There must be some kind of god because the alternative is the law of physics being inherent properties of the universe.

There must be some kind of god because the alternative is the law of physics being inherent properties of the universe. But since they re laws, algorithms, they re not chaotic, but orderly. The problem is that chaos cannot create order. Order cannot be present by itself for eternity, it has to have been ordered.

Atheists claim there is a program without a programmer. This where their reasoning breaks. There cannot be a program without a programmer because order cannot be spawned by chaos.

you could argue then that god itself was also spawned by chaos then depsite being very orderly since to order the universe he must be intelligent, but here is the kicker : god is a supernatural explanation. Without supernatural, you re claiming, in the framework of a natural world, that order can be spawned from chaos, which is completely contrary to everything we can observe. The only way to justify order spawned from chaos is a supernatural explanation. Therefore some God must have create the universe.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Define order and chaos and provide proof why chaos cannot create order

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I ll provide proof of why chaos cannot create order if you can provide proof that an apple thrown on the floor can fly to Jupiter. Why should I provide proofs for stuff that is part of our reality and observed all the time? We re supposed to forget everything we know when we reason when the conclusion is inconvenient for you? Chaos is patternless senseless shapeless and random, order is pattern law and repetition. if you advocate that it is not the case, then you must also advocate that the sun doesn't exist and patterns are meaningless, but you would need to use patterns and norms to do that which is circular and thus fallacious. Who fricking cares, people know the definitions of these words

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >brainlet understanding of entropy

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that organic matter can emerge from inorganic matter. It isn't inconceivable said inorganic matter can, given the right circumstances, change into what we would consider life, structured and reproducing.
        >Chaos is patternless senseless shapeless and random, order is pattern law and repetition.
        Entropy seems to be unavoidable so we are moving from order to chaos.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >brainlet understanding of entropy

          you re not answering at all though

          >order to chaos.
          yeah ? order can be diisorganized and turn to chaos without the kick that ordered it in the first place and/or maintened its order, but chaos itself cannot move to order, the things you are sayign are completely offtopic, the phenomenons you are describing are happenign because of the laws of physics/will of god, these are the epitome of order.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you re not answering at all though
            Because you're schizorambling about nonsensical stuff like apples flying to Jupiter.
            >order can be diisorganized and turn to chaos without the kick that ordered it in the first place and/or maintened its order, but chaos itself cannot move to order, the things you are sayign are completely offtopic, the phenomenons you are describing are happenign because of the laws of physics/will of god, these are the epitome of order.
            It is not offtopic, I provided a proved case of chaos moving closer to order with a plausible scenario where actual order emerges from it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ok so you re fricking dumb, ciao.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >no retort
            I won't even be mean and say you got BTFO because from the way you type you are most likely still in your teens and you think you just discovered the one true answer to everything.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no need to retort when you can't even understand the conversation and everything you say is completely off the mark, I won't justify myself because you dont have the level to follow the conversation

            >Vidya gaem understanding of physics
            Entropy isn't chaos as shown in your jrpg

            I'm talking about chaos as a concept, not about your whatever sciency bullshit entropy thing. Anytime people lose to philosophy, they try to go back to science to get ground.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >no need to retort when you can't even understand the conversation and everything you say is completely off the mark, I won't justify myself because you dont have the level to follow the conversation
            Be a good Christian and enlighten me then 🙂
            >I'm talking about chaos as a concept, not about your whatever sciency bullshit entropy thing
            Entropy is literally what chaos is, energy in a system moving from higher, more structured states into lower, more chaotic states.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, entropy is diorganization of something already organized. Chaos is nothing, there's no organization about it, no law. of course you had to instantly go back to science, while you couldnt even fricking understand that anything that happens because of the laws of physics is happening because of order.

            Philosophy to you is a brainlet trying to assume how the universe works based on his feelings rather than observing and studying it

            keep coping because you can't follow a simple conversation or stay on topic, nor can you even know the definition of words and instantly assume that because i talk aboutt the concept of chaos and notthingness surely i must be talking about the disorganization of organized things following the orderly process of the laws of physics. clearly you cant into philosophy, go back to your black holes

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No, entropy is diorganization of something already organized
            That's more or less what I said, the only difference is how you define "organized", with my definition being something along the lines of higher or more complex structures of energy
            >Chaos is nothing
            Chaos is a description of a system, "nothing" can't have a property because it is lacking anything that can have a description. If by chaos you mean a system with maximum entropy/complete disorganization then sure, we can call it that, but judging by the other posts in the thread everybody seems to be using words differently than you so you're the odd one out here.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no, you re making definitions that no one uses actually, you re the weird one. chaos is void and nothing. it doesnt produce order, in fact nothingness cant really produce anything. I'm not talking about chaos as empty space in the solar system, but as a concept.

            >Chaos is a description of a system
            it's not

            >Order cannot be present by itself for eternity, it has to have been ordered.
            Why?

            see

            I ll provide proof of why chaos cannot create order if you can provide proof that an apple thrown on the floor can fly to Jupiter. Why should I provide proofs for stuff that is part of our reality and observed all the time? We re supposed to forget everything we know when we reason when the conclusion is inconvenient for you? Chaos is patternless senseless shapeless and random, order is pattern law and repetition. if you advocate that it is not the case, then you must also advocate that the sun doesn't exist and patterns are meaningless, but you would need to use patterns and norms to do that which is circular and thus fallacious. Who fricking cares, people know the definitions of these words

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >see

            I ll provide proof of why chaos cannot create order if you can provide proof that an apple thrown on the floor can fly to Jupiter. Why should I provide proofs for stuff that is part of our reality and observed all the time? We re supposed to forget everything we know when we reason when the conclusion is inconvenient for you? Chaos is patternless senseless shapeless and random, order is pattern law and repetition. if you advocate that it is not the case, then you must also advocate that the sun doesn't exist and patterns are meaningless, but you would need to use patterns and norms to do that which is circular and thus fallacious. Who fricking cares, people know the definitions of these words

            #
            I didn't ask about order coming from chaos that is there to begin with, I asked about order being there to begin with.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, I misudnerstood because it didnt make sense since the answer is in the first post. I wrote, please reread, than it must be supernatural, IE something that does not respect this rule, therefore a god. BGecause the complex programming of physics as an inherent property of a godless universe makes no sense since it relies on something out of nothing in a natural framework. you re basically implying a miracle while pretending there is no god which is contradictory. while both are subject to the question, it makes sense for god because it is supernatural thus beyond simple explanations that do not break the rules. Something out of nothing cannot be explained by the natural.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's only if you think that there ever was nothing though.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not talking about matter or space, but about the patterns of the universe (laws of physics), which are orderly algorithms yet atheists claimed have been programmed by no one.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So am I. You argued that orderly laws cannot come from nothing or from chaos. I'm saying that this objection only works if you think that there was either nothing or chaos before these laws.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            but you re thinking of time. Im talking about thezir very existence. THe fact that they exist means ithey stem from order necessarily because they are orderly themselves. They can be eternal, but they can't be without something that ordered them/programmed them. That simply makes no sense and is contrary to everything we know. If it wasnt then you would enter the supernatural, which goes back to my first post, the answer must be supernatural therefore it must be god.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >THe fact that they exist means ithey stem from order necessarily because they are orderly themselves.
            Why do you think that?
            >That simply makes no sense and is contrary to everything we know.
            That just sounds like your feelz.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            because order cannot come from nothing/chaos according to our observation in this life

            >That just sounds like your feelz.
            see above. once you start breaking the most basic rules of reasoning, and start trying to pass the supernatural as natural, reasoning stops. Atlest I have the philosophical dignity of keeping the supernatural supernatural, or else you might as well argue for useless concepts like a spaghetti monster that steals underwears, because if you disbelieve in that monster, that sounds like your feelz.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >because order cannot come from nothing/chaos according to our observation in this life
            See

            So am I. You argued that orderly laws cannot come from nothing or from chaos. I'm saying that this objection only works if you think that there was either nothing or chaos before these laws.

            .

