Hey brainlet theists:

Hey brainlet theists:

What caused god to exist? Huh???

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_unlearned
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

His will formed the abyss. The Abyss formed his seed of creation. The Seed formed The Law. The Law formed the three muchachos; sons of the Mother of Serpents and The Father. The Three Muchachos were given life with souls, God taking the middle child out of a bad habit. Thus formed God.

Causes are only necessary for Universal constructs. As an extra-universal being God is not subject to the same laws of cause and effect.

me cumming in your mom

A larger God.

why not

'cuz I needed someone to GET ME MUH DAMN CROISSANT.

Nothing. The universe exists. According to what we observe, everything that exists has a cause which caused it to exist --- but there's nothing to explain what the First Cause is, if there is one. So you either need infinite events going back (without a first cause, thus negating typical ideas of causality), or an Uncaused First Cause.

People who believe in causality are like people who believe in a flat earth. Just because, on our limited, local level, everything we see seems to follow the law of cause-and-effect doesn't mean it is a universal law. Just like how, from our immediate sight, the world around us looks like a flat plane extending around us in every direction. If we take a broader view and use logic, we can see that, on a larger scale, causality has to be broken/stop functioning as we observe it somewhere, just like the Earth, from a larger and more logical view, is a globe.

Atheists just can’t seem to understand it. God is the eternal, and in his love the universe is, was, and continues to be formed as an act of love: the love of eternal compassion which became manifest in the word and flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ who, in his sacrifice, simultaneously revealed and renewed the eternal love from the unmoved Father which was (and is) eternal but is beyond the fallibility of human logic therefore is grasped only through Jesus Himself who sought (but was ordained from the beginning ex nihilo (remember the platonic logos) by God’s plan which is without spatial-temporal presence as the mover must be outside of such mortal frameworks) to reunite humanity to the eternal love which we denied when it was brought to us in the ultimate act of love which was creation.

Atheist brainlets get out if you can’t into theological proofs.

he caused himself.

Checkmate

Now this is gnosticism.

>theological ***proofs***

Why would you assume that the one who created everything had to be created?

Cleanse yourself of “””Logic””” (baseless secular myth) and try reading some Aquinas, brainlet

Why would you assume that the universe had to be created?

>The universe couldn't exist without a cause. That would be absurd!
>What caused God? H-he caused himself. Uh, I mean nothing. He doesn't need a cause. Obviously, you foolish atheists.

The Universe is subject to observable laws, including cause and effect. Any original existence would need to either break those laws, or simply be unaffected by them. And outside force of some kind is not an insane assertion

God exists because we witness life, and we can deduce life to 2 points, beginning and end, the inbetween the being, that subjecte to experience.

easy answer:
material things need a cause
god is not a material thing

also the cosmological argument+a revision of the ontological argument is a deadly combo to atheists

>the cosmological argument+a revision of the ontological argument is a deadly combo to atheists
Hume and Kant would like a word with you

>Hume and Kant would like a word with you
oh no!!!!!!!!!!!! what will I do??????????

I'm Jesus. Worship God and thou shall dine with me in heaven BUT only if you post "daddy is harsh but daddy is just" in this thread.

>The Universe is subject to observable laws, including cause and effect.
as it exists now

Immaterial things also need a cause, in fact they seem to always depend on material things.

>Immaterial things also need a cause
[citation needed]

Their office is round the back. Just take a deep breath before you go in, and be yourself. You’ll do fine.

Eat your lobsters and smell the cat bucko

>as it exists now
Sure. Perhaps at some point it was subject to other laws, but that's as equally unprovable as the existence of extra-universal beings/constructs.

>epiphenomenalism
gay

Nothing did

>nuh uh, he's magik

THIS. We must first understand that God is the eternal, and in his love the universe is, was, and continues to be formed as an act of love: the love of eternal compassion which became manifest in the word and flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ who, in his sacrifice, simultaneously revealed and renewed the eternal love from the unmoved Father which was (and is) eternal but is beyond the fallibility of human logic therefore is grasped only through Jesus Himself who sought (but was ordained from the beginning ex nihilo (remember the platonic logos) by God’s plan which is without spatial-temporal presence as the mover must be outside of such mortal frameworks) to reunite humanity to the eternal love which we denied when it was brought to us in the ultimate act of love which was creation.

Heya bucko
*licks lips*
Ya really should start plotting ya know bud, its a dark deep place, in this room, dantes inferno is not the place you want to be, i tell you what mister, im serious, pet the cat, and clean that room

>cause

God is described as omnipotent. That can't be a new concept for you. The question boils down to, how does the Universe come into existence without the logic-defying capabilities of omnipotence?

And here is the affect

Tfw darma and karma

>being a reactionary

I never saw Hume as denying the need for a cause, he just disputed that we can actually identify the causal relationship

Name one (1) immaterial thing exists without a material cause. protip: don't say God

Angels?

