Either God made the universe, or the universe is eternal (universes generating each other is the same shit)

Either God made the universe, or the universe is eternal (universes generating each other is the same shit)
>No proof that God exists -> Therefore There is no God and the universe is Eternal

With that same logic

>No proof that the universe is eternal -> Therefore there must be a God

It's the same fricking "logic". Do Atheists think they're smarter than anyone?

>provide proof that there is a God
provide a proof than the universe is eternal

Atheists choose to believe there is no God because they've been either raised that way, and still didn't break from religion and learnt to try to disprove their own opinions, or because their rationalize their desires to kill, rape and steal for dopamine's sake. You're biased.

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wih man gone, will there be hope for gorilla?
    With gorilla gone, will thrr be hope for man?

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Do Atheists think they're smarter than anyone?
    they do, soon they ll come saying yoi have yo provide proof for their claim and how its not the same thing because their relogious parents disliked their homosexuality

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    But the burden of proof, to prove god, is on you, not me.
    You are the one that has to prove it, not me disprove it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I adressed that you didn't even read the topic

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Your post, didn't address anything.
        It's just a bunch of phrases calling atheist, dumb, or something.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          If you have a brain problem preventing you to be able to read, that's on you. What you said is adresse in the topic.

          https://i.imgur.com/dMlE1oE.png

          We know that the universe exists (obviously), we know that it has existed, and we have no reason to believe that it will not continue to exist indefinitely. Why do you believe otherwise?

          laws of physics didnt even evist, nor space, nor time before the big bang, and the only thing we know about the universe is that it is most likely geared towards a heat death

          >Why do you believe otherwise?
          I don't believe otherwise, and the universe beign eternal doesn't disprove god, it might be both, I'm just saying that you have no proof that the universe is eternal. You have no reason to believe that a non sentient piece of shit that is the universe striken the biggest lottery of all times and hit the bullseyes of all laws of physics being tuned to the millimeter all in harmony with each other to make life possible either.

          you rely on the universe being eternal to claim that ther eis no god burt you have no more proof than a deist/theist whatever is the correct term claimign that there is a God. You rather choose to believe so out of bias.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >IESLB
            The big bang is the beginning of the universe as we know it. Not the beginning of all of existence. The heat death of the universe is not the end of existence either.
            All evidence points towards the universe continuing to exist. Again, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

            This entire first mover argument comes from theists attempting to justify god. The assertion that the universe must either be eternal, or something created it, comes from (YOU).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >beginning of all of existence
            >end of existence
            What do you mean by existence? If empty space is existence to you then i guess, but otherwise, yeah those are pretty much the start and the end. Google 'expansion of the universe'

            > The assertion that the universe must either be eternal, or something created it, comes from (YOU).
            False, it comes from you : you claim there is no god BECAUSE the universe can be on its own as it is eternal. (which of course you have no proof for)

            >You started
            I didn't start. You equally start by claiming the universe is eternal and is sel sufficient as it is necessary if there is no god. I didnt claim anything before you. We re on equal footing. How can you not understand that? You re clearly fanatical and biased as hell.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You still haven't proven your claim.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok le epic troll face good day 2 u

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You have a very flawed view of the universe. The Big Bang was not the creation of the universe, it is the point at which our current understanding of the laws of physics start to break down.
            Similarly, heat death (if that happens) is not the end of everything.

            >you claim there is no god BECAUSE the universe can be on its own as it is eternal.
            No. (YOU) start this by claiming there must be a causal link from now to the "beginning". Then (YOU) claim that this must either imply infinite recursion (which (YOU) deny) or an unmoved mover, which (YOU) then claim is god, which (YOU) then claim is the god from your book.

            None of this is proposed by people who claim that there is no god. This is all (YOU), saar.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Big Bang was not the creation of the universe,
            There was no space, time and matter before that. According to you there was an eternity of fricking nothing forever, then out of the blue big bang, life for some time then heat death forever for eternity? Makes very little sense
            >there must be a causal link from now to the "beginning"
            literally everyone thinks that unless you completely discard reason which is a fallacious circular and self defeating argument for obvious reasons

            >(which (YOU) deny)
            I challenge you to indicate where in this thread I have denied it. i just think a god is more likely. The thread is how you ask for proof for an extraordinary claim amongst the 2 hypothesis, when you provide none for yours
            >claim is god
            its just letters, gotta call it something, are you woke?
            >then claim is the god from your book.
            Not anywhere i have claimed it was the christian God, nor that I was christian, you re obviously completely fricking moronic so I don't want to keep talking to you. Please find the strength to cease responding, i'm not a baby sitter.

            Christian coping, after making a claim and not providing ANY evidence for it.
            Lol.

            Christians do not lie by their religion you dumbfrick are yo

            Then why did you write "or because their rationalize their desires to kill, rape and steal for dopamine's sake", christian-kun? What does the existence of an unmoved mover have to do with Mr. A bashing Mr. B's head in with a shovel?

            u discovering christianity in 2023?

            Then why did you write "or because their rationalize their desires to kill, rape and steal for dopamine's sake", christian-kun? What does the existence of an unmoved mover have to do with Mr. A bashing Mr. B's head in with a shovel?

            It's a bias. It's why you insist so hard on option B instead of option A, for no reason at all. You even go as far as claiming that there is no God, while I don't claim that the universe isn't eternal. you make more claims than me, and they are more extraordinary than mine. you're illogical.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's a bias. It's why you insist so hard on option B instead of option A, for no reason at all. You even go as far as claiming that there is no God, while I don't claim that the universe isn't eternal. you make more claims than me, and they are more extraordinary than mine. you're illogical.
            You didn't answer my question. Why should bashing in Mr. B's head require more rationalization if there is an infinite regress than if there is an unmoved mover?
            I'm awaiting your reply, christian-kun.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't understand. You rationalize that ther eis no god because you re biased to do so. you let your desire for dopamine bias your thinking. You don't know what a bias is? Means you're not being logical and you're rationalizing to reach the desired conclusion.
            >christian-kun.
            Like I said it is one of the christian commandments to not lie, I don't understand how you can conclude that although I highly suspect that you re simply moronic, unless you think than a pedo rapist priest is actually a christian and believes in his religion and isn't pretending

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't understand. You rationalize that ther eis no god because you re biased to do so. you let your desire for dopamine bias your thinking.
            Why would that bias my thinking? I can kill people for a dopamine release regardless of whether there is an unmoved mover or an infinite regress, christian-kun.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok so you re actually moronic and you can't understand anything I'm telling you. Great. Be moronic somewhere else plz

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            PROVE YOUR CLAIM, moron.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            moron number 2, I said I didnt want to talk to you anymore. You need to stop following me around like a dog now.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            YOU STILL HAVEN'T EVEN PROVEN YOU CLAIM, moron.
            So, prove it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you can't answer my question? Seriously, why would it be harder to rationalize bashing a guy's head in in a universe with an unmoved mover? I just don't get it. If I found out tomorrow that there is or was an unmoved mover, it wouldn't change my life in any way.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There was no space, time and matter before that. According to you there was an eternity of fricking nothing forever, then out of the blue big bang, life for some time then heat death forever for eternity? Makes very little sense
            moron kun...
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Misconceptions

            >The thread is how you ask for proof for an extraordinary claim amongst the 2 hypothesis, when you provide none for yours
            You are the one presenting this false dichotomy, moron.
            Those aren't the only two options, and between the two one of them has evidence and the other has none. Yet, you insist on choosing the one with no evidence. And then you claim that everyone else is biased. Astounding.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            These are the two only options. External univeres generating this one is another flavor of "I dont want a god to exist therefore I will pull some farfetched stuff I have no proof for from my butthole", just like the simulation.

            Regardless either the universe and physics stand on their own through the other moronic options or the least moronic one ie the universe being eternal, or god made it. Like i said you have 0 evidence for the universe being eternal, and much less for multiverses or unvierses generating each other, yet you believe in them more despite being more farfetched and having no proof, not more than a god existing, yet you act like your opinion is superior.

            You even make more claims because the laws of physics spawning by themselves in the very low odds correct configuration completely randomly is a quit extraordinary statement as well

            + your link doesn't contradict my statement, that there was no time, space and matter before the big bang, why do you link stuff randomly that has nothing to do with the topic? Its like you talk to a ghost instead of responding to my claims in a relevant fashion

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >These are the two only options.
            Nice spicfiction headcannon. Why don't you back it up with a source

            >your link doesn't contradict my statement, that there was no time, space and matter before the big bang
            the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didnt say how they were caused, I said they wern't there, why is everyone so fricking dumb in here?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Im so tired of your bs, so prove your claims now or shut up, forever.
            Please.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I told you I didnt want to talk to you. 3 times.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you prove your claims, i could go.
            But you haven't still proven anything.
            So im staying here, until you prove the claim.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The big bang did not create time, space, and energy you dumb brown. It was not the cause of the existence. You pulled that out of your ass because it's convenient for your argument.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            arn't you pretending that it is eternal out of convenience depsite absence of proof? Regardless this is absolutely not scientific consensus. People absolutely do not know, and used to say that it was like asking what was north of the north pole. They have a bunch of hypothesis and whatever but at the end of it, you don't know shit.

            >God is by definition eternal
            So "god" is useless and arbitrary conceptual tool that you sneakily define in such a way as to avoid all explanation and justification.

            >sneakily
            what? this is the other option B. it also is more satisfactory due to the harmony of the laws of physics that leave people dubious as to how we would have gotten just lucky and won the lottery. it's eternal quality is no more farfetched that that of the universe which isn't proven either.
            >avoid all explanation and justification.
            What do you mean avoid? Science will never be able to sniff the stuff that was before. Its more being back to the wall than avoiding. An hypothesis isn't useless either. lots of vitriolic vocabulary from an obviously biased mind

            Invoking god doesn't actually explain anything. It just places unanswerable questions about causality into a box and arbitrarily declares that people aren't allowed to look inside and ask questions about it.

            Theists think this is some kind of epic dunk on atheists, but it's really just a sneaky rhetorical slight-of-hand where they try to make themselves immune to being held to the same standards that they apply to everyone else.

            You don't get to declare "god" off limits to questioning or investigation because you conventienly define it as "inherently eternal".

            Furthermore, such definitions are so abstract and broad that they basically undermine the specificities of what most theists imply when they mention god. Why add the extra step of "god"? Why can't the universe itself be its own "uncaused cause" in all its incomprehensible, impersonal vastness? Why can't the universe simply be eternal? The only thing keeping you clinging to notions of god is your emotional attachment to the idea.

            >to the same standards that they apply to everyone
            When mentioning the eternal aspect of god, you rush to ask who created god, despite mentionign that it was eternal and thus the uncaused cause, but you do not rush to adsk who created the universe when mentioning it's hypothesized eternal quality. Do i smell bias?

            >"inherently eternal".
            by claiming there is no God, you do exactly that but for the universe. Ironic again. Why don't YOU hold yourself to the same standards you apply to theists?

            >Why can't the universe itself be its own "uncaused cause"
            Why can't god be eternal?

            Like I said, the luck of the laws of physics if fishy. A non sentient universe just spawning solar systems randomly is just contrary to all logic and reason. So people come up with explanations. It would be god. Or it could be some made up infintie external physicval unobservable universes that somehow generate universes outside of their own reality, or it could be a simulation that postpones the problem. The question is, why do you insist that there is no God? Bias.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >External univeres generating this one is another flavor of "I dont want a god to exist therefore I will pull some farfetched stuff I have no proof for from my butthole"
            No, it isn't, it's a legitimate possibility that you can derive

            https://i.imgur.com/rYWYz3m.png

            >The universe by definition is eternal.
            You missed the part where that's not true.

            Why not? There is no reason why the universe isn't necessarily eternal, there are plenty of theorems that show this (like the quantum eternity theorem mentioned earlier)
            You simply saying "the universe isn't eternal!" doesn't mean anything.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it's a legitimate possibility that you can derive
            More farftched than the etuniverse beign eternal, and evenmore fafetched than an uncaused cause which would solve the out of reality aspect, while you speak of physical unobservable things you pulled from your hat, that bleed unto other realities or even creating them, essentially replacing god with external dimension to make yourself feel better due to your anti god bias.While I agree that it cfould be a possibility (which wouldnt change anything to god possible making all these dimensions amy i remind you), you atheists are the ones pretending that your multiverse bullshit is more believeable than God, yet you have no proof for it either, which means you prioritize these hypothesis out of BIAS, which is the point of the topic, thus you re not logical but fanatics.

            >Why not?
            because that s not the definition, thats not a quality inherent to the unvierse, by definition. Something being a possibility doesnt mean it is by definition, while the very concept of god as an unmoved mover to launch causation and be responsible for the laws of physics as an hypothesis is by definition eternal, UNLESS you would argue than similar to multiverses, there is an infinity of gods birthing each other, but these are unecessary details rthat are flirting with the marvels Avengers territory

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're ranting and raving and extremely emotional. No dude, there is nothing about an eternal universe that is less logically valid than one which is not eternal but created by an eternal god. Just eliminate the extra element and you get the truth: The universe itself is eternal and there is no creator god.
            There are a litany of reasons, like many theorems and current models in cosmology etc., to conclude the universe itself is eternal and there is no god. Get over it. You're the one with an anti-eternal universe bias, I don't have any bias one way or the other here.
            It is not the case that the universe must necessarily be non-eternal, you just made that up

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > there is nothing about an eternal universe that is less logically valid than one which is not eternal but created by an eternal god
            RThat is not true as I have elements,that I will ignore for the sake of this particular conversation. lets pretend it is the case : the reverse works as well. There is nothing more logical in prtetend the universe is eternal than a god making it. You have proof of no and prioritize one out of bias.

            >The universe itself is eternal
            provide your proof, just as you ask me to provide mine.

            >There are a litany of reasons, like many theorems and current models in cosmology etc., to conclude the universe itself is eternal and there is no god
            There is exactly 0 theorem that proves that there is no god. I gave you the benefit of the doubt but you re a slimy random moron. Have an excellent day, end of the conversation. I dont have to answer anything else to a person that makes such incredibly stupid claims.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That is not true as I have elements,that I will ignore for the sake of this particular conversation. lets pretend it is the case : the reverse works as well. There is nothing more logical in prtetend the universe is eternal than a god making it. You have proof of no and prioritize one out of bias.
            The point that you're not understanding here is that whether the universe is or is not eternal is a question that can be answered by doing tests and mathematics to discover the answer. If it turns out that the universe is not eternal, then science will conclude that. If it turns out that the evidence and math points to the universe being eternal, then we accept that. It has nothing to do with a priori logic, it's a posteriori discoveries that we're making and deriving with mathematics.
            >provide your proof, just as you ask me to provide mine.
            I already did, and you can google it just fine as I just showed with the picture in the previous post.
            >There is exactly 0 theorem that proves that there is no god. I gave you the benefit of the doubt but you re a slimy random moron. Have an excellent day, end of the conversation. I dont have to answer anything else to a person that makes such incredibly stupid claims.
            You don't need a theroem that there is no god, you need one that there is a god, which dont exist (Godel and other ontological proofs aren't sound).