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i can't understand what tyou re syaing anytime you link to a former post because your post is stupid. The first time it was because you couldn't understand the first post of the thread, and now it is because you are making a very faulty argument to stay polite, you are postponing. Basically saying there is a natural phenomenon that made the laws of physics. Can't you understand that this argument is worthless on your own? I'm sure you can.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nope, I'm asking you why some sort of law can't be fundamental.
            On another note, are you thinking about this only as some sort of intellectual exercise, or do you think the truth of the matter has any actual impact on your life?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >On another note
            there is no other note, i'm not gonna chat about the weather

            > law can't be fundamental.
            i explained this many time, you re asking about pattern from the void which is not possible according to what we know which means the answer must be supernatural. you re trying to make the supernatural natural, which is unreasonable, by pretending the law is god without being god while being natural, which is an obvious proof that you cling to your opinion not through argumentation but preexisting bias

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >there is no other note, i'm not gonna chat about the weather
            I'm not asking about the weather, I'm asking whether you think this has any relevance to your life. Why are you reluctant to answer?
            >i explained this many time, you re asking about pattern from the void which is not possible
            I'm not asking about a law coming from nothing or coming from chaos, I'm asking about a law being actually fundamental.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why are you reluctant to answer?
            because you re a biased person that hunts for christians anytime someone wants to discuss the concept of god on a philosophical topic, and because this isn't any of your business and you knowing why I'm doing it doesn't have any impact on my life, nor yours. The real question is why are you so eager to know?

            > I'm asking about a law being actually fundamental.
            you re twisting words to make them mean what they don't in your head or you have trouble with the english language, but regardless, the OUPUT of the law still involves pattern and order, and pattern and order cannot be fundamental to chaos because chaos is nothing. Again you are asking for a natural miracle that breaks all rules without a supernatural rulebreaking god to perform it. If god was in front of your eyes you would call him a fundamental chaotic property or what not? give me a break, the atheist rot has a hold of you. anyway the conv is repeating itself and i gtg anyway

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >because you re a biased person that hunts for christians
            When did I mention Christians?
            >The real question is why are you so eager to know?
            Because you seem really emotionally invested in this.
            >the OUPUT of the law still involves pattern and order, and pattern and order cannot be fundamental to chaos because chaos is nothing
            If the law came from chaos, it wouldn't be fundamental. I am talking about a law being fundamental.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Because you seem really emotionally invested in this.
            Just so you know this ESLcel moron has been making these threads for years now and gets slapped down in every one.
            He is a christcuck and he's the same one that spams the board incessantly with garbage atheist strawman threads and the ricky gervais AI threads.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I've made like 4 threads, i'm not christian,I've never made strawman or ricky gervais threads and I've slapped the whole website in each of my threads. On the other hand you're a full blown schizo so I advise pills for your hallucinations. Also when I said I gtg, I stopped posting, every post in the topic isn't my doing.

            Perhaps there is no such thing as Chaos. Even what seems like chaos must abide by the laws of the universe. Cause and effect is order. The fact that the seemingly chaotic is inevitable some kind of order, isn't it? All order eventually goes out of order. "Chaos" may just be another way of saying "god works in mysterious ways" as we cannot reason with chaos.

            There never was chaos. Chaos is just when people are looking at something that they can’t understand

            I don't debate with stoners who think chaos is some kind of boss in final fantasy because the word sounds cool, if you can't understand what nothingness is I can't help you

            >because you re a biased person that hunts for christians
            When did I mention Christians?
            >The real question is why are you so eager to know?
            Because you seem really emotionally invested in this.
            >the OUPUT of the law still involves pattern and order, and pattern and order cannot be fundamental to chaos because chaos is nothing
            If the law came from chaos, it wouldn't be fundamental. I am talking about a law being fundamental.

            >When did I mention Christians?
            Everyone does on this website because it's full of brainwashed hardcore atheist homosexuals

            >Because you seem really emotionally invested in this.
            That doesn't answer why do you want to know. How is my emotional investment any of your concern?

            >If the law came from chaos
            I'm not saying about it coming. It can "be". But his "be" is something orderly. It cannot be in this way without a preexistent ordering force that makes it "be" this way, it cannot "be" in an ordored fashion without a god, IE from nothingness. And the fact that you are asking for such a natural supernatural thing shows again your bias, you keep repeating the same thing without understanding. As long as you do not shed your bias you ll remain stuck in your mental loop.

            >A few amino acids created is not proof for the unbelievably ordered and complex reality of life
            It isn't, but it is a plausible idea that through many more millions of years and correct circumstances said organic matter could through similar processes become gradually more complex until life spontaneously emerges.
            [...]
            I'm all ears if you have am explanation that is more plausible and satisfying than "God".

            Why do you come on, my thread to dicuss with someone else about some stupid bullshit, is it because it makes you feel good to take on him since you can't take on me? It's a coping tactic and is indicative of the weakness of your beliefs

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Everyone does on this website because it's full of brainwashed hardcore atheist homosexuals
            Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder.
            >That doesn't answer why do you want to know. How is my emotional investment any of your concern?
            If you have a strong enough reason to be emotionally invested, there is no possible argument that can convince you you're wrong.
            But see, I don't have a bias like that. I don't even take issue with the idea that there might be a god, but rather the idea that there must be a god, or that this argument shows that it's much more likely that there is a god. Other than that, I'm fine with either alternative.
            >I'm not saying about it coming. It can "be". But his "be" is something orderly. It cannot be in this way without a preexistent ordering force that makes it "be" this way
            You've used phrases like "come from nothing/chaos" and "pattern from the void". These all imply non-fundamentality, and whether the thing (void/chaos) that you assume to be actually fundamental is temporally, causally or logically prior doesn't matter. You are assuming this void or chaos as the fundamental thing in your ontology and then claiming that because this thing is fundamental, the order would have to be from it. You haven't justified that, and you wouldn't use the same language with god (i.e. god from the void).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder.
            I don't have a chip, I am pointing at a fact. I've had many conversation of this type derail into people accusing me of being christian.

            >there is no possible argument that can convince you you're wrong.
            you re just using this as a free out of jail card because you re losing the debate and contradicting yourself. In your words there is a god but he's dumb because you can't allow yourself to admit it since you re atleast as biased and emotionally invested as I am, idfference is you ar ecompletely blind to your own bias and think of yourself as better despite losing the argument.

            >I don't even take issue with the idea that there might be a god
            This is a clue that you know yourself you start losing the conversation since your former posts clearly indicate that you have some kind of bias/issue with it depsite you coping by saying otherwise. You seem to cast a lot of spells to make the things you say turn into reality, but it just doesn't work that way.

            >non-fundamentality
            There is absolutely no difference between syaing there is a god, and saying there is a fundamental set of algorithms that just happen to be here for no reason, except that the god answer makes more sense as I posit because it doesn't break reason since it is a supernatural answer, which is necessary to explain breaking the nothing->pattern. Reason will be broken no matter what, athe only way to preserve it somewhat is to have is to admit the answer is supernatural.

            How far are you going to go in complexity and keep pretending that all is fundamental? You could see the spaghetti monster in front of your eyes snapping his fingers and raining dinosaurs from the sky and you would still claim it is a fundamental part of the universe. How long before you'd realize you might be exaggerating and you'd have to admit ther eis something beyond nature and reality, ie supernatural that transcends reality, ie god.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you wouldn't use the same language with god (i.e. god from the void).
            Again, you re running in circles out of bias. This is exactly what ive explained in my FIRST post. that both broke the rules, therefore that it couldnt be natural(fundamentality) therefore it had to be the supernatural answer(god). it cannot be by itself therefore it has to be transcended by something transcendental

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why do you come on, my thread to dicuss with someone else about some stupid bullshit, is it because it makes you feel good to take on him since you can't take on me? It's a coping tactic and is indicative of the weakness of your beliefs
            People reply to my posts and I make replies in return

            [...]
            [...]
            Nothing I said is incorrect. Science doesn't know how the universe began, or how life began, or what consciousness is, so thinking that the science is settled and Darwin mechanisms is how it was it was formed is pure conjecture, just as the idea of a creator is. If you think you know the answers to these questions then it would be the biggest achievement in human history.

            >Nothing I said is incorrect. Science doesn't know how the universe began, or how life began, or what consciousness is, so thinking that the science is settled and Darwin mechanisms is how it was it was formed is pure conjecture, just as the idea of a creator is. If you think you know the answers to these questions then it would be the biggest achievement in human history.
            I've never said we have proof of it, I only presented it as a possible explanation.

