God is God because he's God

why not then just reduce the argument to "universe is self sufficient" because nothing came before it?

OP is gay because he's gay.

For OP to be called gay, he has to be homosexual in the most absolute sense. No doubt must exist in his gay agenda.

Discuss

How'd you suggest I'd do it then? No sarcasm, legit question.

Good for him.

You can apply my logic to anything you think came first into existance. If it's the universe, then that's your God.

Well you could look at the claims they make and see if they align with reality and if they do it is in such a way its more likely than not that a non religious explanation is more unlikley answer

Your post got a tad confusing by the end, but I'm already religious. I know how to perceive thing on a religious way faith, heart and measured with a tad of logic (not necessarily scientific).

This is strictly a logic based concept I came up with and am asking if people agree. If It was centered around my beliefs I'd make a bigger post.

Fuck off, namefag

Needed a bump, tanks.

The scientific method is just hypothesis->test->-result->repeat -> answer. If you cant repeat it science cant measure it, hence anything in the past or even most legal questions are beyond it.

To clarify the last part theres a bigger burden on religious people as they have to demonstrate that not only is current understanding of reality correct but also that a non religious explanation is the best one.

For instance say I wanted to prove Christianity correct with the miracle of the Sun first I would first need to demonstrate that the sun cant move that way naturally (easy enough) but also that its more likley that God moved it than people staring into the sun for long period of time saw moving light.

We are diverging from the main topic, but I'll answer it anyway.

I agree with you on the scientific method part, specially on the legal part since I'm a lawyer. Thing is, logic isn't something exclusive to science, it's broader than that. I meant logic in that broader sense.

The second part about "proving" a religious philosophy over science and even other religions I also agree, but only in the sense that it's difficult. No philosophy regarding such cosmologic reasonings are wrong, they all are facets of the same reality. Science and religion don't cancel each other, they complement each other. An excelent example of this os Sacred Geometry. So yeah, choose religion over science or vice versa is missing the bigger picture.

And I'd like to say something about my point about science X religion because you seem to question it also. Like I said they are sides of the same coin that tries to explain existance, but their respective method to do so is vastly different, that's why you can't use science to explain or "prove" anything religious. But logic is something broader than that, it can be applied on both fronts with some observations and cautions.

>that's why you can't use science to explain or "prove" anything religious

If Lutheran priests and only Lutheran priests could transform the wine and bread into flesh and blood every time that would be a solid scientific proof would it not?

>what come before it? repeatedly until you tire everybody
I heard that argument by my muslim teacher and it's just not smart

Yes it would, it's impossible to replicate it so there's no danger of occuring in real life.

Also, much of religion comes from what we cal "the Mystery". It isn't bliss through ignorance, it's the reassurance that no matter how much we try, we can never explaing everything. It's the place where many people, me included, find religion so captivating and beautiful if read with the right mindset.

This is the major reason why St. Augustine said that science kills faith. Not because science is so powerful it can overcome faith, but because if there were such a possibility, it would kill all it's meaning, the Mystery.

Care to explain why?

Btw, I'm not muslim. But that doesn't mean their theology shouldn't be considered.

Because you can go back infinitely like with numbers. I am a christian and saying God is ruled by time is dumb

>It's just a logical conclusion from that problem with the concept of a God.
>The one where you just ask "what came before it?" repeatedly until you tire everybody.

Except it isn't a logical conclusion, it is a statement with no evidence and no argument.

>saying God is ruled by time is dumb
>you can go back infinitely like with numbers

God isn't ruled by time, but it's hard as balls for humans to explaing the origin of anything without using time-based concepts like you just did.
Truth is, in my view, since God is timeless, we are still in that timeless period when God is created. We are a consequence. Everything a consequence of Him. There's no "separation" between him and everything else.

See .

How can I prove religious concepts?

If you are admitting you can't prove them why are you claiming your religious statements are conclusions based on logic?

No it's not hard as balls. God just exists outside ''existence'' so he isn't ruled by time and space. That's why he is a ''supreme'' being

Logic isn't exclusive to science.
Also, not proving anything by any means. Like I proposed on the post: it's a discussion.

And that's precisely why I said what I said on the previous post. God isn't ruled by time, but we are and it's basically impossible for us to describe the origin of something atemporal without temporal concepts. We don't have words for it.

>Logic isn't exclusive to science.