            Why do you care so much about there being a god? There simply isn't one, dude. The universe itself is the "god' in that it is the thing that creates itself and is eternal. There is no outside conscious creator deity here.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We know that the universe exists (obviously), we know that it has existed, and we have no reason to believe that it will not continue to exist indefinitely. Why do you believe otherwise?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because he's the one actually biased.
      Ironic.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        talk to me brader. If you don't have arguments or the balls to talk to me then abstain from posting. These kind of troll posts add nothing to the conversation. Also I provided an answer and you assumed i wouldn't/couldn't before my post even appeared, showing clearly that you have no intention of arguing in good faith.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You are an idiot.
          You still haven't proven your own claims.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Neither did you but you seem in the impossiblity of comprehending that fact. You still didn't break free from your own religion. Your claim has no priority over mine.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are the one that started it, though.
            You should prove your clame, before me, you clown.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is no such thing as a start. Did I claim there was a God, or did you claim the universe was eternal, (despite the scientific consensus being that it had start before which time, space and matter didn't exist, and is going towards a heat death) and that it generated laws of physics out of the blue and we got really lucky? It's both.

            Why the fricking hell do you think your claim has priority over mine and I should justify myself before you do? You're fricking brainwashed. Your claim is just as extraordinary as mine. You don't have any reason to believe more that there is no god rather than the opposite. you're biased.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            PROVE THE CLAIM.
            You started claiming that god, created a universe with a start.
            So prove it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      we are talking about it going infinitely back in time never having a beginning just a series of causes causing each other, an infinite regress, completely logically impossible. It's the price you have to pay to be atheist

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >it's impossible
        how so

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          infinites can't exist in reality so there can't have been an infinite amount of days before today

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If a no Jah then a who, make the rain come fallin?!!!
    If a no Jah then a who, a make the sun come shinin?!!!

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Atheists choose to believe there is no God because they've been either raised that way, and still didn't break from religion and learnt to try to disprove their own opinions, or because their rationalize their desires to kill, rape and steal for dopamine's sake. You're biased.
    This shows that you're working with hidden premises. Your post is arguing for some generic god, but this part is actually appealing to some interventionist god who punishes people for doing certain things. With that in mind, why do you think some rabbi walked on water, christian-kun?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      i'm not religious, try something else Mr no arguments

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Christian coping, after making a claim and not providing ANY evidence for it.
        Lol.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Then why did you write "or because their rationalize their desires to kill, rape and steal for dopamine's sake", christian-kun? What does the existence of an unmoved mover have to do with Mr. A bashing Mr. B's head in with a shovel?

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What created god then?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      God is by definition eternal and you completely missed the point of the topic, nice reading comprehension.

      So you can't answer my question? Seriously, why would it be harder to rationalize bashing a guy's head in in a universe with an unmoved mover? I just don't get it. If I found out tomorrow that there is or was an unmoved mover, it wouldn't change my life in any way.

      because many people web the potential existence of a god with potential many other things, including potential consequences of a "karmic" kind. You may not be biased by this as you are too moronic to understand the possiblities of life and how trying to survive even beyond your material death should be your n1 objective from a purely logical standpoint as it is the only useful and meaningful thing you could ever do, but it is also offtopic pascal wager like type of shit, many other people are not like you, and thus this biases them. Not everyone has a thinking like you (or in this case, lack of thereof)

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >because many people web the potential existence of a god with potential many other things, including potential consequences of a "karmic" kind.
        Why? That's moronic, it would just mean positing a bunch of completely unrelated things that have zero connection to the concept of an unmoved mover aside from religious folklore.
        >You may not be biased by this as you are too moronic to understand the possiblities of life and how trying to survive even beyond your material death should be your n1 objective from a purely logical standpoint
        Why would you want to live forever? And why do you even think it's more likely that not bashing some guy's head in would lead to this rather than bashing that guy's head in? Sounds like you're biased towards explanations that involve rabbis who walk on water and don't want you to jerk off, lol.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Why would you want to live forever?
          breasts. and video games.
          >And why do you even think it's more likely that not bashing some guy's head in would lead to this rather than bashing that guy's head in?
          In the only interesting scenario where not everyone goes into "heaven", it means ther eis a selection process. i find it more likely to be that siding with life and psitivty woud land you life and positivity. Its how it works in this life, so probably in the other.And would it be heaven if it was full of serial killers just torturing and killing each other? If you hosted a party, would you welcome chill people or people who want to cut you with a chainsaw? If there was a selection process, it would imo not be based on who stacks the most orange peels, but on morality, ie pro life actions, which is what allows to have a stable life in community in the first place, you get what you pay for type of thing. i think its way more likely but if you think you re more likely to get there by jumping a million times in a row or skullfricking babies you re free to do so, I just wouldnt personally bet on that
          >Sounds like you're biased towards explanations that involve rabbis who walk on water and don't want you to jerk off, lol.
          its gotta be something. if everyone gets there, no point thinking about it, im going for the useful and the meaningful. If its gotta be something, its what most likely to me.

          >rabbis
          I just think that israelites were very wise philosophers who thought just like me and made much more sense than autistic krauts and scandinasians who have trouble thinking beyond simplistic things. But if people are willing to gamble their future for a bunch of breadcrumbs that barely make their life better if at all, if not worse, they re free to do so.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >breasts. and video games.
            breasts and videogames for eternity sounds like torture. I don't know if you've ever been around very old people (90+), but they generally just want life to end because they've had enough.
            >In the only interesting scenario where not everyone goes into "heaven", it means ther eis a selection process.
            And you're applying anthropocentric reasoning to this process.
            So your thinking is basically:
            >There may be a first mover.
            >If there is a first mover, there may be an afterlife because people who believed in dragons and satyrs and shit connected the two in their folklore.
            >If there is an afterlife, it's possible that only some people get it, or only some get a good one.
            >If only some people get an afterlife or a good afterlife, it's possible that this depends on whether or not you bash some guy's head in with a shovel.
            You can stack ifs onto each other like this to make believe in anything.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            speak for yourself, I could be content with very few games. You also forget stuff every decade, at some poitn its like rewatchign for the first time and you get to enjoy more. You re some kindof workaholic that doesnt know how to enjoy life?

            Im just explaining to you that its the only meanigful and useful thing to do to perpetuate yourself. And that therfore people web that into the question of god and end up biased. It doesnt matter of it likely or not, you dont have a percentage. What matters is that it is the logical thing to do. If you want to be crazy thats ur problem
            >anything.
            They re not as useful therefore not worthy of attention

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >speak for yourself, I could be content with very few games. You also forget stuff every decade, at some poitn its like rewatchign for the first time and you get to enjoy more. You re some kindof workaholic that doesnt know how to enjoy life?
            You sound like you underestimate the concept of eternity and have very little life experience.
            >Im just explaining to you that its the only meanigful and useful thing to do to perpetuate yourself.
            If individual moments in life are not meaningful, then perpetuating life isn't meaningful either.
            >They re not as useful therefore not worthy of attention
            Let's try. The unmoved mover is a great artist driven by creative instinct. One of its projects within this universe is to create populations from which great artists will arise. The great artists will be given eternal life and the rest of the population will be annihilated. Why are you throwing away your eternal life by staring at breasts and playing vidyia instead of spending all your time improving your artistic capabilities? Are you stupid?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You sound like you underestimate the concept of eternity and have very little life experience.
            You sound like a larping gay. I very know myself and sure as frick would enjoy an eternity. I think you re the one who doesn't know wtf he's talking about. As far as sayign that people who are 95 years and can barely walk want to die, sure. But bad living conditions tend to increase peopel's will to die, you know?

            >then perpetuating life isn't meaningful either.
            I prefer 1% chance of infinite money to 100% chance of getting 50 cents. Don't you? Also you re acting like being immoral makes your life so much better than being moral. You cum harder? You enjoy food more? Things ar ecapped and you densissitive yourself thus increase the dose to get the same thing. You also miss on hope and purpose. I say I'm good.

            >Are you stupid?
            Probably but I think that if I have an eternity to spend, I probably won't just play game and stare at breasts 24 hours a day. What is the point of that question?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You sound like a larping gay. I very know myself and sure as frick would enjoy an eternity.
            Delusional.
            >As far as sayign that people who are 95 years and can barely walk want to die, sure. But bad living conditions tend to increase peopel's will to die, you know?
            It's not about living conditions. They're mentally done.
            >I prefer 1% chance of infinite money to 100% chance of getting 50 cents. Don't you?
            If the only meaningful thing is attaining immortality, then immortality consists of eternity of completely meaningless things.
            >Also you re acting like being immoral makes your life so much better than being moral.
            I probably live a more conventionally moral life than you.
            >Probably but I think that if I have an eternity to spend, I probably won't just play game and stare at breasts 24 hours a day. What is the point of that question?
            I think my question is quite clear. Why are you not devoting all your time to sharpen your artistic skills in order to be granted immortal life by the unmoved mover? At this rate you're just going to get annihilated.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Delusional.
            Not at all. I've lived a neet and felt like I could go for decades with very few games. Add on the pile that you forget things over time and can rediscover, that you can make up different ways to enjoy the same things, and that they might be much more than one or two games, and that I could also do many others things than playing games. It's a no brainer, I could even tank several eternities without batting an eye.
            >meaningless things
            Enjoyment isn't meaningless, perpetuation is superior to enjoyment because it allows you to enjoy more.
            >conventionally moral
            Let's not pretend that you could define morality to save your life

            >Why are you not devoting all your time to sharpen your artistic skills in order to be granted immortal life by the unmoved mover? At this rate you're just going to get annihilated.
            I already answered that question. You're going to ignore what I said and just repeat the same question?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not at all. I've lived a neet and felt like I could go for decades with very few games.
            Extrapolating your feelings about decades to eternity is why you're delusional.
            >Let's not pretend that you could define morality to save your life
            I said "conventional morality". I.e. don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, hell, even the common "don't jerk off". And so on and so forth.
            >I already answered that question. You're going to ignore what I said and just repeat the same question?
            You did not. I asked you why are you currently not spending all your time sharpening your artistic skills in order to be granted eternal life by the great artist prime mover and your response was that if you had eternal life, you wouldn't spend it all just playing vidyia. That doesn't answer the question.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you're delusional.
            Do you even read what I write? holy shit, k sorry but I have to conclude that you re stupid by now

            >I said "conventional morality". I.e. don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, hell, even the common "don't jerk off". And so on and so forth.
            and why the frick do you assume that you ar emore moral than me in this regard? and what does that have to do with the conversation?

            >You did not
            I did, but earlier in the thread. Just read

            >Why would you want to live forever?
            breasts. and video games.
            >And why do you even think it's more likely that not bashing some guy's head in would lead to this rather than bashing that guy's head in?
            In the only interesting scenario where not everyone goes into "heaven", it means ther eis a selection process. i find it more likely to be that siding with life and psitivty woud land you life and positivity. Its how it works in this life, so probably in the other.And would it be heaven if it was full of serial killers just torturing and killing each other? If you hosted a party, would you welcome chill people or people who want to cut you with a chainsaw? If there was a selection process, it would imo not be based on who stacks the most orange peels, but on morality, ie pro life actions, which is what allows to have a stable life in community in the first place, you get what you pay for type of thing. i think its way more likely but if you think you re more likely to get there by jumping a million times in a row or skullfricking babies you re free to do so, I just wouldnt personally bet on that
            >Sounds like you're biased towards explanations that involve rabbis who walk on water and don't want you to jerk off, lol.
            its gotta be something. if everyone gets there, no point thinking about it, im going for the useful and the meaningful. If its gotta be something, its what most likely to me.

            >rabbis
            I just think that israelites were very wise philosophers who thought just like me and made much more sense than autistic krauts and scandinasians who have trouble thinking beyond simplistic things. But if people are willing to gamble their future for a bunch of breadcrumbs that barely make their life better if at all, if not worse, they re free to do so.

            makes more sense than artistic skills

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you even read what I write? holy shit, k sorry but I have to conclude that you re stupid by now
            Yes, I do. That's how I conclude that you are entirely delusional.
            >and why the frick do you assume that you ar emore moral than me in this regard? and what does that have to do with the conversation?
            I am more moral than most people in this regard. I've never stolen anything, I've never cheated on anyone, I've told some lies in the past but don't do it anymore. I don't jerk off and I don't wish people any harm. I don't even eat meat if you want to get into eastern traditions.
            It's relevant because you keep trying to assign some kind of turbohedonistic attitude to me, but in reality it's you who wants to live forever in order to experience eternal pleasure.
            >I did, but earlier in the thread.
            You could act morally and also devote your time to sharpen your artistic skills. This would improve your odds of getting an eternal life because it covers both hypotheses, but you won't do it because you're a hypocrite.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No you don't. You ignored several of my points. Im telling you that i could last decades on a couple of games. I'm telling you thatyou can make up new ways to enjoy the same things. I'm telling you that instead of 2 games there probably would be a shit ton of them. i'm telling you that i would and could do many other things than games. And I'm telling you that you forget stuff rather quickly anyway so you could redo just a couple of stuff and you 'd be fine. And you have the nerves to ignore everything and just spam you re delusional. If you don't come up with argument form now on, you re either a troll or a moron, but for sure i will stop arguign with a wall.

            >you won't do it because you're a hypocrite.
            I won't do it because myg artistic skills would be at rthe expense of my morals actions during ym work time and the hypothesis of morality is much, much much more likely and sound than the random "expressing your artistic skills" which is rather similar to jumping 10000 times in a row since you provided 0 arguments for why this particular thing would make while i have provided several, which shows that clearly again, you either do not read, are stupid, or trolling.

            /thread

            typing thread isn't a logical argument, and ignoring the arguments of your interlocutor will not make you "win" the argument. Please go back to eating your own shit.