            >I'm all ears if you have am explanation that is more plausible and satisfying than "God".
            1. Nothing is more plausible 2. Nobody cares what you consider "satisfying", fool

            >no argument

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Philosophy to you is a brainlet trying to assume how the universe works based on his feelings rather than observing and studying it

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Vidya gaem understanding of physics
            Entropy isn't chaos as shown in your jrpg

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A few amino acids created is not proof for the unbelievably ordered and complex reality of life

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >A few amino acids created is not proof for the unbelievably ordered and complex reality of life
            It isn't, but it is a plausible idea that through many more millions of years and correct circumstances said organic matter could through similar processes become gradually more complex until life spontaneously emerges.

            >It isn't inconceivable said inorganic matter can, given the right circumstances, change into what we would consider life, structured and reproducing.
            Yes it is.

            I'm all ears if you have am explanation that is more plausible and satisfying than "God".

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm all ears if you have am explanation that is more plausible and satisfying than "God".
            1. Nothing is more plausible 2. Nobody cares what you consider "satisfying", fool

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It isn't inconceivable said inorganic matter can, given the right circumstances, change into what we would consider life, structured and reproducing.
          Yes it is.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Right. People seriously underestimate the complexity and order of life. A single cell in a living thing is in itself mind blowingly complex, and that's starting at a very basic level. Now go all the way to the complexities of the brain, and consciousness and we are talking something so unfathomable it beggars belief.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >A single cell in a living thing is in itself mind blowingly complex
            Life didn’t start with eukaryotes, you are completely talking out of your ass. Stop listening to YouTube preachers and take a biology class

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't say it did. I'm saying a single cell is an unfathomable complex thing, which it is. I don't listen to any YouTube preachers, I just think going from inert material to human consciousness is not so simply explained by Darwinism as most people would think. I think there's plenty of reason to think about, at least consider, intelligent design. I'm agnostic FYI.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's too complex for me therefore magic???

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The brainlet can't comprehend that his argument about the complexity of a cell actually plays into how these systems evolve over time

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            Your assessment is based on your lack of understanding of the subject matter. Eukaryotic cells are very complex, they didn’t arise through chance, that was billions of years of evolution.

            >A few amino acids created is not proof for the unbelievably ordered and complex reality of life
            It isn't, but it is a plausible idea that through many more millions of years and correct circumstances said organic matter could through similar processes become gradually more complex until life spontaneously emerges.
            [...]
            I'm all ears if you have am explanation that is more plausible and satisfying than "God".

            Nothing I said is incorrect. Science doesn't know how the universe began, or how life began, or what consciousness is, so thinking that the science is settled and Darwin mechanisms is how it was it was formed is pure conjecture, just as the idea of a creator is. If you think you know the answers to these questions then it would be the biggest achievement in human history.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also the idea that every human in history pre-darwin was just a complete brainlet with no idea of anything is beyond arrogant. In a hundred years we will look back on this period of history and think the exact same thing of us.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >what consciousness is
            Your neurons homosexual

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Woah, here's your noble peace prize my man, you solved it!

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I get you're so moronic that sounds too complex for you.
            Neurons, memory, conscience.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Amazing, you did it! You solved one of the biggest unsolved scientific and philosophical mysteries of human history. Well done bro.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not really, it was solved a long time ago. Your ignorance of it, or the proliferation of pseudoscience on the subject is not indicative of anything than the fact that consumption of lies is cheap and easy.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cool. Point me to the neuroscience paper that solves the problem of consciousness.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Here you go.
            doi: 10.1097/WNN.0000000000000319

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lol. Wild speculation.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Says the person who can’t even make a falsifiable claim lol. Supernaturalism as an adult male is incredibly embarrassing. You’ll never grow up.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            My guy, you posted a speculative paper with zero unfalsifiable claims about consciousness.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I can't make an unfalsifiable claim because neither me nor anyone on the planet know of an unfalsifiable claim about consciousness. Including yourself.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Shit been solved since ever, the Greeks told you anything already but you like to feed on your fantasies illusions like a stupid child, you shouldn't post on this board.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Actually you shouldn't post here. Quality would skyrocket if you homosexuals weren't here

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Like, the claim that in the beginning out of literally nothing came something, and then on this particular planet out of inert material came human consciousness is no more an exceptionally wild claim as a creator. I'm pretty much 50/50 on the claims, but to proclaim the scientific explanation, which is less than 100 years old, is the be all and end all, is at best naive.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't say it did. I'm saying a single cell is an unfathomable complex thing, which it is. I don't listen to any YouTube preachers, I just think going from inert material to human consciousness is not so simply explained by Darwinism as most people would think. I think there's plenty of reason to think about, at least consider, intelligent design. I'm agnostic FYI.

            Your assessment is based on your lack of understanding of the subject matter. Eukaryotic cells are very complex, they didn’t arise through chance, that was billions of years of evolution.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No it's not, we've found organic compounds on comets dude.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you say chaos is completely without order and it does not abide by any law by virtue of being it's antithesis... but also say that it has a fundamental property of not being able to manifest anything i.e. it has an orderly foundation

        if you contradict yourself in your opening point you are not a serious person and should stick to eating crayons

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        An apple thrown on the group can fly to Jupiter, you can create all types of plausible circumstances that would lead to that end. Does it mean it will? No but when we speak of odds and possibility we look at what can happen before looking at what will more likely happen.
        In an virtually infinite expanse of virtually infinite time all possibilities can be made actual.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          The apple rolling into a spacecraft isn't happening, dumbass

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          1. If something can spawn for no reason, then you re arguing that reason itself doesn't exist, neither cause and effect. This is circular and fallacious since you re using reason to say that reason does not exist. Saying we can't make probabilities for things we haven't observed doesn't mean everything and anything is possible. Life after death by example, is possible because it isn't contrary to the most fundamental principle we know, cause and effect. Saying non existence can spawn existence is fundamentally unreasonable, yet this is what you are doing.

          2. God can transcend nature because he is not part of nature, but supernatural

          3.Saying there is no god is useless, a god existing may possibly be something to take in account.

          4. Nothingness isn't about heuristics. It's a concept. It means non existence, something that isn't. You re arguing that Isn't->Is, which is fundamentally illogical. God, being transcendental, and responsible for reality, "IS" more than anything else. Bigger "be" into lesser "be" doesn't break fundamental logic. While being a supreme transcendental being root cause of reality, claiming there is a being that "is" by himself is less crazy that saying "isn't-->is". Now here's the part you don't understand : you will postpone, thinking that I'm the one postponing, that god too, "is" from "isn't". Here is the key part : Isn't ->Is, isn't possible. Only Is->Is. Therefore the answer must be a Is not preceded by Is. Something that TRANSCENDS nature, something SUPERNATURAL. It cannot be nature itself by principle

          5. God preserves reason through transcendance. You re arguing for the death of cause and effect, for existence being no different from non existence, patterns being no different than randomness. Basically everything s atoms stoner shit. In a philosophical, reason based dicusssion. While pretending to defend reason over my "unreasonable" claims.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            adding, that if God exists, then everything else, reason wise, is preserved.
            If god doesn't exist, then EVERYTHING is fricked up nonsense.

            Which means than a magical ruler from the nothing, is more resonable than magical rules from nothing.

            Rules have no reason to be in nothingness. Atleast god is justified by his transcendental aspect.

            A magical miracle is more believeable than a non-magical miracle. And god hypothesis preserves reason more than no god hypothesis.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >nonsense
            No, in that case everything simply is as it is and does what it does.
            You call it nonsense and ask for "reason" due to your presupposition of the universe being created.
            It doesn't need to be

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            man sorry but are you fricking dumb? you re using "reason" to invalidate what I m saying by claiming that there is no reason, no cause and effect, than anything can spawn from nithingness for no reason at all and that there is thus no difference between randomness and patterns, no difference between existence and non existence, basically going back to nothing means anything, in the midst of an argument based on reason. How can you say "it simply is what it is". it doesnt need AT ALL to be based on a supposition of the unvierse being created, its just pure non sense. Man this website is full of people that are fricking dumb as shit. dont fricking talk to me you re making me angry, wasting my time with posts like this that even a literal moron wouldn't dare type

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Why should I provide proofs for stuff that is part of our reality and observed all the time?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Define order and chaos
      >I don't understand metaphysics but I'm going to debate it with you anyway.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes? The meaning of words can vary and differ. Defining the terms you're discussing is the least you can do.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Chaos is fire.
          Order is the hand that lifts up the fly ash, and puts it into the concrete of the temple that we are building together.
          We use homosexuals to stoke the flames of chaos, but have hope in the knowledge that even the byproduct of chaos is put to good use.