Why believe in something that you can't explain is a better question

That seems like a different argument to me. I'm inclined to call it a dodge, because you don't have a good response to the question of how the Universe originates without outside help

Art exists in the mind first

I can't explain or observe the existence of quarks, but we can imply their necessity through other observations

Imagine actually thinking this is an argument

DADDY IS HARD BUT DADDY IS JUST

this board is trash you should all be sterilized
thank you user this is the only good post

Clean the lobster bucko

MAGIC!

Somewhat unrelated but there are tribes that exist that have never had outside human contact and they obviously don't follow Christianity, when they die do they go up to heaven and get flat out refused entry? Seems a bit unfair as they never had the option of believing in God.
Anyone have a counter argument to this? Thanks desu

In Romans it talks about how every man regardless of his creed has the Word of God "written on his heart", so not knowing Christianity is not an excuse. It would seem that God goes a little easier on people unfamiliar with the faith.

Also what about all the dudes that were around before Jesus was spreading the word of God, similar circumstance. Thoughts guys?

But you can explain them. These guys can't explain Gods omnipotence or existence, let alone provide meaningful observations.

Ah thanks! Appreciate it

>not knowing Christianity is not an excuse
An excuse for what? Immoral behaviour or a lack of faith?

Perhaps we have different definitions of explain. Ultimately, it seems to me that the universe requires something that defies our current understanding of the laws of physics to exist. Given how solidly tested they are, I think it's most likely that the universe was created by a force subject to either a different set of laws or no laws at all.

The mind exists because of the brain.

Lack of faith, immoral behaviour, and that its not an excuse to get a free pass at the judgement

So Jesus was on the cross with a murderer right and he was allowed to enter heaven on the sole reason that he was sorry for his actions, if I go out and kill a few people now and am actually sorry for my actions am I allowed to enter heaven? Seems a bit unfair in comparison to a total dweeb who works 9-5 does nothing wrong in his whole life and only later to be sent to hell because he didn't think God was real. So we have a murderer in heaven and a law abiding citizen in hell.
Thoughts fellas?

>look mom I quoted everyone in the thread

>there are tribes that exist that have never had outside human contact and they obviously don't follow Christianity
That's nothing. According to Christianity, for most of human history there was only ONE tribe that DID know about the true God and God didn't even tell them to proselytize.

By explain I mean provide cause, effect and laws which can all be proven empirically

In that case the Universe is inexplicable.

What a ridiculous position. Somehow people are expected to arrive at Christian faith without any familiarity with even Judaism, let alone Jesus' teachings? Also if the word of God is "written on the heart" then surely this undermines the role of Jesus massively. He is considered a "new truth" that enters the world in a specific place and for a specific amount of time, yet if I was born in the undiscovered Americas then I am still somehow supposed to have embraced him? How does this all work?

I'm fairly certain most Christians believe Jesus offers a path to Heaven for non-believers. It's why you see things like Purgatory pop up.

Yeah. That's fine

As seen here:
Your question has never been seriously answered by Christians. Their beliefs are as 'universal' as any other attempts at theism found across the world.

I don't think anyone has ever pretended that Christians agree on every potential facet of belief. In fact that seems obviously preposterous given its history. But we all agree on the Apostle's Creed, and that seems good enough to me.

Its not a question of agreement, there flat out is no serious attempt to answer the question. No denomination answers the criticism well.

I'm not sure what you mean by well. Catholics have a very rigorous response. Do you just mean you haven't found one to your personal liking?

What do you understand the catholic response to be?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_unlearned
I'd recommend actually reading through the Catechisms for the full argument, but this is a good summary.

The teachings are as I remembered them, then: basically people that were good without Christian teachings will probably be saved by God anyway. What exactly is the point of the gospels or any Christian moral precepts if people can righteous and saved without them or their guidance? What purpose does baptism serve if God saves those who were righteous without receiving or even knowing of such a sacrament? The Church seems to massively undermine its own importance with this argument.

Since this is a random Christian thread can a Christian please explain to me how Heaven and Hell actually works? I can never get a clear answer whether in the literature or from other people. This seems absurd to me because it's the most important part of the religion and the only reason people believe in it in the first place.

The point of Christianity is not to be saved but to love God. Salvation is just a part of that. Sure the non-Christians might get into Heaven, but they lived life without a loving God to love.

Most Christians, in my experience, don't believe Baptism is a necessity for salvation. It's a public expression of faith, and is meant to serve as a formal declaration of joining the church and following Christ. Ultimately, Salvation is good, but it's not the core reason to become Christian. You do it because Jesus' teachings are fundamental to being a moral person and because there is nothing more satisfying than a personal relationship with God.

I think you're mistaken my friend, and ultimately there's just not much we can tell you in certainty about Heaven and Hell. Christ was more interested in teaching how we should act on Earth.

>the aspect of the universe not subject to internal laws cannot be the first cause

What's the practical difference between an aspect of the universe that isn't subject to the laws of causation and an outside force? Either way, you're handing over the Universe's origin to something that defies logic.

So the billions who lived and died without Christianity couldn't possibly have lived good (not just moral) lives without loving this concept of God? I disagree with your view of salvation - a life filled with the love of God is a passing affair, the real business of Christianity is the eternal outcome of your actions. That's part of the New Testament's insistence at the brevity and suffering of life on Earth, and its why St. Paul says in one of his letters that he longs to die and begin the joys of salvation. The end and subsequent eternity are what matters, and with regards to it the church has to give what I think are extremely flimsy arguments to explain the "unlearned."