            >and by god i mean: example insert. I forgot to add this because the word has no meaning otherwise, youd have to guess what i mean by god.

            your ignorance of rather famous concepts has no weight as a logical argument, if makes you look like an idiot if anything

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Im telling you that i could last decades on a couple of games. I'm telling you thatyou can make up new ways to enjoy the same things. I'm telling you that instead of 2 games there probably would be a shit ton of them.
            You wouldn't even last the first quadrillion years like that.
            >And I'm telling you that you forget stuff rather quickly anyway so you could redo just a couple of stuff and you 'd be fine.
            So basically your ultimate goal in life is to get repeatedly mindwiped so you can play video games over and over? That's sad.
            >I won't do it because myg artistic skills would be at rthe expense of my morals actions during ym work time
            You could hone your artistic skills while you're not at work.
            >and the hypothesis of morality is much, much much more likely and sound than the random "expressing your artistic skills" which is rather similar to jumping 10000 times in a row
            Not so. The artist hypothesis is the one that takes the fewest leaps of logic.
            What do we know about the unmoved mover, assuming it exists? We know that it's a mind and that it created the universe with an act of its will. Assuming that it acts according to its values, the one value that we can derive from this is the creative act itself. So if we take the only thing we can go off, the one that takes the fewest leaps of logic, we can assume that it values those who engage in the creative act of the will - writers, painters, musicians etc.
            Very simple.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You wouldn't even last the first quadrillion years like that.
            And for what reason exactly?
            >So basically your ultimate goal in life is to get repeatedly mindwiped so you can play video games over and over? That's sad.
            Not really, it comes in different flavors, you can chose to forget a little, a lot or compeltely, you can write down stuff to do it differently. Of course you resort to strawmen since there are plenty of other things to do than play video games. Are you trolling, are you coping?

            >You could hone your artistic skills while you're not at work.
            who gives a frick

            > creative act itself.
            You can only create art in a safe society tied together by morality. You need free time, peace food and safety. Nor life in community nor prosperity are possible without a minimum amount of unity. Of course you could be a sociopathic leech. The act of morality precedes all others. People doing what they have to do. Also it doesnt fit the pay for what you get, get what you pay for aspect of life. In return for morality, you get a thriving, happiness and lfie in community. In return for art, you get art. You could make art and be an immoral POS. You re pro life , you get lfie seems more plausible than I spread death and misery but i receive life and happiness because i drew anime. Obviously you are being victriolic and bad faith, so your arguments are necessarily going to be weak. Morality is the reason why life survives and propser, lack of thereof is why it gears towards extinction with misery inbetween. Immorality is against lfie, and thus against God, since God made life when he didn't have to, and we re talking abotu a scenario where you woudl receive life; after a selection process, for people to prosper and thrive together.

            If you host a party, what is the most important factor for a guest, them drawing anime, or not throwing molotov wienertails and killing everyone in the party?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And for what reason exactly?
            I mean without your mind wipes.
            >Not really, it comes in different flavors, you can chose to forget a little, a lot or compeltely, you can write down stuff to do it differently. Of course you resort to strawmen since there are plenty of other things to do than play video games.
            Doesn't matter. You're like a fatty who eats three people's worth of food and then vomits it out so he can eat more.
            >who gives a frick
            You should if you want an afterlife.
            >You can only create art in a safe society tied together by morality. You need free time, peace food and safety.
            Incorrect. Many great pieces of art were created under or as a result of horrendous living conditions.
            >Also it doesnt fit the pay for what you get, get what you pay for aspect of life.
            That aspect is not even a real thing, the world is ruled by ruthless sociopaths. The entire reason why people make up karmic cycles is that, more often than not, justice isn't served and people don't get what they deserved.
            >If you host a party, what is the most important factor for a guest, them drawing anime, or not throwing molotov wienertails and killing everyone in the party?
            Very low IQ argument. You do not know about any of the hypothetical unmoved mover's values aside from the creative act itself, you're projecting your own values onto it just like every moronic dirt farmer since the dawn of humanity.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >so with infinite memory I ll get bored? Well maybe but we don't have infinite memory so thats that.
            >Doesn't matter.
            You re clearly arguing in bad faith
            >horrendous living conditions.
            incorrect. if they were really hrrendous they would have not be able to make them. im sure tghe artists were eating food grown by other people whoom not only could have not provided that person the food, but could have killed them to take their possessions instead. Its always relying on some form of unity and cooperation, but it is made clear at this point that you are a dumbass

            > the world is ruled by ruthless sociopaths.
            You don't know by whom the world is ruled. You are a larper. I know plebs like to pretend they know anything about what happens in the governement though. Plenty of them got fricked for what did. Because some manage to run away doesnt mean that the general rule is that there is a tit for tat going and that if you cut someones hand they probably won't want to hug you and thank you for your kindness

            >Very low IQ argument.
            You re a fricking moron so please abstain from typing these sentences.

            >values
            Ican try to guess. No one knows anything. If i have to guess i ll goo for what is most likely. You re extremely biased on top of being rather stupid.
            >own values
            risen form evolution and necessity, engraved in peoples brains, the world works because mothers raise their kids properly. tribes without values have disappeared, and only tribes with similar values survived. Especially for the most basic ones For the least, the filtering takes more time but it ultimately happens.

            >creative act itself
            immorality is essentially destructive and opposite to creation. btw you don't even know what morality is so how could you judge or even know what I'm talking about?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You re clearly arguing in bad faith
            I am arguing rigorously. I.e. first I address eternity without mindwipes, then I address the one with mindwipes (the ones where you're the ultimate hedonist running to the bathroom to puke out food you just ate so you can eat more).
            >incorrect. if they were really hrrendous they would have not be able to make them.
            So basically what you're saying is that it's fine to do immoral things as long as this only results in a society that is bad but still manages to keep people from starving to death, gotcha.
            >You don't know by whom the world is ruled. You are a larper. I know plebs like to pretend they know anything about what happens in the governement though.
            Oh yeah, sorry. The people in charge are the most moral and deserving of humanity, that much is obvious.
            >You re a fricking moron so please abstain from typing these sentences.
            You can barely put together a single sentence with correct grammar.
            >Ican try to guess. No one knows anything. If i have to guess i ll goo for what is most likely.
            And the one value that takes the fewest leaps of logic is that the unmoved mover values the creative act of the will.
            >risen form evolution and necessity, engraved in peoples brains, the world works because mothers raise their kids properly.
            You're just repeating your own values. The unmoved mover is neither a product of evolution nor subject to necessity.
            >immorality is essentially destructive and opposite to creation.
            Destruction is a component of creation.
            >btw you don't even know what morality is so how could you judge or even know what I'm talking about?
            I bet I'm more moral than you even by your own standards.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >without mindwipes,
            Which is obviously stupid
            > running to the bathroom to puke
            That's not true since the amount of possible things to do is vastly, vastly, vastly greater than the time to forget things. Do you feel like you re puking anytime you hear a joke you forgotten since you heard it 30 years ago? Do you think "pwha im a dirty ultimate puking hedonist !". That sound fricking moronic as shit. Take a deep breath and try to put your ego aside and you ll realize it.

            > immoral things
            I absolutety did not say that in any way but then again you are both moronic arguing in bad faith

            >the most moral
            >If they are not the most immoral then they must be the most moral
            You sound like a god damn woman. U on your periods?

            >You can barely put together a single sentence with correct grammar.
            I could if I wanted to, but you couldn't stop being moronic to save your life. And that's not a rebuttal. I did not just insult you, I also provided the reason why. I am making you look like a dumb kid at every sentence so far but judging from your level of moronation you probably don't have the sufficient self awareness to realize that. How old are you roughly is that not indiscreet?

            > creative act of the will.
            No and i explained wy, while you just make a claim while completely ignoring my explanations, AGAIN.

            >evolution
            evolution made by god, by his laws of physics precisely tuned to make this life possible, leading to the most coimplex structure in the universe, the human brain. You re asking for the most likely factors for HUMAN life, to receive life, so of course human factors enters the equation.

            >Destruction
            Not all destructions are equal. Some are good and some are bad. Good destruction is moral, bad destruction is immoral.

            >I bet I'm more moral than you even by your own standards.
            You re either a kid or a woman (or a homosexual)

            You re too young or whatever to keep up with this conversation.You re also very egocentric and bad faithed.The convo ends here.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Which is obviously stupid
            I am merely being rigorous, something you're incapable of.
            >That's not true since the amount of possible things to do is vastly, vastly, vastly greater than the time to forget things. Do you feel like you re puking anytime you hear a joke you forgotten since you heard it 30 years ago?
            You want a loop where you keep forgetting you played your vidyia just so you can play it later. Your only motivation is eternal dopamine dumps. You are the ultimate hedonist.
            >I absolutety did not say that in any way but then again you are both moronic arguing in bad faith
            If a certain state of society is a sufficient precondition for great art, you cannot argue thar you need more than that.
            >You sound like a god damn woman. U on your periods?
            If they are not, then they are not the most deserving and your principle fails.
            >And that's not a rebuttal. I did not just insult you, I also provided the reason why.
            So did I.
            >No and i explained wy, while you just make a claim while completely ignoring my explanations, AGAIN.
            And I argued against your claim.
            >evolution made by god, by his laws of physics precisely tuned to make this life possible, leading to the most coimplex structure in the universe, the human brain.
            If you count the means of human existence among the unmoved mover's values, then one of such values would be having sex. How are you doing on that front?
            >You re either a kid or a woman (or a homosexual)
            You cannot help but respond with impotent rage because you know I'm right about being more moral than you.
            >Not all destructions are equal
            This breaks your point about destruction being opposite to creation.
            >You re too young or whatever to keep up with this conversation.You re also very egocentric and bad faithed.The convo ends here.
            Once again spilling your spaghetti because you can't respond without getting emotionally invested.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            just stop. obviously i could btfo this moronic shit. stop talking to me.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you had any self control, you would've disengaged from the conversation yourself. Sadly you're a hyperhedonist who is slave to dopamine dumps from (You)s.

            btw you actually fricking lie. you keep ignoring my arguments, and when you insult you dont provide explanations while i do. You didnt argue against shit. people can read and will make their own opinion. quit it with your fricking demagogy lieing c**t

            Your problem is that whenever you disagree with an argument of mine, you file it under "didn't make an argument at all". You probably don't even know that you're doing this.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            but you literally didnt make an argument. You ignore my argument and you repeat the thing you already said. When i insult you i explain to you why you re moronic and what you say doesnt make sense. You re a lieing c**t.
            >blablabla the usual 'emotionally invested' 'self control' sociopath speech
            boring + the only reason you worship these things is because if you didnt do that youd end up in jail after a short time. 0 self awareness. i bet you re proud of not caring about stuff too dumbfrick. Anyone can read the post, just ve just lied all the way through for your last three or so posts. You re so dumb i can smell the oestrogen.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I did. I respond separately with arguments to arguments and with insults to insults. Pick one argument that you think I didn't answer and I'll quote where I wrote a counterargument.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you didn't and you keep lieing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            See? This is what I'm talking about. You can't pick out one argument that I didn't answer, you just have a vague feeling that you can't back up.
            Prove me wrong by quoting an argument that I didn't answer. Protip: you can't. And you will most likely write something like "most of them" in order to dodge having to provide evidence of your claim.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I answered your shitty non argument argument "You re the puke/ ultimate heodnist" found here :

            >You re clearly arguing in bad faith
            I am arguing rigorously. I.e. first I address eternity without mindwipes, then I address the one with mindwipes (the ones where you're the ultimate hedonist running to the bathroom to puke out food you just ate so you can eat more).
            >incorrect. if they were really hrrendous they would have not be able to make them.
            So basically what you're saying is that it's fine to do immoral things as long as this only results in a society that is bad but still manages to keep people from starving to death, gotcha.
            >You don't know by whom the world is ruled. You are a larper. I know plebs like to pretend they know anything about what happens in the governement though.
            Oh yeah, sorry. The people in charge are the most moral and deserving of humanity, that much is obvious.
            >You re a fricking moron so please abstain from typing these sentences.
            You can barely put together a single sentence with correct grammar.
            >Ican try to guess. No one knows anything. If i have to guess i ll goo for what is most likely.
            And the one value that takes the fewest leaps of logic is that the unmoved mover values the creative act of the will.
            >risen form evolution and necessity, engraved in peoples brains, the world works because mothers raise their kids properly.
            You're just repeating your own values. The unmoved mover is neither a product of evolution nor subject to necessity.
            >immorality is essentially destructive and opposite to creation.
            Destruction is a component of creation.
            >btw you don't even know what morality is so how could you judge or even know what I'm talking about?
            I bet I'm more moral than you even by your own standards.

            in this post, found here :

            >without mindwipes,
            Which is obviously stupid
            > running to the bathroom to puke
            That's not true since the amount of possible things to do is vastly, vastly, vastly greater than the time to forget things. Do you feel like you re puking anytime you hear a joke you forgotten since you heard it 30 years ago? Do you think "pwha im a dirty ultimate puking hedonist !". That sound fricking moronic as shit. Take a deep breath and try to put your ego aside and you ll realize it.

            > immoral things
            I absolutety did not say that in any way but then again you are both moronic arguing in bad faith

            >the most moral
            >If they are not the most immoral then they must be the most moral
            You sound like a god damn woman. U on your periods?

            >You can barely put together a single sentence with correct grammar.
            I could if I wanted to, but you couldn't stop being moronic to save your life. And that's not a rebuttal. I did not just insult you, I also provided the reason why. I am making you look like a dumb kid at every sentence so far but judging from your level of moronation you probably don't have the sufficient self awareness to realize that. How old are you roughly is that not indiscreet?

            > creative act of the will.
            No and i explained wy, while you just make a claim while completely ignoring my explanations, AGAIN.

            >evolution
            evolution made by god, by his laws of physics precisely tuned to make this life possible, leading to the most coimplex structure in the universe, the human brain. You re asking for the most likely factors for HUMAN life, to receive life, so of course human factors enters the equation.

            >Destruction
            Not all destructions are equal. Some are good and some are bad. Good destruction is moral, bad destruction is immoral.

            >I bet I'm more moral than you even by your own standards.
            You re either a kid or a woman (or a homosexual)

            You re too young or whatever to keep up with this conversation.You re also very egocentric and bad faithed.The convo ends here.