          Chaos is the wind, and the waves of a massive sea.
          Order is the Sail that captures the wind, and the boat that hovers above the sea.
          Some people give credit to the wind and the waves for taking us to our destination. I give credit to the one who made the ship, and put a harness around the neck of the Leviathan.

          Was it man who made the ship, or God? One things for sure, it wasn't the wind and the waves.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >here is the kicker : god is a supernatural explanation
    The Big Bang is a supernatural explanation. What now?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The big bang didn't create the laws of physics you absolute 0 IQ wazzok, go back to where you came from, you can't even understand the topic.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the laws of physics are the effects of interactions of existing objects (inasmuch as "object" can be defined as "an existing thing")
        what created the object(s) quite literally created "physics", ergo the Big Bang still supernaturally led to the inception of physics. His point, being that the Big Bang creating everything is a supernatural explanation, still stands.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          either the laws influence on objects, or the objects influence the law, sicne this is relative ther eis no way for you to know if it is one or the other nor do you have a way to know. It doesnt really change anything anyway, since in both cases there are complex orderly algorithms that repeat patterns at work.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The "Big Bang", rapid expansion of the observable universe, did not create, it is a transformation, it transformed. And the transformants show consistant behaviors we observed and referred as "laws" of Physics.
          There is no supernaturality to be assumed.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And where did the transformants come from? Just something that always was? Eternal transformants just floating around in... Nothingness? Where were these transformants stored? What are these transformants made of and what caused them to transform? Another eternal force? And is so, apply the same questions above and so on and so on.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The research on the nature of vacuum, the "emptiest" thing we know of as the lowest point of energy, is ongoing and will likely inform us more about the nature of all things within it.
            It isn't "nothing" nor is it "an object".

            "Nothing" is simply a discrimating concept disregarding elements to describe the absence of others. You say there is "nothing in the box" even when it is filled with dust, air molecules and electromagnetic waves.
            Having to use such concepts to navigate the works is what ultimately leads us to confusion when it comes to accurately describe it.

            Vacuum is emptiest thing we know of but, just like the "empty" box it isn't "nothing". For all we know that "lowest energy" we describe it as might very well be what it fundamentally is.
            Quantum fluctuations, the formation of virtual particles & such might lead us to big discoveries.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, if the day comes when we can say with some certainty the nature of the universe I will be onboard with whatever that may be. I am also aware of the limitations of the human mind, concepts of nothingness is not something we can really comprehend. We may simply not have the cognitive capacity to ever understand the universes true nature. I think the more we learn scientifically about the universe the further away the scientific solution becomes, I would think we have 200 years or more before a true breakthrough comes. But in the mean time I do see science AND religion as plausible explanatory forces, its just one somewhat deals with the material, and one somewhat with the immaterial. Religion does claim to have found the answer, and in it I find some undeniable truths about the state of being, but for me it still needs a lot more scientific basis for me to be a true believer. Actually the complexities and order we discover continually in science in the universe does not, for me, dispel the idea of a creator but somewhat push me to the idea of an intelligent creator. Each discipline has the power to dispel the other, or both can exist side by side (how I see the world currently).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it still needs a lot more scientific basis for me to be a true believer

            John 15:
            1. I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.
            2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And see, a perfect example. I believe that, truly. I believe that as I, or anyone else, aim at the greatest good, fully embrace it, act upon it, that the sinful parts are pruned away and the good and productive parts of me blossom. But my old atheist beliefs are clouding and confusing my mind. I believe there is ultimate goodness, my trouble is connecting the dots to the christian idea of god, and I don't know why. I think I am fixated on the idea of needing physical, or some definitive scientific proof, although I simultaneously realise that is not needed for all sorts of things in this world, and likely will never happen in my lifetime.

            I hear about religious people having an internal revelation, a spiritual experience, an encounter with god, a religious experience that was so profound that it was proof enough for their beliefs, and I find myself wishing that would happen to me. That would be sufficient as proof for me.

            Did you have a profound moment that cemented your beliefs? What was it like if so? And how can I position myself to receive it in your opinion? I'm 39 now and I fear I will never truly believe, it brings me much distress actually.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            For me? When i was an atheist, I started to MAKE believe, in order to talk to believers. After a while, I started to think of it as two languages describing the same thing. It doesn't matter if you call it "natural selection" or "intelligent design" something is still being "selected". It doesn't matter if you call it "free will" of "determinism". It's still the same experience, you feel, make a judgment, and act based on the logic of your mind and physical body. All of the arguing is just semantics. What's important is the intention. The objective. What do you want? If you don't know what you want, then you are actually very blessed, because you are extremly close to finding God. Ask God, and listen for his voice (if you think the semantics of "voice" are to schizo, just listen for an idea"). Sit and meditate, until something comes to you from your subcontious. Judge if the idea is good or bad, and follow the Good ideas. Be open to the holy spirit (language of others combined with you and your subcontious).

            Another fun thing to do, is to study etymology, and the evolution of phonetics, then you might really start to see how much all of these words go back in forth in their meanings.

            Maybe this isn't the answer you wanted. Ask me again, and I'll give you another answer. Or reject me, and I'll go away.

            You're not alone. Their is code everywhere, in your thoughts, in your DNA, in the DNA of the microorganisms that live inside you, and on you, and in the laws of physics. You are completely submerged in Code. Embrace the good Code. That is God.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No that's actually a very reassuring answer, thank you.

            To be honest I think I'm on the exact same path as you were on. My belief is growing, very slowly, in the direction of religious belief. I have some issues with organised religion but that is another topic.

            I started going to church a while ago for a couple of months with my wife and mother, and I looked around at the people, I could feel a presence radiating from them in union, especially during the songs, and so did they. It was unbridled joy and belief. It was actually an amazing experience for all ofus. The problem arose that we personally didn't feel the presence within us. It was extremely disheartening for me and I stopped going, I felt like a fraud, a disconnect was there. So I figured maybe church just wasn't for me. Do you go to church? Do you think going to church is vital? Did you feel any disconnect at first?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. I go to church, to share and challenge ideas with a common nomenclature. The concept of going to church is vital. If you try to understand language in a vacuum, you will go insane. You have to connect with others.

            The church is the people, not the building. Even interacting with your family, at home, Is a form of church. The more you communicate with the holy spirit, the more your internal dialog is forced to obey reality. The perspective of other people is a great way to wash away false ideas that manifest from a closed system of self indulgent thinking.

            ?&t=3m30s

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thank you, understood. It is really hard being the only one in my day to day life thinking about this stuff, and my thoughts are all muddled and confused. My friend does informal bible studies with a few of his friend and he's invited me along. I think that will help me. Anyway, cheers for the advice.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And yes, I believe that if god is real our conscious is him speaking to us. On a rationalist level our conscious is a very peculiar phenomena. Its not exactly you. It is separate. It pops into existence in your head without you thinking about it. You can argue with it, you can talk to it, you can reason with it, it passes moral judgement and tries to tilt you to the good, you cannot ignore it, it forces you to make a decision for good or evil whether you like it or not.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >everyone aim for the greatest
            Uh... no. I aim for whatever pleases me which may or may not be the "greatest" or "good". Unfortunately your belief is wrong
            > sinful part pruned away
            Was it in Mark christians are told to amputate and mutilate their part that caused them to sin to avoid burning in hell? Gotta find that verse, quite funny
            >ultimate goodness
            Nonsense, there is such a thing "most optimal" but it depends on goals, standards and means. Not some mystic "path of salvation".
            >why needing proof
            So you wouldn't make a fool of yourself, tho that may be too late for your case.
            >religious experience
            You do know what euphoria is? You want that? Take drugs or develop schizophrenia

            For me? When i was an atheist, I started to MAKE believe, in order to talk to believers. After a while, I started to think of it as two languages describing the same thing. It doesn't matter if you call it "natural selection" or "intelligent design" something is still being "selected". It doesn't matter if you call it "free will" of "determinism". It's still the same experience, you feel, make a judgment, and act based on the logic of your mind and physical body. All of the arguing is just semantics. What's important is the intention. The objective. What do you want? If you don't know what you want, then you are actually very blessed, because you are extremly close to finding God. Ask God, and listen for his voice (if you think the semantics of "voice" are to schizo, just listen for an idea"). Sit and meditate, until something comes to you from your subcontious. Judge if the idea is good or bad, and follow the Good ideas. Be open to the holy spirit (language of others combined with you and your subcontious).