>something that defies logic.
The law of cause and effect isn't logically necessary.

There's a lot of things we can't explain and yet believe.

not that guy but there isnt a point in contemplating the fate of those who never heard the word. whatever God decides to do with them is his decision. i don't understand why people speculate on the salvation of others.

There's no certainty at all about Heaven and Hell? I can find various theologians and writers descriptions of what Heaven is like but they all seem to disagree and contradict each other. What's the point of this religion in the end then if you don't even know anything about the most important part?

Nah, the brain exists because of the greater conciousness, at the greater conciousness created the brain to exist on the material plane

Like?

Like I said, you're mistaken. Heaven and Hell aren't the most important part.

>It's a public expression of faith
Not for the Catholic Church. The sacraments are paramount and an absolute necessity for cleansing away original sin, except when the Church has to admit that it actually isn't all that necessary when it comes to the "unlearned."
>Jesus' teachings are fundamental to being a moral person
I'm sorry but no. As I said to the other user, the Catholic Church itself has been forced to admit that there is such a thing as righteous men and women who have never even heard a word of the gospels. They go to heaven without baptism and are saved without the moral guidance of Christianity which you argue to be so fundamental.
>there is nothing more satisfying than a personal relationship with God
We'll agree to disagree on this one

A central element of the faith is the confession and contrition of those who sin and the forgiveness of God. The whole point is that you'll get as many chances as you need to get it right.

This isn't just pointless abstract debate, it is a major reason to disregard Christianity, in my opinion. The real crux of the debate is this: why would the almighty God of Christianity send the truth of His existence and the word of His will down to only a select few people on Earth? What about the millions that lived in the Americas at the time of Jesus' crucifixion? There was no way they could have ever known about the 'truth' of the Christian faith so they were, by the basic Christian account, bound for Hell. They could never have been saved because God didn't make Himself known to them. But why would a loving and fair God do this? How is this fair?

Righteous non-believers are still following Jesus' teachings. It's just easier to do that when they're explicitly laid out for you. Perhaps what you're missing is that Catholicism believes its ceremonies to be the easiest way to get to heaven, even if they aren't the only way Jesus provides.
Ultimately, I'm not Catholic, so I understand your frustration.

Why do you keep ascribing beliefs to Christianity that the majority of its believers don't hold?

Like you, and everyone else, including myself, likely have no idea how to explain consciousness or the appearance of free will, but we believe and act as if they are true. This is the case with a lot of fundamental things. How does physics work? You get to a point where you just describe how things seem to be without any explanation of them.

Just because people can be moral without the Church doesn't mean that the guidance isn't needed. A child with parents has a better chance than an orphan.

Yes you will, because you don't understand how or from whence virtue is derived. It is only derived from God's grace. If someone doesn't come to fully recognize God's grace in their lives, they are lost. They will get to heaven's gates and God will tell them

"You have been a great person indeed but one thing"
"What?"
"I can't help but feel you never prayed, you never thanked me for the world you were given, never depended on me for moral support. Because of this, you were still much less than you could have been. You will not get into the heaven I created for you if you did not accept that Earth was what I created for you as well."

Because he has an axe to grind

Anybody who tries to explain how Heaven and Hell work are either making shit up or so deep in theology you wouldn't be able to understand them anyway because you're not a 6th century bishop.

God isnt held to any concept of human standards. what we believe as fair or not doesnt matter. i don't agree with your assumption that those people are condemned anyway, and i dont think a lot of Christians would either, if you asked. to me the question is irrelevant. if theyre saved, theyre saved, if they arent, they arent.

I'm talking about a string or some minutiae, not a complex personal agent with a Sims Earth app.

LOL
Here is Heaven and hell for the common man to understand. This is 100% Truth.


>Heaven:
A place of being.
Existence of Heaven before death, would be the beings mind space.

After death Heaven is the place the Soul goes into, through the contrsuct that the Being creates.

Hell; non existent, a depressive pit, Gravity

>Righteous non-believers are still following Jesus' teachings.
No they aren't necessarily. Sexual morality is a huge aspect of Christian dogma so, for example, would polygamy in American tribes have condemned otherwise righteous people to Hell? This is explicitly condemned by Christ and Paul so they technically are not in line with Jesus' teachings. What about homosexuality?
>It's just easier to do that when they're explicitly laid out for you.
Can you not see why this is an unconvincing argument? A text is written roughly 2,000 years ago in Early Roman Palestine about a Jewish carpenter who claimed to be the son of God. This man gave moral teachings and then was executed by Roman officials. You seriously argue that these teachings were universal and somehow known to every righteous man across the world throughout all of history, whether they knew it or not? This just seems to me like a desperate attempt to the ignore the historical aspect of Christianity, which Christians use to condemn every other form of theism that developed around the world.
Please tell me which of my statements are misrepresentative.

>I don't understand why people have empathy

ftfy