            And to my argument that explains how it doesnt make sense, you answered exactly the same fricking thing, found here

            >Which is obviously stupid
            I am merely being rigorous, something you're incapable of.
            >That's not true since the amount of possible things to do is vastly, vastly, vastly greater than the time to forget things. Do you feel like you re puking anytime you hear a joke you forgotten since you heard it 30 years ago?
            You want a loop where you keep forgetting you played your vidyia just so you can play it later. Your only motivation is eternal dopamine dumps. You are the ultimate hedonist.
            >I absolutety did not say that in any way but then again you are both moronic arguing in bad faith
            If a certain state of society is a sufficient precondition for great art, you cannot argue thar you need more than that.
            >You sound like a god damn woman. U on your periods?
            If they are not, then they are not the most deserving and your principle fails.
            >And that's not a rebuttal. I did not just insult you, I also provided the reason why.
            So did I.
            >No and i explained wy, while you just make a claim while completely ignoring my explanations, AGAIN.
            And I argued against your claim.
            >evolution made by god, by his laws of physics precisely tuned to make this life possible, leading to the most coimplex structure in the universe, the human brain.
            If you count the means of human existence among the unmoved mover's values, then one of such values would be having sex. How are you doing on that front?
            >You re either a kid or a woman (or a homosexual)
            You cannot help but respond with impotent rage because you know I'm right about being more moral than you.
            >Not all destructions are equal
            This breaks your point about destruction being opposite to creation.
            >You re too young or whatever to keep up with this conversation.You re also very egocentric and bad faithed.The convo ends here.
            Once again spilling your spaghetti because you can't respond without getting emotionally invested.

            literally repeating yourself while completely ignoring what I said.

            Here you make astrawman from oblivion without any logic whatsoever : "you're saying is that it's fine to do immoral things"

            >You re clearly arguing in bad faith
            I am arguing rigorously. I.e. first I address eternity without mindwipes, then I address the one with mindwipes (the ones where you're the ultimate hedonist running to the bathroom to puke out food you just ate so you can eat more).
            >incorrect. if they were really hrrendous they would have not be able to make them.
            So basically what you're saying is that it's fine to do immoral things as long as this only results in a society that is bad but still manages to keep people from starving to death, gotcha.
            >You don't know by whom the world is ruled. You are a larper. I know plebs like to pretend they know anything about what happens in the governement though.
            Oh yeah, sorry. The people in charge are the most moral and deserving of humanity, that much is obvious.
            >You re a fricking moron so please abstain from typing these sentences.
            You can barely put together a single sentence with correct grammar.
            >Ican try to guess. No one knows anything. If i have to guess i ll goo for what is most likely.
            And the one value that takes the fewest leaps of logic is that the unmoved mover values the creative act of the will.
            >risen form evolution and necessity, engraved in peoples brains, the world works because mothers raise their kids properly.
            You're just repeating your own values. The unmoved mover is neither a product of evolution nor subject to necessity.
            >immorality is essentially destructive and opposite to creation.
            Destruction is a component of creation.
            >btw you don't even know what morality is so how could you judge or even know what I'm talking about?
            I bet I'm more moral than you even by your own standards.

            you then say that because i said not al leaders are ruthless sociopaths, then all leaders most be the most moral

            then I said that "You can barely put together a single sentence with correct grammar." isn't a rebuttal to my argument, and that contrary to you I explaine dmyself with arguments. And you responded here

            >Which is obviously stupid
            I am merely being rigorous, something you're incapable of.
            >That's not true since the amount of possible things to do is vastly, vastly, vastly greater than the time to forget things. Do you feel like you re puking anytime you hear a joke you forgotten since you heard it 30 years ago?
            You want a loop where you keep forgetting you played your vidyia just so you can play it later. Your only motivation is eternal dopamine dumps. You are the ultimate hedonist.
            >I absolutety did not say that in any way but then again you are both moronic arguing in bad faith
            If a certain state of society is a sufficient precondition for great art, you cannot argue thar you need more than that.
            >You sound like a god damn woman. U on your periods?
            If they are not, then they are not the most deserving and your principle fails.
            >And that's not a rebuttal. I did not just insult you, I also provided the reason why.
            So did I.
            >No and i explained wy, while you just make a claim while completely ignoring my explanations, AGAIN.
            And I argued against your claim.
            >evolution made by god, by his laws of physics precisely tuned to make this life possible, leading to the most coimplex structure in the universe, the human brain.
            If you count the means of human existence among the unmoved mover's values, then one of such values would be having sex. How are you doing on that front?
            >You re either a kid or a woman (or a homosexual)
            You cannot help but respond with impotent rage because you know I'm right about being more moral than you.
            >Not all destructions are equal
            This breaks your point about destruction being opposite to creation.
            >You re too young or whatever to keep up with this conversation.You re also very egocentric and bad faithed.The convo ends here.
            Once again spilling your spaghetti because you can't respond without getting emotionally invested.

            : "So did I". When you clearly didn't, you just said "grammar bad".

            And other examples but cba. you re a lieing moronic c**t, period. Or in this case, periods. Ciao

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you answered exactly the same fricking thin^
            Your rebuttal didn't address the core of my argument. If you had the choice of forgetting a joke or not forgetting a joke, the choice to forget it in order to enjoy hearing it again would be hedonistic, albeit on a small scale. You want this on a massive scale.
            >Here you make astrawman from oblivion without any logic whatsoever
            It's the conclusion of your argument. If morality is what is desirable or what the unmoved mover desires because it's for the creation of art, then this role is fulfilled as soon as the precondition creates a sufficient environment from which art arises. For instance, I would call the USSR immoral by conventional standards, but it was good enough for the emergence of fantastic art.
            >you then say that because i said not al leaders are ruthless sociopaths, then all leaders most be the most moral
            Hyperbole. The point is that most leaders aren't even close to being the most morally deserving of their positions.
            >then I said that "You can barely put together a single sentence with correct grammar." isn't a rebuttal to my argument, and that contrary to you I explaine dmyself with arguments.
            The specific thing I responded to was you saying "You re a fricking moron so please abstain from typing these sentences" in a separate paragraph quoting "Very low IQ argument." If you look further back, you will see that "very low IQ argument" was accompanied by an explanation of why I think so, but you split that into two parts - responding to the insult with an insult and responding to the argument (specifically with "Ican try to guess. No one knows anything. If i have to guess i ll goo for what is most likely. You re extremely biased on top of being rather stupid.") I then responded to your response to the argument with an argument of my own ("And the one value that takes the fewest leaps of logic is that the unmoved mover values the creative act of the will.")

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You fricking liar, here the complete sentence >If you host a party, what is the most important factor for a guest, them drawing anime, or not throwing molotov wienertails and killing everyone in the party?
            >Very low IQ argument. You do not know about any of the hypothetical unmoved mover's values aside from the creative act itself, you're projecting your own values onto it just like every moronic dirt farmer since the dawn of humanity.

            I made a valid argument and you responded very low IQ while completely ignoring the argument. Of course after insulting me without giving any argument, I defended myself by insulting you. You pretend you re the victim when you re the agressor. And two times during this argument, you didnt provide argument while ignoring arguments I did provide. Try harder lieing c**t.

            >Your rebuttal didn't address
            It did. The core of the argumentis that living forever would not be a bad thing. All you can find as a counter argument is repeating "its hedonistic lololol puke puke !"

            >It's the conclusion of your argument.
            If you assume the moronic conclusion that you drew, that the most likely factor for passing th heaven selection process would be to make art, which i showed was a qutie weak argument, that you didnt strenghten, since immorality is a bad form of destruction cuz
            >This breaks your point about destruction being opposite to creation.
            It doesnt since good destruction lead to more creation while bad is just a total minus

            >Hyperbole.
            you just dont wanna admit you re a feminine moron that answers like an idiot with stupid argument as you try to be right at all costs, including logic and reason, while being offtopic at the same time. good job!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I made a valid argument and you responded very low IQ while completely ignoring the argument.
            My response was that you don't know the unmoved mover's values and are merely projecting your own. You may not like this response, but you can't pretend that I didn't make it.
            >It did. The core of the argumentis that living forever would not be a bad thing. All you can find as a counter argument is repeating "its hedonistic lololol puke puke !"
            My rebuttal was that your motives for wanting to have an afterlife where you forget things instead of one where you want are hedonistic. You may not like this response, but you can't pretend I didn't make it.
            >which i showed was a qutie weak argument, that you didnt strenghten
            You once again simply didn't like my arguments so you file it under "didn't make any arguments". See? I was right.
            >It doesnt since good destruction lead to more creation while bad is just a total minus
            Bulgakov wouldn't have written The Master and Margarita if it weren't for the immoral actions of the soviet regime.
            >you just dont wanna admit you re a feminine moron that answers like an idiot with stupid argument as you try to be right at all costs, including logic and reason, while being offtopic at the same time. good job!
            Just say you don't like hyperbole. This spergout doesn't address the argument about undeserving people rising to positions of power.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Who cares if i dont know the values. I asked you a question and you dodged it because it was inconvenient for your narrative. You re irrational and try to be right at the cost of logic.

            >You may not like this response, but you can't pretend I didn't make it.
            my motive for an afterlife being hedonistic isn't a counterpoint to living forever beign a good and agreable thing. The core of the argument was that eternal life sucked, which is the argument that you tried to make. You re so fricking dumb. Can you please take a moment to admit that you are not as smart as youthink you are and make many mistakes? please?

            >You once again
            i made multiple argument. You ignore them. You pretend they didnt happen. Your stance is very weak and I explained why. my stance is strong and I explained why. You merely make claims. You dont answer to my counter points. You did this multiple times. And you re completely blind to it. I respond to all your argument maybe minus exceptions. You just don't want to admit it. Or you re just a fricking woman and engage in typical behavior where you onyl think about what is convenient to you and forget all the rest. Bipolar maybe?

            >Bulgakov wouldn't have written
            Whatever but thats not a counter argument. You keep answering on the side and dodging the main point everytime. Its not looking good for you. And you still rely on something that you failed to defend correctly. you re assuming that the act of creating art is more mlikely to weight in the selective process of being accepted into some heaven, which is obviously stupid for reasons i mentioned. Why do you argue assuming that the conclusion has even been reached? Trying to slide in sneakily your opinions?
            >Just say you don't like hyperbole
            That wasnt an hyperbole. This was fmeinine behavior reacting in a typical stupid feminine way to being wrong while the feminine ego refuses to. Then you say afterwards, "its not what I actually meant" to save face after the fault

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Who cares if i dont know the values. I asked you a question and you dodged it
            I did not dodge the question, I pointed out that it rests on faulty premises. Who I would invite to a party has no bearing on who an unmoved mover would give eternal life unless I project my own values onto him. And if I did, I'd have to conclude that he wouldn't invite you.
            >my motive for an afterlife being hedonistic isn't a counterpoint to living forever beign a good and agreable thing.
            It's a counterpoint to your core argument. If you admit that you're driven by hedonism, your entire argument collapses.
            >i made multiple argument. You ignore them.
            I did not, you just didn't like my responses as demonstrated above.
            >Whatever but thats not a counter argument.
            It is. It's an example of moral evil being a necessary precondition for a piece of great art.
            >you re assuming that the act of creating art is more mlikely to weight in the selective process of being accepted into some heaven, which is obviously stupid for reasons i mentioned. Why do you argue assuming that the conclusion has even been reached?
            You're the one who started arguing about morality as a precondition for art, not me. I'm merely following that thread of conversation. Do you want me to drop it and not reply to those arguments?
            >That wasnt an hyperbole. This was fmeinine behavior reacting in a typical stupid feminine way to being wrong while the feminine ego refuses to.
            It was a hyperbole, and an effective one at that given that you completely dropped that thread of the argument. You're not back to just getting emotional over it instead of responding to the argument itself.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I would also argue than the great art created in diffcult times comes from moral people, since immoral people would find this pretty normal and wouldnt have their hearts wrenched since they would have no heart to speak of, and would rather be busy kidnapping kids to rape them and eat them or whatever. Because immorality and pain would contrast with a more serene and routine life, people acting like savages would contrast with agreable neighbors.

            >It was a hyperbole,
            It was an hyperbole in form. The essence was you sperging and being egocentric. On top of it, its again offtopic. I dont agree that leaders are immoral, but in the hypothetical where they would be, what does that have to do with anything?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            see

            >quantum eternity theorem
            If it is such a groundbreaking truth why the frick doesnt google return a wiki entry?

            >I did not dodge the question,
            You did and you keep doing it. Its a simple question. The answer is you would prioritize the person that deosnt light up the room on fire with molotovs. If heaven means you re not alone, it means life in community, which means morality and cooperation, the same immorality that destroy and goes against life in this world. You can't really call it heaven if its full of murderers trying to light you on fire can you?

            > If you admit that you're driven by hedonism, your entire argument collapses.
            Uh what? Canyou enlitghten me about this core argument. What is this core argument that you speak of, that is collapse by hedonism?

            >I did not,
            If you re going to lie and be bipolar, then i will sotp answer. i wont scout through the thread to quote every sentence to show you you are wrong, im not your god damn baby sitter

            >precondition for a piece of great art.
            Sure but its completely offtopic. you have yet to show that artistic profiency is more likely to make you pass than morality.

            >morality as a precondition for art,
            And it is, since i also answer that more immorality would have prevented him from making this art. Then you say, a mid level of morality is better than more morality for art. While it is true to some degree, it doesnt change the fact that morality is required for people to have spare time and safetyto make art, and that regardless its not argument for making morality equal or less important for the prosperity of life. There are other things than art in life, it doesnt revolve around art. But morality is a precondition for everything good ibn general. You can always find localized and slight counter examples, but the strength of ym argument vastly outweights yours. Friendship, safety, proesperity, health, education, etc etc. Morality is lights years beyond mere "art".

            before

            I would also argue than the great art created in diffcult times comes from moral people, since immoral people would find this pretty normal and wouldnt have their hearts wrenched since they would have no heart to speak of, and would rather be busy kidnapping kids to rape them and eat them or whatever. Because immorality and pain would contrast with a more serene and routine life, people acting like savages would contrast with agreable neighbors.

            >It was a hyperbole,
            It was an hyperbole in form. The essence was you sperging and being egocentric. On top of it, its again offtopic. I dont agree that leaders are immoral, but in the hypothetical where they would be, what does that have to do with anything?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You really want to do this thing where we write multiple walls of text at each other? Sorry, but once you start writing each reply into several posts, I'm out.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I posted two answers because of character limit, and I posted the second anwser before the first one because I fricked up, it happens

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            btw you actually fricking lie. you keep ignoring my arguments, and when you insult you dont provide explanations while i do. You didnt argue against shit. people can read and will make their own opinion. quit it with your fricking demagogy lieing c**t

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You wouldn't even last the first quadrillion years like that.
            And for what reason exactly?
            >So basically your ultimate goal in life is to get repeatedly mindwiped so you can play video games over and over? That's sad.
            Not really, it comes in different flavors, you can chose to forget a little, a lot or compeltely, you can write down stuff to do it differently. Of course you resort to strawmen since there are plenty of other things to do than play video games. Are you trolling, are you coping?