            Another fun thing to do, is to study etymology, and the evolution of phonetics, then you might really start to see how much all of these words go back in forth in their meanings.

            Maybe this isn't the answer you wanted. Ask me again, and I'll give you another answer. Or reject me, and I'll go away.

            You're not alone. Their is code everywhere, in your thoughts, in your DNA, in the DNA of the microorganisms that live inside you, and on you, and in the laws of physics. You are completely submerged in Code. Embrace the good Code. That is God.

            >make belief
            That's what God and religious stories are.
            >two languages
            One of reason and the other one of silliness
            >intelligent design
            Seeing Jesus on toast bread
            >intension, objective
            Of using loaded terms to fool people. Etymology or not.
            >code
            There is no code nor coder
            >Laws of physics
            Anons in the thread told you they are not the same written laws.
            >DNA
            No one coded DNA. It quite literally makes itself up(mutation) and filters failures selecting "success" through trial and error. If it was intentionally coded you wouldn't get so much junk DNA and so many genetic ilnesses occuring.

            No that's actually a very reassuring answer, thank you.

            To be honest I think I'm on the exact same path as you were on. My belief is growing, very slowly, in the direction of religious belief. I have some issues with organised religion but that is another topic.

            I started going to church a while ago for a couple of months with my wife and mother, and I looked around at the people, I could feel a presence radiating from them in union, especially during the songs, and so did they. It was unbridled joy and belief. It was actually an amazing experience for all ofus. The problem arose that we personally didn't feel the presence within us. It was extremely disheartening for me and I stopped going, I felt like a fraud, a disconnect was there. So I figured maybe church just wasn't for me. Do you go to church? Do you think going to church is vital? Did you feel any disconnect at first?

            >amazing, joy, belief
            Cope looks like Hope but leads nowhere.

            And yes, I believe that if god is real our conscious is him speaking to us. On a rationalist level our conscious is a very peculiar phenomena. Its not exactly you. It is separate. It pops into existence in your head without you thinking about it. You can argue with it, you can talk to it, you can reason with it, it passes moral judgement and tries to tilt you to the good, you cannot ignore it, it forces you to make a decision for good or evil whether you like it or not.

            >our conscious is
            You, why would it be him? Are you its puppet?
            Or you mean subconscious?
            >it pops into your head
            It's a construct from your brain, you don't need to think about it since it is *you*, the mental you, and derived from the process of thinking.
            >talk, argue, reason
            It's your brain processing information and the conscious you acting as a supervisor of thought making.
            >good and evil
            Immediate or long term interests.
            You're hungry, so you eat your entire fridge empty or do you only eat until you are satiated? First one would be moronic the other well thought.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Life isn't so black and white anon. There is nuance and an engaging conversation to be had. Just saying someone's worldview is wrong, wrong, wrong without engaging on the ideas is naive, arrogant, and resentful.

            But on your point

            >looks like hope but leads nowhere

            Its lead me and innumerable others to be much better people. These people at the church were all successful, kind, and thoughtful. Hell, on the third day of meeting this community they offered to travel 50 miles to a house I had been struggling to renovate and help out. I refused but I sure as hell never forgot that gesture of kindness to a stranger. I have never experienced that level of kindness anywhere, ever, outside of my own family. I have become kinder, more thoughtful, and way more productive. So to say it leads nowhere is just wrong.

            Do you know who the many people who were the most closed minded, hostile, unkind, selfish, aimless people I have come across in life were? People who proclaimed the loudest to be atheist, including myself when I was an atheist. I was deeply unhappy and aimless. And I suspect by how you write, you are too.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            On a side note, after that kind gesture I realised how selfish I personally was, and how I had hate in my heart for other human beings (I was very racist for a very long time). I now go out of my way to offer help to people I know, and also strangers, from little gestures like opening doors for people and smiling at strangers, to helping people through serious mental health issues, and the world is a little better. In fact if an act of kindness inspires another act of kindness in someone else, and then in someone else and so on, the world can be a LOT better through your own actions.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >arrogant
            How is it bad? You'd dislike my tone and would turn deaf to my point from bitter resentment? Guess I'm not really trying to convince you.
            >community
            All communities seek to help each others out. That has nothing to do with religion, it's more of an excuse that a means for it.
            What made us lose our sense of community and made us distant and isolated is means to communicate without meeting people. The phone, the radio, the TV or most recently the Internet you can bag anywhere with you through your smartphone. You get entertainment and mental stimulation without having to engage with people directly.
            That is quite a sad development indeed, rare are the people taking the time to engage with people and those that are patient enough to accept that engagement. We weren't biologically prepared for such a fast development.
            Help out and get helped in return is more basic than you think it is but now is more rare than it has ever been.
            Those christians are from the old generation that uses few technology, they're like "modern day Amish". That's why you may see them as "different". 35 yo? You should have witnessed that change yourself. I grew in the countryside so technology was what was foreign to me despite being a 90's kid.
            You don't need to be christian to be a Hippie tho, humanist universalism is what became widespread and really put the idea of "everyone is equal and deserves good" in us even when christians had that in the NT but forgot about during the middle ages. The NT being some hippie greek fanfiction of abrahamism

            So yeah "engage with the community" is good. But that is not something exclusive to church communities rather they monopolized and instrumentalized it for their nefarious wishes of controlling the population especially Catholism a few centuries back.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well there you go. I actually agree with a lot of what you just said, especially around technology, its an interesting point. Most of them were older, although the one I connected to most and am still good friends with was younger than me. I'm also not into organised religion, I found that out quite quickly after going to church for a few months. The idea that you sit there in silence and have the bible filtered through a single man and his interpretation is troubling to me. I think it should be WAY more dynamic. How about a different vicar each week, including some non religious people commenting on what the bible means etc.

            I believe in the core deep metaphysical truths of the bible though, and I am very open to the idea of god as a creator. I do struggle with Christ and his miracles.

            I'm also not convinced I'd find the same sacrificial kindness in say a magic the gathering community as I would in a true Christian community. The religion sets a framework for these actions.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Uh... no. I aim for whatever pleases me which may or may not be the "greatest" or "good".

            And how's that going for you?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I get what I want and it gives me much needed dopamine and self satisfaction.

            >Was it in Mark christians are told to amputate and mutilate their part that caused them to sin to avoid burning in hell? Gotta find that verse, quite funny

            If you never rectify the bad parts of yourself (sin)/you will live in misery (hell). Its pretty clear no? If you choose to be a lazy, selfish, gluttonous, sadistic, person forever you will never have a meaningful relationship, happy family, be productive, build something etc. And you will be utterly miserable. Now if you aim to the highest good the opposite will happen.

            >And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. - Matthew 18:9
            Matthew not Mark, my bad.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            All the neuroscience literature states quite clearly that chasing short term gratification is a very detrimental to both yourself and others. Also the literature states that the more you think about yourself, the more unhappy you become. Literally.

            Again sacrificing the bad parts of yourself, letting them die, is painful. It can be horrible to realise that 90% of who you are is bad. But what's the alternative? To stubble through hell or at least try to rectify it?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Was it in Mark christians are told to amputate and mutilate their part that caused them to sin to avoid burning in hell? Gotta find that verse, quite funny

            If you never rectify the bad parts of yourself (sin)/you will live in misery (hell). Its pretty clear no? If you choose to be a lazy, selfish, gluttonous, sadistic, person forever you will never have a meaningful relationship, happy family, be productive, build something etc. And you will be utterly miserable. Now if you aim to the highest good the opposite will happen.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not that we don't comprehend these concepts. We give them more actuality than they actually have. As incomplete descriptors, vagueness is their nature.
            What leads to confusion is attempting to force them into the concrete world while adding mysticism around the problems doing so entail to mitigate them. That's how you get stuff like the Onthological Argument for Deistic intelligent design.
            It is essentially doing a category mistake.

            It's hard for us not to, we are biology wired to seek intent and end up searching it in the wrong places. Instead of understanding why it is vain we persist doing so and end up with misguiding and surperstitious conclusions. We're in a way schizophrenic in that effort.

