms are objective.
>You don't need a "why", science only researches the "how".
For science you don't need a "why," but metaphysics goes beyond science and empirical measurements.
>The so-called "laws" are not imposed, they are observed. They occur.
Them being observed does not mean that they are not imposed; something that is imposed can be observed. We have found laws that explain the consistency and order of the universe, and they continue to exist even if they are not yet perfectly understood.
>One few are able to make on command and instead rely on the opinion of their peers without extensive skepticism, doing so they propagate superstitious believes.
Are you ESL by chance, anon?
>forms are objective
But we are not speaking of geometry or mathematics, objective and universal due to their nature as logical abstractions but ultimately a human cognitive byproduct detached from reality beyond approximative resemblance which they were based over.
No perfect cubes or sphere anywhere in the natural/physical world, only patterns we recognize and tag as "cubes" and "spheres". Silhouettes and shapes not forms and objects.
No perfect measurements, all approximations no matter how precise.
But coming back to language, another human logic that is this time neither "objective or universal" varying across iterations, cultures or even individuals.
While many terms rely on easily recognizable objects, concepts and phenomenoms on which we seemingly universally agree upon, some are more vague and "personhood" definitely belongs to the latter.
Like the implications or not, it is arbitrary.
>metaphysics
Indeed, and its champion for multiple millennia acting as the base of the doctrine; Platonism, neo or not. Which is, unfortunately for some, entierly erroneous.
Nomalism in its purest form, the deny of platonism, has been proven by elimination.
>we have found laws
Again, that is unscientific. We have merely "observed" "consistant and predictable behavior". You are using loaded language to suit and push your vision. Tho I have to acknowledge its unfortunate popular usage even making its way into "official papers" misleading many... including you.
>are you ESL
I'll let you decide on that. I prefer not handing you the tools for easy Ad Hominem.
I, including professors in the past, consider my mastery of english acceptable. I do review terms in dictionaries making sure both my usage and understanding are appropriate. I do so in all languages I use including my native one.
I'm afraid you cannot attack me on that and will have to face my position head on. I confident in your inability to disprove any of my rebuttals against either platonism or theism.
>I'll let you decide on that. I prefer not handing you the tools for easy Ad Hominem.
I ask because I want to be as charitable as possible in understanding what is meant to be communicated.
>Again, that is unscientific. We have merely "observed" "consistant and predictable behavior".
When I say "we have found laws," it may not include you, but it still includes me and others. And there is no pure neutral way to view things. It's not like it's scientific to agree with metaphysical materialism, because that is a metaphysical belief as well.
>Indeed, and its champion for multiple millennia acting as the base of the doctrine; Platonism, neo or not.
You don't have to be a platonist to be a philosophical realist though. He was just one example of such a worldview, and I would like to note that I only used the term "form," but that doesn't necessarily have to match with Plato's view, it could easily be more like Aristotle's view of it or another person's view instead.
>Nomalism in its purest form, the deny of platonism, has been proven by elimination.
You think this is proven by science, anon?
>While many terms rely on easily recognizable objects, concepts and phenomenoms on which we seemingly universally agree upon, some are more vague
While it's true that there is universal agreement on some things, it is not true that reality depends on agreement. That is simply incidental, although not surprising as there is an underlying truth which people usually converge to. The exceptions would seem to be due to bias and resistance to the truth for some ulterior reason. But it is incidental that people agree on many things; it is not agreement that creates fact. An unchanging truth is objective. It is reached by an objective process, sometimes science or logic.
Unchanging truths existed even before anyone acknowledged them, and were properly discovered, and acknowledged later. The processes of physics always worked the same, even before it was well understood.
>If everything that exists needs a creator then God needs a creator too because it exists. Creationism is fricking moronic.
I really like this style of image, what is it called
It's called "liminal space" you can search "liminal space pool" for images specifically like that one
Thank you
>God exists
Absolutely assanine assumption.