            >You could hone your artistic skills while you're not at work.
            who gives a frick

            > creative act itself.
            You can only create art in a safe society tied together by morality. You need free time, peace food and safety. Nor life in community nor prosperity are possible without a minimum amount of unity. Of course you could be a sociopathic leech. The act of morality precedes all others. People doing what they have to do. Also it doesnt fit the pay for what you get, get what you pay for aspect of life. In return for morality, you get a thriving, happiness and lfie in community. In return for art, you get art. You could make art and be an immoral POS. You re pro life , you get lfie seems more plausible than I spread death and misery but i receive life and happiness because i drew anime. Obviously you are being victriolic and bad faith, so your arguments are necessarily going to be weak. Morality is the reason why life survives and propser, lack of thereof is why it gears towards extinction with misery inbetween. Immorality is against lfie, and thus against God, since God made life when he didn't have to, and we re talking abotu a scenario where you woudl receive life; after a selection process, for people to prosper and thrive together.

            If you host a party, what is the most important factor for a guest, them drawing anime, or not throwing molotov wienertails and killing everyone in the party?

            I'll add that you picked the worst example you could find, trying to dishonestly nitpick, because immorality leads to death and destruction, and destruction is polar opposite to creation

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >God is by definition eternal
        So "god" is useless and arbitrary conceptual tool that you sneakily define in such a way as to avoid all explanation and justification.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Invoking god doesn't actually explain anything. It just places unanswerable questions about causality into a box and arbitrarily declares that people aren't allowed to look inside and ask questions about it.

        Theists think this is some kind of epic dunk on atheists, but it's really just a sneaky rhetorical slight-of-hand where they try to make themselves immune to being held to the same standards that they apply to everyone else.

        You don't get to declare "god" off limits to questioning or investigation because you conventienly define it as "inherently eternal".

        Furthermore, such definitions are so abstract and broad that they basically undermine the specificities of what most theists imply when they mention god. Why add the extra step of "god"? Why can't the universe itself be its own "uncaused cause" in all its incomprehensible, impersonal vastness? Why can't the universe simply be eternal? The only thing keeping you clinging to notions of god is your emotional attachment to the idea.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          /thread

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Unalloyed truth

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            coping hard huh?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >God is by definition eternal
        The universe by definition is eternal.

        >God is by definition eternal
        So "god" is useless and arbitrary conceptual tool that you sneakily define in such a way as to avoid all explanation and justification.

        Yes

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The universe by definition is eternal.
          You missed the part where that's not true.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You missed the part where that's not true
            It isn't there

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            oh so you re just moronic.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >effeminate seething
            I've never been more convinced God isn't real. Thank you

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No problem moron, have a nice one.

            the irony

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    k i'm out, seems like I can't find a worthy adversary. Maybe I'm just skillcapped? cya lader

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    k im out for real this time weak philosophers, cya tomorrow for more owning if allah wills

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If the physical universe is eternal, would it be out of the realm of reason for God as the eternal metaphysical counterpart to it? Both logically represent all that there is, though I as an atheist have a bit of trouble with the latter. I feel God could better represent the morality and collective consciousness of its adherents but I think that might be a heresy.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      A finite universe could have been created by something else. An eternal universe could only have been created by the all powerful God

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why would anyone argue that there's a creator?
    He must be fricking moronic if so. Why would you want that?

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >and by god i mean: example insert. I forgot to add this because the word has no meaning otherwise, youd have to guess what i mean by god.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The point is there in no good reson to believe in god

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >provide a proof than the universe is eternal
    There literally IS a proof that the universe is eternal. It's called the quantum eternity theorem
    If you have a universe that obeys the conventional rules of quantum mechanics (ours does), has a non-zero energy (ours does), and the individual laws of physics are themselves not changing with time (like ours), that universe is necessarily eternal.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >quantum eternity theorem
      If it is such a groundbreaking truth why the frick doesnt google return a wiki entry?

      >I did not dodge the question,
      You did and you keep doing it. Its a simple question. The answer is you would prioritize the person that deosnt light up the room on fire with molotovs. If heaven means you re not alone, it means life in community, which means morality and cooperation, the same immorality that destroy and goes against life in this world. You can't really call it heaven if its full of murderers trying to light you on fire can you?

      > If you admit that you're driven by hedonism, your entire argument collapses.
      Uh what? Canyou enlitghten me about this core argument. What is this core argument that you speak of, that is collapse by hedonism?

      >I did not,
      If you re going to lie and be bipolar, then i will sotp answer. i wont scout through the thread to quote every sentence to show you you are wrong, im not your god damn baby sitter

      >precondition for a piece of great art.
      Sure but its completely offtopic. you have yet to show that artistic profiency is more likely to make you pass than morality.

      >morality as a precondition for art,
      And it is, since i also answer that more immorality would have prevented him from making this art. Then you say, a mid level of morality is better than more morality for art. While it is true to some degree, it doesnt change the fact that morality is required for people to have spare time and safetyto make art, and that regardless its not argument for making morality equal or less important for the prosperity of life. There are other things than art in life, it doesnt revolve around art. But morality is a precondition for everything good ibn general. You can always find localized and slight counter examples, but the strength of ym argument vastly outweights yours. Friendship, safety, proesperity, health, education, etc etc. Morality is lights years beyond mere "art".

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If it is such a groundbreaking truth why the frick doesnt google return a wiki entry?
        It does, and it's not "such a groundbreaking theorem" it's just a direct consequence of the time evolution of the schrodinger equation. Literally everyone who actually knows QM knows it implies the universe is eternal. That's part of the reason why eternal inflation is the current model in cosmology (not the whole reason though)

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          if it does then why doesnt it show up when i google it?

          >you're unpleasant to talk to.
          Maybe because you are a sociopathic liar arguing in bad faith and are wasting my time while ignoring arguments and making up offtopic constantly?

          >Atheists are supposedly just coping due to hedonism,
          They re not coping. They re biased. This thread is to show that there is no logic to it, and that at the very minimum, their opinion doesnt have any more strength, and is equally biased. Its obviously not the topic of the current discussion we were having at ALL, which AGAIN, confirms that you are a dishonest lying c**t, and that the bullshit you said about hedonism has NOTHING to do with eternity in heaven being bad, which means you were completely dodging and answering outside the question, and now you manage to catch up on your feet by saing "oh actually i was talking about original post of the thread which has absolutely fricking nothign to do with the current conversation we were having for several walls of text, you fricking lying c**t. So now tell me how is eternity in heaven a bad thing? Or you have to admit that its not.

          >You won't give any more because you can't find any.
          I can not because I cant fidn them but because it is tedious. You also didnt answer properly, because while it nwas better than nothing, still showed a propension to dodge argumentions, answer outside of the topic, assume conclucions and thus general intellectual dishonesty

          >I will readily concede that if we're specifically talking about an afterlife where no evil exists and you live in a community of other resurrected humans, acting morally is more likely to get you there than acting immorally.

          It took you quite some time.

          >if you ever act immorally,
          We re all born ignorant and all have acted immoraly since we re the products of a lot of external things especially initially. Thats a pointless thing to ponder about, this heaven of perfect people doesnt exist, or very unlikely

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if it does then why doesnt it show up when i google it?
            It shows up when I google it just fine. You're not googling it there you're searching wiki. Just look up the schrodinger equation.
            Also I'm a different guy to the other guy, you need to reply to each post individually.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            can you link me the wikipedia link about it please if it's such an important and admitted by consensus theorem?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If heaven means you re not alone, it means life in community, which means morality and cooperation, the same immorality that destroy and goes against life in this world. You can't really call it heaven if its full of murderers trying to light you on fire can you?
        By this standard, you wouldn't go to heaven because you're unpleasant to talk to. Also likely less moral than me.
        >Canyou enlitghten me about this core argument.
        Atheists are supposedly just coping due to hedonism, yet your entire argument is hedonistically motivated.
        >If you re going to lie and be bipolar, then i will sotp answer.
        I disproved the examples of me supposedly not providing counterargument that you already gave. You won't give any more because you can't find any.
        >Sure but its completely offtopic.
        Then you shouldn't have brought it up.
        >Then you say, a mid level of morality is better than more morality for art.
        Exactly, you're reading my mind!
        >But morality is a precondition for everything good ibn general.
        I will readily concede that if we're specifically talking about an afterlife where no evil exists and you live in a community of other resurrected humans, acting morally is more likely to get you there than acting immorally. However, this raises a few problems.
        First, if you ever act immorally, I don't see how you can enter such an afterlife. At best, you could enter an afterlife where only a little evil exists.
        Second, you are limiting your options by not working towards afterlives where a certain level of morality is only a means to an end.
        Thirdly, you are not addressing various miscellaneous afterlives where you don't interact with other resurrected humans.
        >You can always find localized and slight counter examples, but the strength of ym argument vastly outweights yours.
        And I think my argument for the act of creative will as the unmoved mover's value is better than your argument.
        >inb4 why
        As I said earlier, because it makes the fewest logical leaps.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >you are limiting your options
          A moral heaven is what interests me the most, and considering immorality is the main source of man made suffering, i firmly believe that to pass such a filter it would be the most important thing. Im not gonna go after make art, jump 10000 times in a row or utter the magic word

          >where you don't interact with other resurrected humans.
          Morality mainly makes sense in community environments. Unless you would hurt yourself but why the frick would you do that

          >And I think my argument for the act of creative will as the unmoved mover's value is better than your argument.
          for no reason at all, yet again ignoring everything i said and pretending to be dumber than you are in a dishonest fashion

          >fewest logical leaps.
          You just said

          >acting morally is more likely to get you there than acting immorally

          You re arguing fore both side? OR you seek an heaven full of murderers that paint things between two sessions of torture, potentially on you? I m not interested by that afterlife.
          Morality is lniked with life, immorality with death. What does art have to do with anything? You re asking for an afterlife, not for a Picasso collection.

  15. 2 months ago
    Radiochan

    Which God
    What conception of God and why
    Why should anybody care about what God

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Btw an eternal universe doesn't disprove god at all. I could ask you as well the proof of the universe spawning space, time, matter and laws of physics on its own without external intervention, and you would have none. You just assume it just happened and we got very lucky out of bias

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Either God made the universe, or the universe is eternal
    False dichotomy

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No. Either it spawned without god intervention, or it did. It would be too much to ask from you to use your brain and derive the obvious conclusions
      >not its not because muh multiverse
      we get it you re very smart read the fricking thread or dont

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Still a false dichotomy

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          nope

          >That is not true as I have elements,that I will ignore for the sake of this particular conversation. lets pretend it is the case : the reverse works as well. There is nothing more logical in prtetend the universe is eternal than a god making it. You have proof of no and prioritize one out of bias.
          The point that you're not understanding here is that whether the universe is or is not eternal is a question that can be answered by doing tests and mathematics to discover the answer. If it turns out that the universe is not eternal, then science will conclude that. If it turns out that the evidence and math points to the universe being eternal, then we accept that. It has nothing to do with a priori logic, it's a posteriori discoveries that we're making and deriving with mathematics.
          >provide your proof, just as you ask me to provide mine.
          I already did, and you can google it just fine as I just showed with the picture in the previous post.
          >There is exactly 0 theorem that proves that there is no god. I gave you the benefit of the doubt but you re a slimy random moron. Have an excellent day, end of the conversation. I dont have to answer anything else to a person that makes such incredibly stupid claims.
          You don't need a theroem that there is no god, you need one that there is a god, which dont exist (Godel and other ontological proofs aren't sound).

          Why do you care so much about there being a god? There simply isn't one, dude. The universe itself is the "god' in that it is the thing that creates itself and is eternal. There is no outside conscious creator deity here.

          >The point that you're not understanding here is that whether the universe i
          Yet the math doesn't exist, and people still assume that there is no God for no logical reason.

          >I already did
          You didn't, schordinger shit isnt proven there is a lot of bullshit going on, different axioms etc, I did a bit amount of reading and we are nowhere near the level of confidence you are describing. The reason why you exaggerate that confience is because you are biased against the idea of god, and conversely biased for the ideas that do not involve God. Obviously as a biased person, you refuse to admit it. You are not less religious than anyone, you pretend to be logical but pretending isn't enough to actually be.
          >You don't need a theroem that there is no god
          To claim that ther eis no such tihng as a God, yes you do. People thought the earth was flat and they could ask for a proof that it was round.

          Truth is back then there was proof for none. You are trying to claim a priority that simply does not exist. basically saying I am right because. You provide no legitimate justification as to why you would have priority. A god existing and creating the world is a claim as extraordinary as satyign that suddenly the universe just spawned space time matter and physiocs out its butthole, or that we live in a simulation, or that there are infinite multiverses shitting each other through realities each with different tuning of the laws of physics. Yet you claim your position is superior and has the high ground with NO JUSTIFICATION.

          >Why do you care so much about there being a god?
          Why do you care so much about there not being a god?

          > There simply isn't one, dude.
          Ok, dude. You should write a philosophical book and name it "It is what it is, dude."

          >The universe itself is the "god'
          So there is a god now? lol

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yet the math doesn't exist, and people still assume that there is no God for no logical reason.
            There are many theorems that point toward eternal universe and multiverses, and none that point to a god
            >You didn't, schordinger shit isnt proven there is a lot of bullshit going on, different axioms etc, I did a bit amount of reading and we are nowhere near the level of confidence you are describing. The reason why you exaggerate that confience is because you are biased against the idea of god, and conversely biased for the ideas that do not involve God. Obviously as a biased person, you refuse to admit it. You are not less religious than anyone, you pretend to be logical but pretending isn't enough to actually be.
            The schrodinger equation is proven

            >To claim that ther eis no such tihng as a God, yes you do. People thought the earth was flat and they could ask for a proof that it was round.
            No, you seem to not understand how proofs work. This is how it works:

            The natural state of assumption is called the null assumption, and it's the statement or conclusion that something does NOT EXIST or that there IS NOT a correlation between things. You do not a priori decide that something does exist, you need evidence for it. Then, you provide evidence and proofs in the form of testable hypothesis and mathematical theorems, to try to reject the null hypothesis. If the amount of evidence and such is great enough (that what is called the p-value gets lower than a very small number), you reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there actually is something there or there actually is a causal relation between things etc.
            There, logically, rationally, empirically and objectively, DOES NOT NEED TO BE PROOF AGAINST GOD. THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE IS NO GOD IS THE NULL HYPOTHESIS. YOU ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE TO GIVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS.
            I honestly don't understand why this is so difficult for theists and such to understand.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There are many theorems that point toward eternal universe and multiverses, and none that point to a god
            And 0 proof. Maths theorems are not the gotcha that you think they are. IF anything you sound like someone that doesn't know what he is talking about, but pretends to know much more than he actually does in order to win the conversation while not ahving to question his personal beliefs. bias again

            >The schrodinger equation is proven

            Uhh no? its used because it has overlap with other areas , then again you make random claims like a science homosexual because you have no actual understanding of it.