            So that's where "religion" i.e. *spiritualist superstitions* comes from. You don't search for God because he exists, you search for him because you misinterpret the natural and concrete as having intent, you personify the world the same a child personfies objects like dolls or rock/pencil/chair with googly eyes. Comes from the same principle, only what constitutes "googly eyes" change for you.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >calling theists schizo and child-like
            Yet you wear a fedora and wave a japanese katana around like you're in your escapist anime world
            Strange...

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >seething homosexual
            >no argument
            Classic

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think of it as newtonian physics vs quantum physics or astro physics. They are all describing the same thing, but from different points of view, and for different reasons. The reason we want to personify the universe, is because that's how the majority of the humans talk about it. Try telling a fanatic that their God does not exist. They will just kill you, or ignore you. Instead, ask them about their God (mental framework of behavior) and question theit theology. Do not accuse their mental framework, but instead, understand it, and encourage them to be reasonable in their beliefs. Jesus Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life", by definition, not proof. This is the premise in which the logos of Jesus Christ starts. It is the starting point of the tree of logic in understanding who Jesus is. If someone uses the name Jesus Christ, and it does not fit this definition, then they are the antichrist (christ in name only, a vanity, a false idol, the wrong use of a semantic) This is by definition.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >newtonian physics vs quantum physics or astro physics.
            >all describing the same thing
            No they're not, it's because they're describing things on different scales that they do function the same.
            *Astro*physics is used for astral objects, *quantum*physics for quantum particles and Classical "Newtonian" physics which were more generalized and omitted certain factors that do not impact its use measuring everyday objects that much.
            Now I see where you're coming from. Different points of view make a full picture. But I'm not opposing science and philosophy here, I am rather trying to seperate them, especially from science so easily tainted.
            I understand their terminology, I understand how it isn't even that consistent even within one single faith. But I understand there is nothing to gain avoiding confrontation.

            I'm in a very strange position where I accept and understand your argument. In fact that is the way I thought for 30+ years of my life. But I also find it empty. There's no meat on the bones as it were. The juxtaposition of the reductionist materialist argument with everyone's actual day to day lives is so extreme that my gut tells me that's not all there is (not very scientific of me I know). The most intelligent scientist in the world doesn't consume heated h20 and tannins, they drink a cup of tea ritualistically, they experience wetness, its rooted in culture, there are moral judgements being made, we can't even define what a cup of tea actually is, in fact we can't even define what 'real' is etc. And that's just a cup of tea. There is an unbelievable amount of meaning encapsulated in absolutely everything we encounter, and its real, meaning is real, its not superstition.

            I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say, I always try to argue in good faith, even on IQfy.

            >it's not all there is
            You see it as unfleshed and meatless merely because you're searching for something that isn't here and disregard the rest. "The box is empty, it has nothing in it"
            >meaning
            Yeah meaning is in everything humans do. Information containing a mix of intelligence, emotion and intent. It's something we make and share. Language, traditions, gifts, aethetics and arts. But there is such a thing as beyond humanity, outside of *our world*. We call it wilderness, nature, the universe and this "beyond" is *not* human, it has no *meaning* and searching for one is *foolish* and *vain*.
            Those searching greater meaning in places with no human involvement are missing the point. The best they come across is an opportunity for self-reflection.

            Superstitions are just that, seeking something that isn't there and replacing it with mysticism acting like you know more than you do.
            So yeah "you feel like there is more to this world" is you turning a blind eye on how much there is to know already and searching for things that never were or needed to be. The pursuit of a chimera, a mirage, an illusion.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I respectfully disagree. I understand your argument completely, its the exact same one I had for 35 years.

            I don't believe the universe is devoid of meaning. As a single example: the fact that humans, through our consciousness and our ability for language, can literally understand the language of the universe (maths). Is it simply a coincidence that through the vast improbability of life, the vast improbability of consciousness, it just so happens to also lead us to understand a language that is in literally everything. Its simply a trillion trillion chance in one, and that's that, settled, pure random chaos. Well sorry, no, that is not a good enough explanation. We have learned this inherent language before we even know how consciousness works, think about it. There is improbable, and then there is implausible.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >maths is the language of the universe
            It is not, Mathematics and Geometry are abstractions based on our perception of the universe; of forms and units alongside a logic system associated with them. Algebra, calculus, arithmetics ect...
            But neither form and units are *actual* in the concrete world, "object" is a tag we use to refer to a consistant observed physical phenomenom with perceived "consistant presence".
            Maths are a useful tool for measurements in physics but those measurements remain approximations not representative of any actual concrete reality, especially with the nature of quantum objects in mind.
            I know I'm not just denying forms but the reality of *units* as well which is quite bold since it questions the very fabric of reality. What I question about units is not the existence of things thelselves but of their boundaries. When do you draw the line? At the atom? At the electrons? At the gravitational field? All seem quite arbitrary. Due to that I question the legitimacy of units and their boundaries beyond their human concept the basis of mathematics since it is an abstract.
            I imagine a black circle with blurry edges fading away the farther we get from the center and ask myself where does the circle start? I find myself unable to non-arbitrarily answer to that question.
            We are often told certain parameters are "negligeable" but that is only in relation to what measure we're doing. By neglecting those parameters we make our measure approximative. When we question that we are met with a underlying reality; some parameters are unknowable being too insignificant for us to consider or even be aware of. How much of the "infinitely small" can we be even be aware of?

            It remains our only means of measure. Useful approximation precise enough to fit whatever practical need we have of them. As abractions they reflect a general aspect or perceived one of concrete reality without being truly accurate.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Man, reality is wild, right? I guess I have 'faith' in my worldview being somewhat correct, despite understanding your argument. I realise we are bound by the limits of our cognitive function, so literally everything we think we know could just wrong, or that there is no right or wrong at all. But I guess everyone has to make some leap of faith or we'd just cease to do anything at all.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not 'wrong", arbitrarily detailed for the sake of convenience.
            Not out of some laziness or malice, but absolute necessity. We needed to discrimate to discern, we biologically developed the mean to assume and assign boundaries.

            When you study a field like biology you quickly catch up with how much you thought was concrete cut-out vs how all over the place it actually is. Fields like phylogenetics & classification which are literally putting things in made-up boxes over arbitrary picked distinctions & common traits disregarding other less significant ones for the sake of clarity.
            Biology gets called a "soft" science for this, but then you get to what I explained earlier and Physics get to be seen as quite "soft" themselves, it's not as hard as we believe it to be.

            It's all fog, blur & fuzz so we "squint" to see what we interpret as the shapes of things and call it the "concrete". We can observe those things, how they behave, we can determine measures even if based on our level of "squintness" and thus gain an approximative understading of *our world*, the one we navigate through which may only be an aspect of *the whole* that we cannot fully grasp being stuck in our scale. What's beyond the observable universe? What's even more beyond that? What's under the quantum? What's even more under that? We don't know, we can't see, we can't even measure, we can only guess... making mathematical hypotheses like string theory & such but we will never observe not with what we have now.

            All I know is that in the world we navigate, the concrete world, there is no need for a God to exist. That deism originated and was refined from animistic superstitions & remains a supernatural claim which can be concluded to be sourced from an unintentional but misleading category mistake.
            The world is vast, there are "limits" we may never cross & remain out of reach but they are so far away and insignificant to us it doesn't matter.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm in a very strange position where I accept and understand your argument. In fact that is the way I thought for 30+ years of my life. But I also find it empty. There's no meat on the bones as it were. The juxtaposition of the reductionist materialist argument with everyone's actual day to day lives is so extreme that my gut tells me that's not all there is (not very scientific of me I know). The most intelligent scientist in the world doesn't consume heated h20 and tannins, they drink a cup of tea ritualistically, they experience wetness, its rooted in culture, there are moral judgements being made, we can't even define what a cup of tea actually is, in fact we can't even define what 'real' is etc. And that's just a cup of tea. There is an unbelievable amount of meaning encapsulated in absolutely everything we encounter, and its real, meaning is real, its not superstition.

            I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say, I always try to argue in good faith, even on IQfy.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Order cannot be present by itself for eternity, it has to have been ordered.
    Why?

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Laws of physics
    Are not actual "laws", as in written rules, they are coherent observations of physical behaviors, "certitudes". Naming them "laws" was a bad idea since it's a loaded term. Physics are not mathematics, we use mathematics as a tool to explain and measure physics.
    This distinction and nuance is important to take into account if we want to avoid misconceptions like yours.