I didn't say it was and I haven't mentioned science. Look up the words logic and conclusion in a dictionary and then explain how you making flat statements based on no reasoning, no evidence and no arguments are "logical conclusions". Just making something up is not a conclusion based on logic.

>Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογιkή, translit. logikḗ[1]), originally meaning "the word" or "what is spoken" (but coming to mean "thought" or "reason"), is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of valid inference. A valid inference is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the inference and its conclusion. (In ordinary discourse, inferences may be signified by words like therefore, hence, ergo and so on.)
>Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] It is one of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, over the idea of innate ideas or traditions;[2] empiricists may argue however that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.[3]

Im using empiric logic. Here's your homework.

the Universe IS God

>Im using empiric logic.

Where is then? Where's your reasoning?

Not him but...
>God is God because he's God.
Is a self referencing and self affirming axiom. There's no rational discussion to be had.

>0 is 0 because it is 0
>Discuss.
0

Also, Google "causal arguments for God" and "teleological arguments", paying particular attention to how they are defeated. Then, after you've at least learned where Saint Thomas Aquinas failed, maybe you can have a "discussion". You may not have had access to education growing up, for one reason or another, but every famous debate from that angle, made by both saints and sinners throughout all of history, is readily at your fingertips, so you have no excuse now. Arm yourself and learn from their victories and defeats.

Much by the same reason that God supposedly is timeless, there's no begining or end to him (sorry for the time based concepts), therefore there's no God creator. He is his own reason for existing. And that's also the final answer to "what came before ___?".

I'm not questioning the existance of God or confirming it. I'm just asking if my logic checks out parting from the assumption that a God does exist, if he even does.

>being this cucked you pray to a black god
wew lads

There isn't any logic here to "check out". When I said look up what logic means I didn't mean copy and paste from wikipedia. Try looking up logic again and actually reading and understanding what it means. I'm tired of giving you "yous".

Great way to have civilized debate bud.

>Understand what logic means
>There is no universal agreement as to the exact scope and subject matter of logic

For all it's worth logic can be as broad as just a statement that concludes with just everyday common sense and guessings with some justification.

God is a logical idea, an incomprehensible alien intelligence from beyond the universe may have created our reality but to assume it would give a single shit about us is absolute stupidity. Also there is no way in fuck the jew deity is the creator of our universe, for one thing it would be impossible for us to find the creator unless it reveals itself to us. We are just one planet out of sextillions in this universe, you have to be delusional to believe such an intelligent being would waste its time concerned with you.

What came before time?

You do realize causality is a procession of time. You cannot, by definition, have a cause of time. Causality breaks down at that point.

You're repeating arguments that were defeated in the 11th century, by religious folks who were debating with one another, using the same regressive questioning that any five year old could end up at.

While, I'll admit, this still leaves you qualified to post on Veeky Forums, it does not qualify you for a "logical discussion".

>There is no universal agreement as to the exact scope and subject matter of logic
There maybe some debates as to the limits of logic - this does not mean that there isn't a universal agreement on how logic is supposed to work. In that sense it is as universal as math.

Again, virtually all the knowledge of mankind is but a click a way - research before you try to start a "discussion" and claim you are using "logic".

>You can't do anything scientific when trying to argue anything about God.

That's not true - but you have to know what God looks like first before you can test for it.

youtube.com/watch?v=NjsO1bGMd20

What i want to know is why did god create logic that makes his nature seem so paradoxical.

He studied hebrews religion and other religions and said gods were people that died and people made it gods

You are welcome

>You do realize causality is a procession of time. You cannot, by definition, have a cause of time. Causality breaks down at that point.

There's plenty of non-temporal notions of causality which are used in these discussions. To justify what you said, you must argue why causality must be time-based.

>You're repeating arguments that were defeated in the 11th century, by religious folks who were debating with one another, using the same regressive questioning that any five year old could end up at.

You should read up on the history of philosophy; most of these arguments have been around since Plato and prototypes of it existed among the pre-socratics, and they're still hotly debated today among the experts.

>There's plenty of non-temporal notions of causality which are used in these discussions.
Name one. Not even quantum flux arguments cover causality outside time, outside of speculation, it ends at exactly that point.

>You should read up on the history of philosophy; most of these arguments have been around since Plato and prototypes of it existed among the pre-socratics
Arguments that probably started far before them, but were officially put to rest by Christians near a millenia ago.

>and they're still hotly debated today among the experts.
Not among philosophers nor educated Christian theologians. At best, by the likes of occasional evangelical show boat and Bill Nye the fake science guy.