            >you need evidence for it
            therefore you should assume that the universe isnt eternal or that there are not multiverses since science has currently 0 proof for any of these claims. You re not fooling me with your pretense and overconfidence.

            >you reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there actually is something there or there actually is a causal relation between things etc.
            all things you wont be able to do for a simulation, multiverse, pre big bang or whatever. Because these are things are mostly out of reach. Therefore you cannot rely on them. You re also sayign than the perosnal understanding of reality of any person only relies on mathematics and observation whi is objectively wrong. You have plenty of beliefs unproven by the things you are saying yet you assume they are true, but you ask for physical proofs and observations when things do not fit your narrative because you are BIASED.

            >DOES NOT NEED TO BE PROOF AGAINST GOD.
            To claim that there is no God, yes you need a proof. Caplock will not change this extrmeely simple fact, nor quoting offtopic stuff like p-values, lmfao

            >I honestly don't understand
            The only factual sentence you wrote in this wall of text.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And 0 proof. Maths theorems are not the gotcha that you think they are. IF anything you sound like someone that doesn't know what he is talking about, but pretends to know much more than he actually does in order to win the conversation while not ahving to question his personal beliefs. bias again
            I never said there were proofs. I said there exists a theorem which states that if quantum mechanics holds, the universe has non zero energy, and the laws of physics don't change, then that necessarily implies the universe is eternal. Your original statement is that there is no such proof, but there is.

            The schrodinger equation is extrodinarily well tested. You are the one who doesn't actually know what he's talking about.

            I never said I believe in simulations or anything. My statement was that there do exist mathematical theorems which point towards eternal universes, while there do not exist any theorems which point toward divine creations. If there were, they would be evidence that would lower the P value and if there were enough of them, we'd reject the null hypothesis.

            >To claim that there is no God, yes you need a proof.
            No, you don't. The negative of a statement is the null hypothesis and you need evidence to reject it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >To claim that there is no God, yes you need a proof. Caplock will not change this extrmeely simple fact, nor quoting offtopic stuff like p-values, lmfao
            P values are not "off topic" you shit for brains moron, that's how logical reasoning with a posteriori evidence works lmfao. you literally don't know what the frick you're talking about.
            The converstation about P value is precisely the thing that completely eliminates your flawed understanding.

            >I don't.
            You certainly seem like you do.
            >There might be a god and there might not be a god
            Wow, you moved from hardcore atheism to agnosticism from one post to another. You're a quick learner. Keep going.

            >P-value
            What do pvalues have to do with philosophy though?
            >So I currently conclude there is no god.
            Lol

            >You certainly seem like you do.
            No, I don't. Again you don't understand how actual reasoning works.

            I will explain it for you again, hopefully this time you will understand:
            The claim "something does not exist" does not require evidence. It is the claim that there is nothing there, i.e. null, and thus it is the null hypothesis. The claim "something does exist' is the positive claim and it is the one that requires evidence in order to reject the null hypothesis

            12 iq mexican

            He really is lol

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >there exists a theorem
            there are theorem for a low of things, none for proving multiverses or the absence of god

            >then that necessarily implies the universe is eternal.
            and how so exactly?

            >while there do not exist any theorems which point toward divine creations
            Thats like saying there is no theorem of selfishness therefore selfishness doesn't exist. I don't know if you realize how moronic you sound here. Like I said you have no proofs and you exaggerate the strength of what you are saying precisely because you have no idea about it, you re probably a hobbyist that rehashes scientific articles. And thats probably like 2% of atheists. For the other 98% what would you say is the reason for their preference, outside of bias? Is there anywhere to run and pretend for those?
            >I never said I believe in simulations or anything
            Many ahtiests believe in simulation, and you said yourself there were theorems for multiverse which isn't much more farfetched than simulations, and a huge cope out of bias if there is any.

            >The negative of a statement is the null hypothesis and you need evidence to reject it.
            That's not how real life works. It seems that your passion for science fried your ability to think freely and turned into a religion.

            Can you explain me this sir?
            >However, studies of the significance of p-values are suggesting limited value of its intended use
            Can you explain also how you use p-values for barely observable or quantifiable hings? Philosophical things, psychological things?

            >No, I don't. Again you don't understand how actual reasoning works.

            THIS is how reasoning works, and not any other way !! WAHHHH !!!!

            >The claim "something does not exist" does not require evidence
            It objectively does depsite what your bible and childhood indoctrination says. Now why you prioritize something that has lements that could make you thing something is possible, versus option b that equally has elments is possible, that's called bias.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            P-values and statistical regression are used literally all the time in psychology, wtf are you talking about.

            You are the one who literally said "the schrodinger equation isn't proven" clearly showing that you don't know what the frick you're talking about whatsoever, you claim linear regression isn't used in psychology, yet you pretend I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about lmfao

            >That's not how real life works. It seems that your passion for science fried your ability to think freely and turned into a religion.
            Yes, it is. It is exactly how logical induction and reasoning works in real life and in scientific fields.

            I'm going to explain it one more time, with an example, hopefully you understand it:

            I make the claim "I fricked your mom last night".
            You respond "prove it".
            Then I reply "No, you have to prove that I DIDN'T frick your mom last night"
            I am the one making the positive claim, so I am the one that has to provide proof that I did in fact frick your mom last night. I have to provide pictures, or text messages, or get your mom to confirm that it did happen, etc. Otherwise I am making a baseless claim with no evidence. The null hypothesis is that I didn't frick your mom, I am the one who has to prove that I did.

            God creating the universe is the same thing. It is not a special category (special pleading). If you are making the claim that the universe was created by a conscious personal god with free will etc., then you are the one who has to provide evidence of it. If I am claiming that the universe is eternal and such then I have to provide evidence for it. As it is now, there is no evidence whatsoever for the universe being created by a god, there is a decent amount of evidence for the universe being eternal, and we can't reject the null hypothesis.

            It really is that simple. As it stands, there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a god and no reason to believe there is.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >P-values and statistical regression are used literally all the time in psychology
            Oh, they re used in god damn Psychologyso it means it is the barometer of truth for hard cold truth of the universe. Ok buddy. I heckin love science too !!

            > clearly showing that you don't know what the frick you're talking about whatsoever
            it's literally not proven. YOU have 0 idea of what you re talking about, or maybe you have a problem with the definition of the word proven, Mr science hobbyist

            >Yes, it is.
            No it's not and I refuse to argue with a literal moron about the most basic facts of life, enjoy your autism. You probably have to cling to these systems to make sense of life out of neurological deficiency or at best childhood indoctrination which the purpose of was to hire more engineers, and you re a sad victim

            >blabla
            Because you can't prove that you fricked my mom doesn't mean that I can make the claim that you didn't frick my mom, nor will I believe it with certainty despite your indoctrination mr autist, especially if you live near around my mom s house, know the adress, talked to her several times and I know the propension of my mom for having casual sex with younger people

            >
            It really is that simple.
            i'm sorry but you have muh science brain, you re not actually logical. There ar ethe rules of logic of an internal system, like mathematics, and then there is logic in real life, you re the religious person here.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it's literally not proven. YOU have 0 idea of what you re talking about, or maybe you have a problem with the definition of the word proven, Mr science hobbyist
            The schrodinger equation has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, evolution by natural selection has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, general relativity has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, chemistry and the periodic table of the elements have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, etc.
            I have a Master's of Science and I'm doing a Ph.D btw, not that it matters.

            >Because you can't prove that you fricked my mom doesn't mean that I can make the claim that you didn't frick my mom, nor will I believe it with certainty despite your indoctrination mr autist, especially if you live near around my mom s house, know the adress, talked to her several times and I know the propension of my mom for having casual sex with younger people
            You are literally, in this example, providing positive evidence in favor of me fricking your mom and thus agreeing with my position here, that it is the one making the positive claim that requires the evidence. You are reasoning using positive evidence in order to support or reject the positive claim. You are LITERALLY PROVING what I myself said. If you can't see this you're just moronic, and the other anon is right, you have a 12 IQ

            Yes, moron, "muh science brain" is in fact the brain of a logical rational person. The fact that you don't like this doesn't mean anything. Your "reasoning" is basically:

            "Rational people don't believe in a god,
            but I want there to be a god,
            therefore rational people aren't actually logical and rational they just have muh science brain"

            Sorry, doesn't work that way. I am, in fact, more rational than you are. I am the one who understands logic, reason, mathematics, empiricism, philosophy of epistemology, philosophy of science, etc. You do not.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you re lieing , its absolutely not on the same footing as evolution. piss poor understanding of an idiot trying to be right at all costs
            >but i have a MASTER of SCIENCE
            LOL oke BROTHER

            >you have a 12 IQ
            so you wree the one samegayging about the mexican thing

            >positive evidence
            not all reasons have evidence. uthe unlikelihood of the harmony of the laws of physics is a reason to believe there would be a god, yet there is no mathematical evidence that shows this, beyond the very low odd (although that s still something, which you are obviously going to completely deny as you are a biased brainwashed friendo)

            But again, it doesn't disprove. We re not doing science or talking about observable things here. Like I said an eternal universe doesnt disprove god. There could objectively be a god and you know it, regardless of what is likely or not. This isnt science, this is philosophy. Any teenagers knows this yet you felt the need to talk about p values. Regardless people do not have a proof yet act like they do, you peopel ask for proofs for the claim you do not like, yet most of you arnt evebn aware of what you re talking about. You have some clues that may indicate that maybe it is eternal and thats about it. If i provided a proof of that caliber about the existence of god you would tell me it doesnt prove shit. of course you dont know what you re talking about and you like the idea that it is a great thing working perfectly at all times without any doubt but its not the case.

            > logical rational person
            There is nothing logical about this, you are biased.
            >The fact that you don't like this doesn't mean anything
            I can say the same thing about you

            >"Rational people don't believe in a god,
            No, my claim is that irrational people believe that there is no god for sure, why change my words?
            >but I want there to be a god
            You want there to be no god hence the irrationality

            >last sentence
            you re brainwashed

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you re lieing , its absolutely not on the same footing as evolution. piss poor understanding of an idiot trying to be right at all costs
            The schrodinger equation is one of the most well tested equations in physics you fricking idiot. You literally have no idea what the frick you're talking about
            Yes, I have a Master's degree. Cry about it, you didn't even go to college lol
            No, I wasn't samegayging, the other anon just correctly pointed out that you have a low IQ

            You're having a meltdown because i have, several times now, pointed out that you don't know what the frick you're talking about. Buddy you're LITERALLY CLAIMING that the schrodinger equation, which is the bases of quantum field theory and one of the most well-tested physical equations in all science and physics, isn't real. You're a fricking idiot and you have no idea what the frick you're talking about. There is no reason to continue this, your "argument" at this point is to literally claim that the schrodinger equation isn't well tested, and to project your ignorance and lack of understanding of how evidence works, and to pretend that I would do things that I wouldn't do. No, if you ACTUALLY PROVIDED EVIDENCE of god, I'd believe in god. You haven't done so, you're just crying and shitting your pants about this.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Like I said an eternal universe doesnt disprove god.
            Your OP is literally setting up the dicotomy
            "either god made the universe or the universe is eternal"
            In fact, in this post here

            >Either God made the universe, or the universe is eternal
            False dichotomy

            a different anon says "this is a false dichotomy" and you responded to him in this post

            No. Either it spawned without god intervention, or it did. It would be too much to ask from you to use your brain and derive the obvious conclusions
            >not its not because muh multiverse
            we get it you re very smart read the fricking thread or dont

            that it is not a false dichotomy.
            Now You're claiming that if the universe is eternal, then that doesn't imply there is no god, i.e. you're literally disagreeing with your initial premise in the OP as well as what you just said 2 hours ago to the other anon.

            You're flip-flopping and having a meltdown.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes i worded it wrongly but it was also simpler that way, that was used to show that you argue that there is no god on the basis that the universe was eternal despite having no more proof for this statement than the other in order to display general atheist bias, it doesnt change the fact on the side that a god could still exist but thats not the point of the topic, of course an idiot would focus on secondary shit instead of the obvious central point youd get from reading the thread

            >you re lieing , its absolutely not on the same footing as evolution. piss poor understanding of an idiot trying to be right at all costs
            The schrodinger equation is one of the most well tested equations in physics you fricking idiot. You literally have no idea what the frick you're talking about
            Yes, I have a Master's degree. Cry about it, you didn't even go to college lol
            No, I wasn't samegayging, the other anon just correctly pointed out that you have a low IQ

            You're having a meltdown because i have, several times now, pointed out that you don't know what the frick you're talking about. Buddy you're LITERALLY CLAIMING that the schrodinger equation, which is the bases of quantum field theory and one of the most well-tested physical equations in all science and physics, isn't real. You're a fricking idiot and you have no idea what the frick you're talking about. There is no reason to continue this, your "argument" at this point is to literally claim that the schrodinger equation isn't well tested, and to project your ignorance and lack of understanding of how evidence works, and to pretend that I would do things that I wouldn't do. No, if you ACTUALLY PROVIDED EVIDENCE of god, I'd believe in god. You haven't done so, you're just crying and shitting your pants about this.

            What the frick do you know about it mister scinece hobbiyst I have a master, you re around 23 years old and you re a quantum physicist now sucker? you just googled your shit 3 minutes ago looking for things that would valide your view; now look for the opposite and for caveeats, which you have done since you have a very scientific mind right?