    The universe is neither "chaotic" nor "orderly", it simply is. Because of the way it is we came to be the way we are in a world like it.
    All things have inertia, nothing is static, stability is not eternal, motion occurs and causes interactions. Change is inevitable. There is no creation nor destruction only transformation. The nature of this Universe of ours is transformative.
    You could say "so it is chaotic", but order rose as well so... can order exist in utter chaos? If yes then yes.
    We came to be through a process of complexification, of matter, of elements, of astral objects, of organic molecules, of Life... that has been happening since billions of years.

    This is not a program, there is no need for a God. Deism remains a fringe hypothesis and is defacto a "supernatural explanation".
    Understading the world is seeing it for what it is; transformed, transforming and transformant. And its complexity is an occuring transformation.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Are not actual "laws", as in written rules, they are coherent observations
      No shit, this was exactly the opening of a topic I made like yesterday

      >The universe is neither "chaotic" nor "orderly"
      This is where you are wrong. This is a post modernist view that nothing exist. This is obviously not true since we are alive and feel alive, so clearly orderly conjunction of things in harmony lead to results greater than their sum, and patterns are real and valueable, and not simple random bullshit perceived by the brain, they have meaning. Therefore clearly there is stuff that follows patterns. Obviously there are degrees of patterns, some that reach a meaningful threshold, some that don't, some extremely and some not at all, to claim that this is not the case because it is relative would be extremely juvenile. Furthermore your reasoning is juvenile since it relies itself on patterns, so you are using patterns to pretend that patterns do not exist, which is circular and thus fallacious. Anyone can understand the concept of nothingness, or chaos, just like one can understand the concept of order, pattern ,and repetition.

      >There is no creation nor destruction only transformation
      If I bashed your skull or your car with an axe repeatedly , you wouldn't consider this destruction? You don't even practice what you preach. Those are the lengths atheists will go to to rationalize their disease of the mind.

      >so it is chaotic
      it's not chaotic. It's following the will of god, that people like you call the laws of physics. But you are right that they ar emere observations of patterns, and since something cannot be created out of nothing and order doesnt stem from chaos, its more likely that things ar emoved by the will of god, rather than "laws of physics" being inherent properties of the universe.

      >This is not a program
      If this is not a program then the phenomenon f physics is the result of the will of god. If it is, you claim order comes from nothingness (insanity)

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >nothing exist
        "Nothing" doesn't exist, it's a man-made concept.
        Our understanding of the world around us is clouded by the abstractive nature of our perception of it and the limitations of our senses diminishing our awarness.
        It's not that nothing is real, it's how we think what is real is uncertain, even then it does not dismiss our ability to perceive the world and its aspects thus it is not about refutting it all entierly. Nihilism is an exercise in skepticism, erasing the mystic from the concrete by refutting it.

        >patterns
        Pattern recognition is a useful abstractive tool of our perception to help us navigate the world around us based on repetitive similarities, what it is indicative of is not some "absolute inherant Order" but the general recurring behavior of an ever-changing transformative world not set in definite shapes. Patter recognizion is fallible enough to make us see faces in trees & poorly drawn or unintentional smileys, seeing silhouettes in random shadows & such. It is inherently a tool developed for our survival.
        You are a social animal and you mistakenly seek intent where none is. You ask "why" instead of "what" & "how" for natural occurings.

        >harmony
        Is simply a concept and an illusion, ecosystems are hardly described as harmonious their equilibrium isn't truly stable and at the mercy of ever-occuring environment shift. The dynamic of life is that of constant change, species arise & disappear while others continue to change. Harmony would ask for a closed system which nature is not. Once again it is all transformative.
        >greater result than their sum
        Complexification is the process of change that leads to what you call "greater results", yet it only results from the transformation of transformants, a building-up process.
        How stars cause new elements to form by exploding, how new traits form from genetic mutations. Change causes novelty.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >nothing exist
        "Nothing" doesn't exist, it's a man-made concept.
        Our understanding of the world around us is clouded by the abstractive nature of our perception of it and the limitations of our senses diminishing our awarness.
        It's not that nothing is real, it's how we think what is real is uncertain, even then it does not dismiss our ability to perceive the world and its aspects thus it is not about refutting it all entierly. Nihilism is an exercise in skepticism, erasing the mystic from the concrete by refutting it.

        >patterns
        Pattern recognition is a useful abstractive tool of our perception to help us navigate the world around us based on repetitive similarities, what it is indicative of is not some "absolute inherant Order" but the general recurring behavior of an ever-changing transformative world not set in definite shapes. Patter recognizion is fallible enough to make us see faces in trees & poorly drawn or unintentional smileys, seeing silhouettes in random shadows & such. It is inherently a tool developed for our survival.
        You are a social animal and you mistakenly seek intent where none is. You ask "why" instead of "what" & "how" for natural occurings.

        >harmony
        Is simply a concept and an illusion, ecosystems are hardly described as harmonious their equilibrium isn't truly stable and at the mercy of ever-occuring environment shift. The dynamic of life is that of constant change, species arise & disappear while others continue to change. Harmony would ask for a closed system which nature is not. Once again it is all transformative.
        >greater result than their sum
        Complexification is the process of change that leads to what you call "greater results", yet it only results from the transformation of transformants, a building-up process.
        How stars cause new elements to form by exploding, how new traits form from genetic mutations. Change causes novelty.

        >destruction
        I used Lavoisier's definition of destruction as "loss", "turn into nothing" which he refuted for chemistry.
        Breaking down, deconstruction, none of my constituants would be lost and it would simply be another transformation.
        I avoid the terms "creation and destruction" due to their potential loadedness about Deistic origins. "Created from nothing".
        >*laws* of physics
        Another loaded term I dislike indicative of the nature of humans as a social species acting schizophrenic about nature. Laws can imply written established rules with intent and that's not at all what Physics describe. Trying to place "the will of God" on simply recurrent natural occurings or rather our consistant observation of them.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The problem is that chaos cannot create order.
    Primordial chaos can

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >There cannot be a program without a programmer because order cannot be spawned by chaos
    Reality simply isn't analogous to a program. The universe is that which is by definition, it is "is". It possesses all the "transcendental" aspects assigned to "god". I know this because it is actually self-evident, while the conception of god, and of which god specifically is purely inferential. There are as many theories about reality as there are gods. Introducing god is what introduces the problem of infinite regression. If you define everything causally your inferred god also requires a creator, and so on and so on

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Reality simply isn't analogous to a program
      it has similarities and I was obviously referring to these, you re nitpicking bullshit and wasting everyones time

      >It possesses all the "transcendental" aspects assigned to "god"
      not necessarily, you re just clinging to the "no god" view by bias, and willing to sacrifice reasoning by making the supernatural natural, and attributing all the insane aspects of god to the universe like its something plausible and believable, yet somehow a god existing is not?
      >I know this because it is actually self-evident
      solid argumentation
      > god specifically is purely inferential
      that's called reasoning

      >There are as many theories
      because there are theories doesn't mean some aren't more sound than others (or even possibly completely sound)

      >Introducing god is what introduces the problem of infinite regression
      It's the opposite actually, are you high

      Clearly you don't have the basics dude, come later

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >nitpicking bullshit and wasting everyones time
        pottery. Literally kys, please

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          like I said you visibly don't have the basics, come later when you re more in tune with this topic

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There never was chaos. Chaos is just when people are looking at something that they can’t understand

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Perhaps there is no such thing as Chaos. Even what seems like chaos must abide by the laws of the universe. Cause and effect is order. The fact that the seemingly chaotic is inevitable some kind of order, isn't it? All order eventually goes out of order. "Chaos" may just be another way of saying "god works in mysterious ways" as we cannot reason with chaos.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have to add that I am baffled by how atheists are willing to compromise reasoning and invent the stupidest bullshit to cling with all their life to their religious belief that there is no god. I feel like a bunch of you must have done weird things to desire to cope so hard.

    In other situations, they are very shy to say anything that isn't backed by a bunch of meta analysis and thousands of articles on google, but about this topic, they do not hesitate to turn into the biggest stoner and make up the most mystical metaphysical unlikely and unproven bullshit (without even winning thr argument, since their hypothetical are so whack that they do not stand scrutiny). Goes to show the hypocrysy and double standard.

    If you applied you re so called methodology that according to you is oh so logical and scientific, you would have become a deist or atleast an agnostic with a deist tendancy a long time ago. It's almost like you are looking for something. Maybe it would be interesting for you to ponder about what that thing is and why is it there in your brain, seems like some of you have yet to shed their religion.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >"you reject Jeebus because you want buttsex with men!!!!" In a 500 words salad

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    morons like OP are created because natural science was divorced from philosophy, back in the day philosophers understood physics, biology and etc, nowadays philosophers are bible thumpers attempting to use "common sense" for their fairytale, truly sad

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >bible thumpers
      Trust me, agnostics are just the worst morons.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Define order and chaos.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There never was a "hard problem of consciousness" only a persistent problem of understanding and acceptance.
    "Soul" is a fringe theory like miasma and the 4 humours attempting to explain the conscious phenomenom of sentience without knowing much about neuroscience biology and the inner-workings of cognition.

    Some people refuse to drop all mysticism about the world and embrace it for what it is not what we want it to have been.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is everything material or are there things that exist outside of the material world? Can you explain an actual idea or concept using biology? No, you cannot.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is a rock a real thing? A rock can take an infinite amount of forms, it can be made of infinitely different amounts and types of material. There is no rock that you could point to that is the same as all other rocks, only a concept (outside of the material world) that encasulates a part of our perception. So is the concept of a rock more real than a random rock on the ground? Well, yes. What you would call "mystical' are immaterial concepts that exist outside of "reality", but they are absolutely 'real'. Everybody lives and participates in a world of ideas, concepts, and "mysticism", whether you like it or not.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Explain the color 'red' to a blind biologist.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How the brain processes and recognizes wavelengths around or between 625 and 740 nanometres. Sensed by the eyes when the L cones are stimulated significantly more than the M cones. The experience of "red" itself being relative but collectively acknowledged by people able to sense the perceived wavelength it describes.
        >what about qualia
        Quirks arising from the changing nature of neuroplasticity.
        >what about it being "hot" and "lively"
        Simple patter recognition and association. We recognize red in blood, hot fire and symbolism of Love like the heart & roses.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That doesn't actually describe what red is though. That's just a rationale for how we see it, not experience it. Its indescribable.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is nothing to add about it tho? It is how we experience red, as the wavelengths we conceptualize as red.
            "red" is a vague concept about how we experience what I described, vague things remaining vague doesn't somehow make consciousness some kinf of mystic thing.
            You want to give it mysticism to things that need none.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Consciousness is just a feeling, an event in gradualist evolution. Hindus and Buddhists knew this thousands of years ago. Whites are too autistic to admit it and Arabs too fricking dumb to understand it.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The problem is that chaos cannot create order
    well clearly this isn't the case then

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >But since they re laws, algorithms, they re not chaotic, but orderly. The problem is that chaos cannot create order. Order cannot be present by itself for eternity, it has to have been ordered.
    Begging the question, that's your fallacy.
    Natural laws are called that, because we have observed and tested how nature behaves and modelled it in these so-called laws. The models only describe nature, they do not prescribe nature.
    Chaos is not personified and chaotic systems do give out unpredictable outcomes.

    In other words: gr8 b8 m8!

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > The models only describe nature, they do not prescribe nature.
      They very much prescribe it in the realm of our reasoning since all reasonign is based on analogies with how we observe reality to be. You can't use reasoning to claim that reasoning doesnt exist because anything can be regardless of anything we know, otherwise whats the point of the conversation? Terrible low brow argument, you ll have to try way harder than that. Yo ure basically advocating for hard empiricism IE "we should never use our brain and only look at what we see" which no one does since it would be impossible to live or survive, but obviously you re hypocritical when it fits your narrative.

      [...]
      >destruction
      I used Lavoisier's definition of destruction as "loss", "turn into nothing" which he refuted for chemistry.
      Breaking down, deconstruction, none of my constituants would be lost and it would simply be another transformation.
      I avoid the terms "creation and destruction" due to their potential loadedness about Deistic origins. "Created from nothing".
      >*laws* of physics
      Another loaded term I dislike indicative of the nature of humans as a social species acting schizophrenic about nature. Laws can imply written established rules with intent and that's not at all what Physics describe. Trying to place "the will of God" on simply recurrent natural occurings or rather our consistant observation of them.

      thats cool but I cant fidn a poitn to answer, are you trying to debate or say random stuff that doesnt contradict anything i said beyond feeling better unloading your thoughts

      >"you reject Jeebus because you want buttsex with men!!!!" In a 500 words salad

      What? Im winning the conversation alone versus the whole website and the only counter argument you could find is some zoomer sperging ? don't you have homework? Also because you phrase something in a "funny" way doesn't make it untrue, most of you are exactly biased in this way, although you have to strawman with buttsex when there could be plenty of other reasons, also if you instantly conflate god with the god of the bible, that's on you, not me, another strawman.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They very much prescribe it in the realm of our reasoning since all reasonign is based on analogies with how we observe reality to be.
        Pseud moment

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >pseud
          Only stupid youngsters use this word these days, you don't have the level for this conversation. Where's the argument btw? You're either a religious empiricist, or I can claim sonic is the god of Gaia since nothing is prescribed whatsoever in reasoning. Another brainwashed kid that can do nothing but vomit the stuff he read in books and have to defend it out of sunk cost fallacy to cope with the fact that he wasted his time and been indoctrinated when he was weak minded, at best, at worst a moron coping

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >schizo rant
            Take your meds and read less philosophy

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Jokes on you I've never ead philosophyt. Also you can't take me which is why you never formulated the semblanc eof an argument beyond the one that i effortlessly invalidated a post a ago, which you ignored to protect your juvenile ego. Cope harder

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Welp, schizo-kuns thread is still up.
      Again:

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Once again:

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >There must be some kind of god because
    kek.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Without God you can't have logic therefore your atheistic reasoning is always wrong

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >kek
      >T. Plato
      thats not how it works homie, you re reassuring yourself, hope you feel better now

      >if [faulty assumption] then [faulty conclusion]

      see above

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >if [faulty assumption] then [faulty conclusion]

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God exists because he is the light that shines the darkness of atheism

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Atheists Go away! Go Away! Go Away! Be Gone!
      You are a child

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    An arbitrary rule applied universally is order. The only difference between order and chaos is the extent to which any given arbitrary rule applies.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      chaos has no amount of rule whatsoever by definition except when it seems so for very short periods of time due to randomness but thats not the point, and what you said doesnt invalidate anything

      you say chaos is completely without order and it does not abide by any law by virtue of being it's antithesis... but also say that it has a fundamental property of not being able to manifest anything i.e. it has an orderly foundation

      if you contradict yourself in your opening point you are not a serious person and should stick to eating crayons

      lack of order is not order and you re the one eating crayons, you probably smoke too much weed as well

      Welp, schizo-kuns thread is still up.
      Again:

      i already answered that moron, why do you link to it again link you didnt get invalidated you actual schizo, either give new arguments or stfu

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Order is an emergent property of chaos
        That's what ancient greeks and all of those religions with a "primordial egg" deity thing conclude.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Nope, you never did answer or touch on any of those points, you just went straight for schizobabble.

        So, again

        >But since they re laws, algorithms, they re not chaotic, but orderly. The problem is that chaos cannot create order. Order cannot be present by itself for eternity, it has to have been ordered.
        Begging the question, that's your fallacy.
        Natural laws are called that, because we have observed and tested how nature behaves and modelled it in these so-called laws. The models only describe nature, they do not prescribe nature.
        Chaos is not personified and chaotic systems do give out unpredictable outcomes.

        In other words: gr8 b8 m8!

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God is everything trying to put itself together, while you philosophise you do so in search of knowledge and that search of knowledge, this intelligence, is God itself, seeking to understand itself with a never ending intrigue for the sole purpose of mastering the universe. Once the universe is mastered it can be manipulated, and once universal manipulation is mastered God will be whole.

    Therefore, Everything has “intelligence” (or “order”), down to the atom/quark etc. and our entire existence is to seek knowledge, we only perpetuate our existence for this purpose. Though in the end we may just be contributors, serving as necessary but distanced cogs and rather the AI’s we create or something beyond that could be the finale stage of God.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      A unity in or among things can't be proven.

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