            >isn't real
            its useful but its not the catch all ultimate understanding you pretend it is, neither th you know with certainty the unvierse is eternal

            all on the altar of = if you cant prove something it must be not true. but even if the frien didnt live near my moms house, even if she didnt frick young guys, even if he didnt know the adress, there objectively still would be a possibility that he in fact fricked my mom. The fact that YOU are having a metldown about such a simple things tells a long story about you. by the way i asked you in what way did it prove that the universe would be eternal. Al you can do is rehash articles you have read but you have no profound understanding of it. you re a glorified brainwashed parrot. But that makes sense because that is exactly the point of school. To create parrots that do not insist on questioning what they're told to the point where they can utter without sweating sentences like "I concluded that there is no god". Why dont you make a thesis on that, you ll get a nice Nobel Prize, 1 million bucks.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not him, but there were better ways of arguing against what he's saying that trying to claim the Schrodinger equation hasn't been proven lol. You're literally just making yourself look like a moron for no good reason.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't care, no one is a quantum physicist here, no one has any deep understanding of it. When I say its not proven, im not saying its complete bullshit and it doesnt work at all. The fact that he acts with such certainty hsows that he has no deep understanding and just reads rthings in a way that fits his narrative. I merely browsed a couple of minutes and found caveats to it written by people who seemed to known about it infinitely more than this random kid. He made himself look like a moron, not me. But obviously most of you are midwites swith surface level understanding or literally everything which is why peoples opinions are fricking garbage.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, I do have an understanding of the schrodinger equation you fricking idiot. You're the one who doesn't know what the frick you're talking about.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yea it's a really weird hill he's trying to die on. However it's paired with all the classic shit, school is just indoctrination, only midwits get Ph.Ds, scientists and actual philosophers (i.e. academic philosophers) don't actually understand philosophy, blah blah blah

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not weird, it's really simple. Some people can't concede even a single point in conversation because that would hurt their ego. It's more common if they make the initial claim aggressively and confidently because conceding it after that would make them feel like even bigger morons.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Says the guy who disproven god. Make it your thesis and get a nobel prize pussy. If you were confident in your arguments you wouldn't look for reassurance by going into the skirts of your nearest allies by talking in my back quoting other peoples and patting them in the back to really pat yourself at the same time. Im not a weak dishonest tard so I dont need to quote people who agree with me to talk vitroil about people im scared to confront directly.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not the guy you're arguing with, genius.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, so you re just reassuring yourself because you got wounded merely by observing. I hope you feel better now

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What do you mean by reassuring myself? I was responding to the guy you were talking to because he responded to me.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you re both reassuring yourselves. if you had anything of interest to respond to my answer, you would have said it to me. this "exterior" talk is a sign of insecurity

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The fact that you can't cope with being wrong about the Schrodinger equation is a sign of mental midgethood.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Reality is not what you make up in your head my moron. He has no proof that there isn't a god, neither does he have a proof that the universe is eternal. He merely speculates about what reassures him, due to his biases that push him to behave like an animal, and his current brain state that dislikes having to change and questioning itself. i'm still right on everything and I've yet to see a rebuttal to my points

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't care about any of that, I just find it funny how you're in denial about being wrong about the Schrodinger equation. It shows that you're a massive ego driven halfwit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong about what? That there is more evidence and less room for doubt for evolution than Shrodigners equation and QM in general? That there are other approaches than shrodinger made by people who know a million times more than you about the topic since it's their fricking job? That science struggles still with quantum physics and that there still quite a bit to be done, that we are far far from having solved all the mysteries of the universe in terms of quantum physics ore prebig bang time, that pre big bang rtime will forever remain a topic of speculation? that shrodinger equation merely provides elments but doesnt probve in any way shape or form that the universe is decidedly eternal? That he cannot prove that there is no god or that not proven does not equal disproven? Name one thing where i was wrong. Please.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's a simple one. You were wrong about the Schrodinger equation not being proven.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok question : what do you mean by proven? Are you saying that it will remain the forever definitive equation of everything for QM until the end of times and that it will always remain accurate in all situations and that we understand all that is entanglement etc and all that pertains to shrodinger s equation perfectly? Because mr autists was claiming that we got it all, so I would like to know your opinion, and please give me something more sophisticated than " hurr we currently use it for everything so its perfectly true lol"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, I simply mean that it has been proven the same way F=ma has been proven.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The schrodinger equations is the fundamental equation for wave quantum dynamics

            Ok question : what do you mean by proven? Are you saying that it will remain the forever definitive equation of everything for QM until the end of times and that it will always remain accurate in all situations and that we understand all that is entanglement etc and all that pertains to shrodinger s equation perfectly? Because mr autists was claiming that we got it all, so I would like to know your opinion, and please give me something more sophisticated than " hurr we currently use it for everything so its perfectly true lol"

            No, it means that when physicists finally get a unified field theory, the unified field theory will imply the existence of schrodingers equation, and the schrodinger equation will still be valid. Just like Einstein's field equations imply the classical newtonian equations for low speeds and masses, and newtonian mechanics are still valid.

            You don't understand how scientific models work

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Of course you had to rephrase. no one claims that it s not used. quantum physics are simply not solved and shrodinger is part of, in a relative world where everything is linked and can domino stuff. AND you re not a scinetists in QM. Therefore you re an onverconfident butthole that doesnt know what hes tlaking about and i was right. No wonder you "know" there is no god. Are you some low stress personthat lacks paranoia, is it some horseshoe thing?

            How do you know, as a "not a QM scientist", that the theory will not be modifiedto account for some situation, in the current year?

            >Just like Einstein's field equations imply
            Einstein has been wrong about several things several times. Always this appeal to authority

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What it really comes down to is that you don't actually know mathematics or logic and you're arguing with someone who does (my undergrad is in pure mathematics) and you're outclassed.
            Also, you don't know philosophy, don't pretend you do.

            >there is proof if
            lol
            Furthermore, how do you know the conditions before the big bang? How can you assume, in such an extreme event?
            google quote :

            >The laws of physics as we know them did not apply during the early seconds of the universe

            What ? You re just speculating? You just dont frickign know if it was eternal. No matter how much equations prove, not matter how much data you get, you l lnever fricking know what was before the big bang. You can only pray. This is the problem with you autist, you have a problem with what can be, your thinkign is so rigid and square. This isnt maths, or science, this is real life. Why can't you even IMAGINE that it wasnt eternal despite equations showing you that it could be? Can it even be a possibility to you?

            Why are you struggling so much with this. The original claim I made was just that there are theorems which imply an eternal universe, and there are no theorems which imply a creator god. The theorems which imply an eternal universe might not be sound i.e. the assumptions might not actually be true, but that doesn't mean the theorem itself is invalid. The theorem is proven, it just might not be sound.

            And again, I never claimed that the universe is actually eternal. I said there's a theorem which implies that the universe is eternal. That is a different statement. The universe might be eternal and it might not be eternal. If it turns out it's eternal I will accept that, if it turns out it's not I will accept that. If it turns out there's a god I will accept that, if it turns out there's not I will accept that.

            I will ask again: You are claiming that god is real. Where is the evidence? Give me sufficient evidence and i will reject the null hypothesis. Give me any theorem that implies that there is a god which is valid and sound. Anything at all. Until you do there is no reason to reject the null hypothesis.

            https://i.imgur.com/GQEfCuv.gif

            This thread is gold lmao. I don't think I've ever encountered a midwit as self-assured as op. Most likely a Hispanic of some kind

            >that pic
            That's exactly what OP is doing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What it really comes down to is that you don't actually know mathematics ... don't know philosophy, don't pretend you do.

            0 arguments ty for wasting everyones time. So let me ask again since you dodged conveniently

            >How do you know, as a "not a QM scientist", that the theory will not be modified to account for some situation in the future, in the current year?

            >The original claim
            you claimed many things. One that something is disproven if not proven, which is objectively fricking moron period. Second that according to science we pretty much knew the universe was eternal.

            Now I worked your liver real good, and you re struggling to stand up, saying there is proof IF conditions are met and only 2 out of 3 are currently met. You conveniently dodge my google quote that says the laws of physics didn't even apply in the early big bang, and you went from confidence to timidly say that the theorem might not be sound. Finally, the facade is gone and you drop on the floor, saying word for word, lieing by starting with the word "again" when you never said it before that :
            >I never claimed that the universe is actually eternal
            And this my dude, is a total knock-out. The main thing you argued since the start, the reason you mentioned quantum physics in the first place. YOU DONT KNOW. YOU HAVE NO PROOF. And yet you ask peopel who talk about god to bring proof. So now you moved away from proof, to evidence not as proof, but as an element, a clue that indicate something would be a possibility. Of course you dodged my point that no matter the scientific knowledge you could never know what happened before the big bang and merely speculatge, because it was irrelevant at this point since you already let that go.
            Now that i already won, ill answer to your question as a bonus

            >You are claiming that god is real
            I dare you to show where i nthe thread have i claimed that he was 100% real or that I had proof
            >Where is the clue?
            As a clue, fine tuning of the universe

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I dare you to show where i nthe thread have i claimed that he was 100% real or that I had proof
            choose to believe there is no God
            What are you basing this statement on, Ricardo?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're really, really fricking stupid and you have no idea what the frick you're talking about.
            Failing to reject the null hypothesis is not the same as saying that something is disproven if it is not proven.
            Giving examples of theorems which do imply that there are reasons to think the universe might be eternal directly contradicts your statement that "there is no evidence that the universe is eternal".
            Saying that an argument is sound if the premises are true is literally the definition of a sound argument, which you clearly don't know because you clearly don't actually know anything about philosophy or logic.

            The quantum eternity theorem is a formal proof, as in it literally is mathematically proven. I gave that as an example to contradict your statement. There are proofs that the universe could be eternal. There are no proofs that there is a creator god.

            You are claiming that the statements "there is a god" and the statements "there is no god" both require the same amount of proof. They don't. The negative of a statement does not require proof, it is the positive claim which does. That's why I used evidence in the form of the quantum eternity theorem to argue that the universe could be eternal. It is EVIDENCE IN FAVOR of an eternal universe, because the statement "the universe is eternal" requires evidence. The quantum eternity theorem is one such piece of evidence.

            Now where is your evidence for the statement "there is a god". Again I will ask because you still haven't given it. Where is your evidence. Until you give sufficient evidence there is no reason for anyone to reject the null hypothesis.

            The universe is not fine tuned lmao. As we all expected, turns out you're just a christian moron and do not actually know anything about logic, science, mathematics, reason, philosophy, etc.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Failing to reject the null hypothesis is not the same as saying that something is disproven if it is not proven.
            You talk like its not what you were tryong to imply early in the conversation? trying to land on your feet?

            >there is no evidence that the universe is eternal
            i have never EVER used that language. I precisely said proof, which is more or less a collection of evidence that leaves no doubt in the realm of as much a man can know,n like I said youre strawmanning because yo ure trying to land on your feet, because obviously that is now your only escape. Absolute fricking loser.
            > you clearly don't actually know anything about philosophy or logic.
            yet you re the one getting btfo'd. the classic academic pride, of course you cant accept getting owned by a peasant without a shiny piece of paper
            >There are proofs that the universe could be eternal
            Are you even the same person? Caus eif you are you contradict yourself at each paragraph. Which means you ar enow resorting to pretend you were trolling to pretend you wern't moronic. Anyway this has already been debunked, you re a bit too late homie.

            >proofs that the universe could be
            am i on drugs? wtf am i reading

            >The universe is not fine tuned lmao
            i mean literally everything you just wrote is a pile of moronic shit that has been debunked a couple of posts ago. So ill confidently treat this statement the same way I treat the rest. The burden of not reading the topic and not understanding what has already been written lies on your shoulders, im not your daddy.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are extraordinarily unintelligent and have no conception of the things you're trying to argue for.

            I have not contradicted myself once. You have contradicted yourself several times and I already pointed them out.

            The universe is not fine turned. You didn't even know about the schrodinger equation, you don't actually know anything about how the universe works, and now you want to argue that you think the universe is fine-tuned?

            What causes christians to be like this? There is genuinely something wrong with the brains of christians. It wouldn't be a problem if you didnt constitute such a large percentage of the planet.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            This but unironically. Hence you can't keep up

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not on "secondary shit" it's a direct contradiction to your main premise. In fact, an example of focusing on "secondary shit" is getting angry that i have a master's degree and that I'm not a hobbyist, despite the fact that even if I were a hobbyist, it wouldn't change anything about my argument at all.

            I'm 29 years old and my degree isn't in particle physics. This doesn't mean anything. The schrodinger equation is literally the basis for the entire field of quantum mechanics, and the application of the schrodinger equation predicts the orbitals of the electrons of an atom which produces the entire periodic table of the elements and thus the entire field of chemistry. computing the schrodinger equation is computationally hard and it can't be done for atoms other than the hydrogen atom. This forms the basis for why we want a universal quantum computer, because a universal quantum computer can directly emulate the evolution of the wavefunction of any quantum system and we will be able to directly compute pretty large quantum systems, and from there be able to design drugs and solve hard problems in the fields of medicine, material engineering, molecular biology, etc.

            I'm not having any meltdown. I've pointed out several times now that you don't know what you're talking about and that you've contradicted your own claims several times, and that you even gave an argument for my position that you need to provide evidence in favor of the positive claim.
            There is no evidence that there is a god. Provide evidence if you think there is a god. Stop rambling and do it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            it changes that you have surface level understanding or what you re talking about but you ultimately have 0 idea of what you re talking about
            >my degree isn't in particle physics. This doesn't mean anything
            Does it ?
            >this predicts that
            Many things predicted stuff and ended up being not accurate. you think that s all it takes?
            All you do is parrot muh shrodinger non zero energy, now can you explain how does that, OBJECTIVELY, makes the universe eternal with CERTAINTY . PLASE oh confident scientists, TELL me that you can put your money where your mouth is
            >blabla nothing nothing
            oke
            still IRL-> not proven=/=disproven. An objective fact you will have to swallow some day if you want to live another day without being run over by a truck.

            Yes, I do have an understanding of the schrodinger equation you fricking idiot. You're the one who doesn't know what the frick you're talking about.

            Are you a quantum physicist? Even if you were there are plenty of homosexuals who exaggerate stuff. Now if you re not, you re a complete clown.In fact most people ar enot quantum physicvists. And most atheists barely know about schrodinger? ALL these people believe out of bias that there is no god because they dont even have a single clue about the universe being eternal, which means they dont even have the beggining of a clue, thus have absolutely 0 reason to prioritize a self sufficient universe vs a god made universe
            everyones a fricking leading scientist with 40 years of experience on IQfy huh?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it changes that you have surface level understanding or what you re talking about but you ultimately have 0 idea of what you re talking about
            i don't have 0 idea of what I'm talking about. YOU do. You don't even know what the schrodinger equation is despite it being one of the fundamental equations of modern physics.
            >All you do is parrot muh shrodinger non zero energy, now can you explain how does that, OBJECTIVELY, makes the universe eternal with CERTAINTY . PLASE oh confident scientists, TELL me that you can put your money where your mouth is
            Because with those assumptions, the time parameter of the schrodinger equation necessarily goes from negative to positive infinity i.e. the evolution is eternal

            My bachelor's degree was in mathematics and I took some physics classes as electives, one of which was an introductory QM class where we studied the schrodinger equation with griffiths. you can study some here
            https://www.fisica.net/mecanica-quantica/Griffiths%20-%20Introduction%20to%20quantum%20mechanics.pdf

            It was just an intro class though, I'm not claiming to be a quantum physicist, but if YOU'RE saying that a particle physicist would claim that the schrodinger equation isn't real or isn't fundamental, then you literally have no idea what you're talking about.

            Most atheists 100% know about schrodinger BTW. You didn't because you're actually ignorant to everything about this conversation.

            It's not weird, it's really simple. Some people can't concede even a single point in conversation because that would hurt their ego. It's more common if they make the initial claim aggressively and confidently because conceding it after that would make them feel like even bigger morons.

            Yea he's basically an idiot

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you don't know full what you re talking about then you know 0. There are no inbetweens. there's a night a day difference between surface awareness and deep understanding in relationship to other things. Like I siad already, I do not claim that it is complete bullshit, and I said many times that it works for several things. You claiming that is a total and complete certainty with no caveats and a universal model that solved everything it could solved is fricking bullshit and I will die on this hill. Like I said, if you do really have a scientific mind, why dont you try to look for the cons of it? Or you just want to protect your current beliefs? Arn't scientists supposed to do some research?

            >Most atheists 100% know about schrodinger BTW
            They know the name but msot do not know what its about or how it work in detail whatsoever, looking at science cartoons for kids on youtube doesnt count

            if it is so certain and why do scientists than know more than you waste their time looking for other options? You do know it is not the only way to study QM.

            >If you have a universe that obeys the conventional rules of quantum mechanics, has a non-zero energy, and the individual laws of physics are themselves not changing with time, that universe is necessarily eternal.
            If if if if if if you don"t know shit, cya

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Like I siad already, I do not claim that it is complete bullshit, and I said many times that it works for several things
            No, the schrodinger equation is literally the equation of the evolution of a quantum system. That means the schrodinger equation is literally the mathematical equation which describes the molecular dynamics of every physical object in the universe. The way the atoms behave inside a table or a rock or a tree or a person is described by the schrodinger equation of that system.
            It is literally the fundamental equation for molecular physics, much like the Einstein's Field equations are the fundamental equations of spacetime.

            Stop projecting your own lack of understanding on your perceived intellectual opponents. Scientists and philosophers who are atheists are not ignorant about modern physics.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Becaus eit pertains to atoms doenst mean thats its a perfectly solved equation with perfect confidence in the future and all situations you absolute moron, i was obviously not claiming that it only worked for a limited number of particles holy fricking shit are you serious? Why are you not responding to my ultimate rebuttal, did you give up ?

            >If you have a universe that obeys the conventional rules of quantum mechanics, has a non-zero energy, and the individual laws of physics are themselves not changing with time, that universe is necessarily eternal.

            >If if if if if if you don"t know shit, cya

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The schrodinger equation as is isn't valid for relativistic particles but we already know that. The relativistic wave equations extend from schrodingers equation and actually imply schrodingers equation, just like einsteins field equations imply newtons equations etc.

            Anyway we're getting off topic here. The original point was that you claimed there is no proof that the universe is eternal. Except there literally is a mathematical proof that shows how the universe is eternal if certain conditions are met. Then it comes down to "are those conditions actually met". As it stands, 2 of them are, but we don't actually know if the energy of the universe is non-zero. It probably is actually 0 in which case the theorem won't hold.
            However, this is a nuance that's lost on you. I mean you've gotten to the point where you're pretending you don't understand logical implications and if-then statements.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >there is proof if
            lol
            Furthermore, how do you know the conditions before the big bang? How can you assume, in such an extreme event?
            google quote :

            >The laws of physics as we know them did not apply during the early seconds of the universe

            What ? You re just speculating? You just dont frickign know if it was eternal. No matter how much equations prove, not matter how much data you get, you l lnever fricking know what was before the big bang. You can only pray. This is the problem with you autist, you have a problem with what can be, your thinkign is so rigid and square. This isnt maths, or science, this is real life. Why can't you even IMAGINE that it wasnt eternal despite equations showing you that it could be? Can it even be a possibility to you?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm continuing in this post because i ran out of space in the last one
            >Why do you care so much about there not being a god?
            I don't. Again, you're misunderstanding how it works. I don't care if there is or isn't a god. There might be a god and there might not be a god. The default null hypothesis is that there is no god, and you have to provide strong enough evidence and reason that the P-value becomes so low that I can reject the null hypothesis and conclude there is a god. This has not ever happened in the history of apologetics. So I currently conclude there is no god.
            If in the future there is strong enough evidence and reason to reject the null hypothesis, I will conclude there is a god.

            >So there is a god now? lol
            When you and I are talking about a god, we're talking about a personal conscious creator deity with free will etc.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't.
            You certainly seem like you do.
            >There might be a god and there might not be a god
            Wow, you moved from hardcore atheism to agnosticism from one post to another. You're a quick learner. Keep going.

            >P-value
            What do pvalues have to do with philosophy though?
            >So I currently conclude there is no god.
            Lol

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    12 iq mexican

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How many of you guys have jobs?

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This thread is gold lmao. I don't think I've ever encountered a midwit as self-assured as op. Most likely a Hispanic of some kind

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      it's funny because the point of the topic is to show that your pic applies perfectly to people who call themselves atheists

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >instant seething no u
        Great argument, carlos

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What do you mean no u? If you actually read the topic you would see that it's literally the very point of the topic. Are you moronic? Anyway you make rhetorical argumetns but you didnt say anything that you show wrong, not on a single point. No one did in the entire thread in fact. Soif you re too weak to have something to say then just shut up and move along would you, that would be better than seeing insecure gays who are clearly threatened by thoughts they re not used to yet can't debunk through arguments thus resorts to "lol u mexican lmao"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >thus resorts to "lol u mexican lmao"
            Hispanic confirmed kek

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    logic isnt an adverb you fricking moron

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      ???which is why i used it as a noun ? wtf?

      >I dare you to show where i nthe thread have i claimed that he was 100% real or that I had proof
      choose to believe there is no God
      What are you basing this statement on, Ricardo?

      That atheists believe there is no god? technically they could but these days the commonly used language is that ahtiests believe there is no god while agnostic believe there may be a god, i just live with the times, unless you were trying to say something else

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why wouldn't they choose to disbelieve in something that can't be proven to exist?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          If they were coherent they would also disbelieve in many other things, including simulations, multiverses, the universe being eternal etc etc. I see a lot of late homosexuals who didn't read the thread suddenly. All these bullshit arguments have already been debunked. Since its just a bunch of trolls that don't read the thead and will just rehash the same debunked points over and over by now, im out. peace wienersuckers

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Tu quoque is not a valid answer to the question Juanito lol.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            it is. you do the same thing. which is the point of the thread. you re so, so, so fricking moronic. sorry for ya

            You are extraordinarily unintelligent and have no conception of the things you're trying to argue for.

            I have not contradicted myself once. You have contradicted yourself several times and I already pointed them out.

            The universe is not fine turned. You didn't even know about the schrodinger equation, you don't actually know anything about how the universe works, and now you want to argue that you think the universe is fine-tuned?

            What causes christians to be like this? There is genuinely something wrong with the brains of christians. It wouldn't be a problem if you didnt constitute such a large percentage of the planet.

            >blabla i lost im seething
            its gonna be alright. its life.

            >and now you want to argue that you think the universe is fine-tuned?
            the laws of physics work in concert, in a relative fashion. if you twist a single low by a , very low percentage, like the speed of light or anything, life becomes impossible. of course for an autist like you theres no difference between an atom and a person so you dont see the difference betweena universe where life happens and one where it doesnt. extreme male brain

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the laws of physics work in concert, in a relative fashion.
            Is this what you think relativity is? That would be funny.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No its not. here is your master, idol and Messiah, atheist champion Mr Dawkins talking for me :

            ?t=123

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you listening to christian podcasts?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dawkins is a 82 year old retired biology professor, and not anyone's Messiah. Why are Christians like this?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            i lost im seething
            This is just sad at this point
            >the laws of physics work in concert, in a relative fashion. if you twist a single low by a , very low percentage, like the speed of light or anything, life becomes impossible. of course for an autist like you theres no difference between an atom and a person so you dont see the difference betweena universe where life happens and one where it doesnt.
            what the frick is this
            >extreme male brain
            What?

            >the laws of physics work in concert, in a relative fashion.
            Is this what you think relativity is? That would be funny.

            The most generous interpretation is that they're talking about relational quantum mechanics, but they already displayed that they don't know what qm is or what the schrodinger equation is so that's out of the picture.

            Why are you listening to christian podcasts?

            They're a christian who wanted to seem like they were being rational but, as we all expected, it was just apologetics.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I have btfo the entire thread; I m literally smarter than every participant in this thread. I have not lost on any point a single time. Try opening your eyes and reading. Saying what the frick is this or what? feigning to not understand argumetns that destroy your narrative will not help your case .

            Btw i was obviously speaking about the relative aspect in common language, not physics relativity. Why is your readign comprehension so fricking shit? Try being intellectually honest, maybe you wont look like a seething moron

            >They're a christian
            ok bro im a christian whatever you want u mongoloid

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dude i btfo d the entire thread. Lies is all you got. Just admit you re intellectually inferior, it won't hurt you.

            >Where do you think you are? lmao
            Tell me, where am I?

            >I btfo the entire thread
            No you didn't. In fact you lost on every single point that you and I argued on. It's going to be ok

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Like i said lie is all you got. How are you gonna cope once you close Internet. I get the hormones of victories and you get to be anxious. Seethe.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >im out. peace wienersuckers
            You keep saying this and then not leaving lol

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            because i got a real argument from a non troll but someone from earlier conversation. how is that any of your business any way?

            Why are you listening to christian podcasts?

            I just typed that on youtube because i knew dawkins described that and i know he is your master that tellws you what to think like all of autistic midwitted morons who think they re smart and believe there is no god (even though the fine tuning has in the harmony of nature and planets an equivalent that made people know there was a god before the fine tunign but you dense wienersuckers need to understand VERYTHING before draxwing conclusions (except when they re wrong as the topic postulates)

            Dawkins is a 82 year old retired biology professor, and not anyone's Messiah. Why are Christians like this?

            I have stated several times that i wasnt religious, what kind of mental illness is this?

            Dawkins is a 82 year old retired biology professor, and not anyone's Messiah. Why are Christians like this?

            dont you pretend that you didnt drink his cum years ago like most individuals of your species

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can you describe a couple of immoral things that you think you don't do but atheists do?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            can you describe my dick in your mother's c**t? wtf does that have to do with anything? how about I don't rape children then strangle them to death? Thats a thing I dont do that some atheists do.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Isn't your thesis that atheists are biased because they want to do immoral things? I just want to know what those things are. Imagine that I decide to stop being biased and become an agnostic or a theist. What are some of the things that I should stop doing to be more like you?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you want to be more like me for the sake of it?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry, I don't understand the question. Can you tell me a couple of things I should stop doing if I want to be more like you?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hey, could you tell me what I need to stop doing to be more moral like you? The problem is that I really don't know what things you have in mind.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you don't have to know bad faith mf

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Would you prefer me to keep doing immoral things? I mean, how can I stop doing them unless I know they're immoral?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            thats mainly your problem depending on if you want a better world and a shot with a potential god. I think you are dishonest so I dont want to engage with you. But over time if you keep seeking you ll be fine

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            But I don't even know where to start. I mean, I guess I might have some hunches. For instance, I often come like 10-15 minutes late to meetings with friends. That's not very nice, it wastes their time. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            in order
            survival of the species
            survival of the group
            survival of individuals
            well being of the group
            well being of individuals

            With long term in mind, as opposed to short term, to improve things in general. In general, pro life shit.
            And yea you should probably not waste your friends time consistently being late evn if i cant tell if you re struggling or trying to get gotchas, but you wont get me on these topics since i know my shit

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >survival of the species
            >survival of the group
            >survival of individuals
            >well being of the group
            >well being of individuals
            Sorry, now I'm completely lost. You mean I should do stuff or stop doing stuff? When it comes to doing stuff, I've been doing pro bono translations for nonprofits for years. Is that the kind of thing you're talking about? Or is it rather that you think I do bad stuff I should stop doing?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            both
            > Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?
            There is a hierarchy of priorities and id say in general its a rather low priority. Right now the most urgent problem is world peace becaue it prvents solving many other problems and threatens in the short term both civilization and the species. I also want to add that you re not as funny or cool as you think you are

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you have any plans for the high priority stuff? I wouldn't even know where to begin personally, but maybe I can help you somehow.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            it depends of you, people have different ideas and skills, and there are different roles to fulfill. I dont have a role to attribute to you right now, but every person has to think themselves about their contribution. i still can't tell if you re trying to frick with me or not

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah I don't really know how I can contribute to things like world peace. Still, if I knew your plan, maybe I could help you somehow.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Everyone ahs to think for themselves. Theres a general lack of morality and education about lose lsoe transactions, maybe in the world of politics, Id say peace be it country or people begins with communication and the synchronicity of some fundamental beliefs, education against manipulation and rhetoric... I dont have any particular plan right now to give you

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So could you at least tell me what you're doing towards the goal so I could try to do the same?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            do you think im some kind of terrorist? lmao

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, but if you're doing something to achieve these goals, I want to know what it is so I can try to do the same.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            i already gave you clues to what could be done, you have to figure it out yourself, i dont have a catch all thing to do to tell people. if a potential god and fear of death is what got you going then shill that shit to make other people like you, try to get a platform to be heard and teach about manipulation, i dont know what kidn of person you are man, you can try politics, books, building that platform, getting in touch with some politicians and trying to build some clique of good guys trying to convince powerful people make a cultural movement i dont fricking know man theres a million things you ll have to figurre it out yourself no matter what

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It really sounds like you're full of hot air and not actually doing anything tbh.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >how is that any of your business
            Where do you think you are? lmao

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just remember that Jesus was a hippie who claimed being suicidally impulsive will allow you to move mountains and have the holy spirit give you exactly the right things to say.
    He also said to maim yourself of body parts that cause you to sin and implied that they could cause you to sin buy making you deny they cause you to by not clarifying how they cause you to sin.
    And before you actually try that, just know that either doing so isn't destined justice because God isn't all powerful and your "soul" could self destruct before being able to fully express itself, or God is evil because he created evil
    Imo, you cant live without subjectivity

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I GET IT NOW
    OP is a cute slavic girl or a cute latina who is sad about the existential dread she felt when she realized that there's probably no god, which conflicted with her upbringing, and now she's seething and arguing about to feel better. But she didn't expect to argue with a supreme enlightened fellow like myself who's actually studied mathematics and physics so she's having a meltdown
    Don't worry femanon everything will be okay

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dude i btfo d the entire thread. Lies is all you got. Just admit you re intellectually inferior, it won't hurt you.

      >Where do you think you are? lmao
      Tell me, where am I?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *