Fucking /r/athiesm m8 these cock sucking twats act like they know everything but when you give cohesive counter arguments they automatically ban you

[reptiles]

the cosmogilogical argument.
Here is an expanded and highly complex version of the cosmological argument for monotheism at an advanced D.Sc level:
Ontological Substruction of Prime Origination
Definition 1: Existence precedes essence ontologically. That is, existence as being is irreducible, while the essence of particular things derives from their participated being.
Axiom 1: Absolutely no potential can actualize itself, for a potential lacks the actuality required to become actual.
Axiom 2: Only actualizers can actualize potentials to their actualized terminated states.
Theorem 1: If some collection of actualizers C exists, there must be at least one purely actual actualizer P not dependent on any other actualizers in C for its actuality. Proof: Regressing through the collection C, we must terminate in a purely actual actualizer P, else C would consist in an infinite essentially ordered regress of actualized potential actualizers, which is a logical impossibility by the principle of sufficient reason.
Definition 2: The complete absence of any potentiality in P entails that P exists outside space and time and lacks any material or temporal parts or passions.
Theorem 2: There can be no more than one purely actual actualizer P. Proof: If there were two purely actual actualizers P and Q, the identity of indiscernibles requires that they have identical attributes, in which case P and Q are one and the same purely actual actualizer.
Axiom 3: Existence is good, and the maximal existence of a purely actual actualizer would therefore be good to the maximal degree metaphysically possible.
Definition 3: A personal being is one with intellect and will. Only personal beings are capable of self-determination and exercising causal power voluntarily.
Theorem 3: The purely actual actualizer P must be a single all-good personal God with maximal existence metaphysically possible. Proof: Only conscious voluntary agency provides sufficient reason for the origin of spatiotemporal contingent existence from absolute metaphysical nothingness. Therefore, P must be personal. By Axiom 3 and the supreme perfection of P in Definition 2, P must also be all-good.
Conclusion: Therefore, monotheism as defined is logically proven to follow from ontological analysis of the necessary preconditions for the existence of contingent being. This provides a fully valid metaphysical demonstration of classical monotheism under the assumptions and axioms stipulate


the telelogical argument

Teleological Monogenesis of Biological Complexification

Observation 1: Biological life has evolved over billions of years from simple structures to highly complex organisms through minor variations and natural selection.

Axiom 1: Functionally complex systems capable of self-replication and information processing cannot emerge from purely stochastic processes. Some degree of teleological orientation is required.

Axiom 2: Intentionally guided evolution implies a goal-oriented intelligence behind the process.

Theorem 1: The fine-tuned fitness of organic chemistry, genetic coding machinery, and irreducible complexity of biochemical systems imply teleological guidance of abiogenesis and biological evolution toward greater complexity.

Axiom 3: Parasitism, predation, pain receptors, and mass extinctions reveal no single omnibenevolent teleological agent, since these processes are not optimally good.

Definition 1: Cooperative symbiosis and complex ecologies exhibit far more sustainable good than parasitism. Group competition selects for moral cooperation within groups.

Theorem 2: Biological evolution has been guided by a teleological demiurge pursuing an overarching goal of maximizing cooperative symbiosis, despite allowing partial evils due to initial constraints.

Axiom 4: A plurality of demiurges could not consistently cooperate toward a unified teleological goal due to diverging interests.

Theorem 3: Biological evolution has therefore been intricately directed by a single supremely rational demiurge toward the telos of self-aware cooperation. This entails metaphysical monotheism.

—Anticipated Objections—

Objection 1: Complexity can emerge from stochastic evolution without teleological guidance.

Reply: Irreducibly complex systems could not plausibly self-organize without goal-directed configuring of information.

Objection 2: Sociobiology explains cooperation from group selection without teleology.

Reply: Altruistic behaviors transcend reproductive fitness and cannot be explained reductively.

Objection 3: An evil demiurge or imperfect designer is not ruled out.

Reply: A wholly evil demiurge could not guide evolution toward cooperation, nor could squabbling demiurges collaborate on a unified teleological process.

Conclusion: Biological evolution exhibits ontological monogenesis by a supremely rational single Creator minimizing evil to achieve the good of symbiotic community. This demonstrates metaphysical monotheism as the only coherent explanation of biological teleology.


I'm sick and tired of these cock suckers on atheist sites acting like all religious people are retarded


@TRUE_CEL

as for why I'm a chrstain and an black piller it's simple the bible is more accurate on human nature why life is a hell and i think society would be a better place if it was christain

 

[Deleted member 14693]

Explain the argument for low IQ people like me

 

[EnglandBadman]

Explain the argument for low IQ people like me

Same, im confused

 

[Deleted member 14693]

Same, im confused

He probably doesn't understand it himself, he just saw a long text with complicated words and though "must be high IQ"

 

[reptiles]

Same, im confused

Well I'm a strong Christian and I belive the black pill is law but this is because of our sinful innate natures we as humans should aim to go beyond this and get married and to fight agaist sinful urges 2 wrongs after all don't make a right

 

[reptiles]

He probably doesn't understand it himself, he just saw a long text with complicated words and though "must be high IQ"

No I understand the argument I was just trying to make sure it was fool proof and it actually targeted counter arguments given

 

[kwacker777]

Can you summarize all this in your own words

 

[depressionmaxxing]

muh sins.

 

[Deleted member 14693]

No I understand the argument I was just trying to make sure it was fool proof and it actually targeted counter arguments given

If you understand it then explain it for idiots

 

[reptiles]

Can you summarize all this in your own words

Here is a simplified version of the key arguments:

The universe must have had a beginning. Something can't come from nothing. There must have been a powerful first cause that created the universe. This first cause must be God.

Life is too complex to have formed by chance. DNA is like a code that requires an intelligence. The amazing design of life shows it must have been designed by God.

Bad things like suffering might make people think there can't be a good God. But God has good reasons to allow some bad things, even if we don't understand.

Some people think there could be many gods. But the universe is orderly and carefully designed. This shows there is just one God in control.

Atheists act like religious people are dumb. But there are good philosophical arguments for God's existence. Atheists can't explain where the universe came from or how life became so complex without God.<<

It's really a simple argument rehashed a billion times but simple arguments need the strongest defenses

 

[reptiles]

If you understand it then explain it for idiots

Look at the comment above the entire argument goes into more depth

 

[reptiles]

muh sins.

I mean explain why the bible models so well to human behaviour and even if christianity isn't true functionally most incels benefit from a christain society

 

[EnglandBadman]

Here is a simplified version of the key arguments:

The universe must have had a beginning. Something can't come from nothing. There must have been a powerful first cause that created the universe. This first cause must be God.

Life is too complex to have formed by chance. DNA is like a code that requires an intelligence. The amazing design of life shows it must have been designed by God.

Bad things like suffering might make people think there can't be a good God. But God has good reasons to allow some bad things, even if we don't understand.

Some people think there could be many gods. But the universe is orderly and carefully designed. This shows there is just one God in control.

Atheists act like religious people are dumb. But there are good philosophical arguments for God's existence. Atheists can't explain where the universe came from or how life became so complex without God.<<

It's really a simple argument rehashed a billion times but simple arguments need the strongest defenses

And you got banned for this?

 

[reptiles]

And you got banned for this?

Yeah literally apperently i'm trolling

 

[Deleted member 14693]

Something can't come from nothing

Proof.

 

[EnglandBadman]

I mean explain why the bible models so well to human behaviour and even if christianity isn't true functionally most incels benefit from a christain society

What about islam? Personally i think god exists, but it doesn’t mean that only christian god can be the true one, there are so many religions in the world that it makes it hard to know which one to pick as the truth.

 

[reptiles]

Proof.

literally the entire argument of this thread goes into this for the cosmological argument atleast

 

[reptiles]

What about islam? Personally i think god exists, but it doesn’t mean that only christian god can be the true one, there are so many religions in the world that it makes it hard to know which one to pick as the truth.

I'm not a Muslim because functionally Islam doesn't teach were inherently fucked creatures and it promotes horrible behaviour like polygamy or lust although hijab is based

 

[Deleted member 33108]

Based and theologypilled

 

[Deleted member 14693]

literally the entire argument of this thread goes into this for the cosmological argument atleast

I don't see proof for it.

And clearly if god existed, then their would be smth that can exist without being created, god itself.

So wether or not you believe that god exists, you believe that something can come from nothing either way.

 

[depressionmaxxing]

I mean explain why the bible models so well to human behaviour and even if christianity isn't true functionally most incels benefit from a christain society

if you use religion for controll, fine.
it probably models humans so well, bc thats the exact reason it was made for innit.

why would i take a book from 2000years ago, read it, and give it my whole life, AND STILL have to choose between a million other books while just one is right.

if god exists, he is a evil fuck. And if you say yes he exists and he gave us jesus, like seriously thats all he could do? he gave us like a weekend of his time, like a minute, he could not make his shit clear and now just stops completely talking with us after he drops a book?

 

[TUSSELEIF]

 

[depressionmaxxing]

I don't see proof for it.

And clearly if god existed, then their would be smth that can exist without being created, god itself.

So wether or not you believe that god exists, you believe that something can come from nothing either way.

universe came from nothing didnt it

 

[Deleted member 33108]

I'm not a Muslim because functionally Islam doesn't teach were inherently fucked creatures and it promotes horrible behaviour like polygamy or lust although hijab is based

This is a weak argument, I think there are much stronger arguments against it such as it's lack of prophetic authenticity etc. Just because a religion doesn't teach original sin or total depravity, does not mean it isn't true. For instance some religions like Judaism speak of the depravity of man as a temporary fallen state we choose, and not something intrinsic to our soul like Catholic dogma teaches, and that we can ultimately overcome it with will, rather than the sheer grace of God.

 

[Deleted member 14693]

universe came from nothing didnt it

We don't know but from our perspective it just always existed. Everything else is a religious belief.

 

[reptiles]

I don't see proof for it.

And clearly if god existed, then their would be smth that can exist without being created, god itself.

So wether or not you believe that god exists, you believe that something can come from nothing either way.

Here is a counter-argument from a Christian perspective:

The key distinction is between an eternal, necessary being versus a contingent being. The cosmological arguments propose that God is the eternal, necessary uncaused cause of all contingent reality. God did not "come from nothing" but rather is the eternal source of all else that came into existence.

Saying the universe could have popped into being uncaused out of nothing is completely different than proposing God as the eternal uncaused first cause. The universe is contingent - it began to exist, it's not metaphysically necessary, and it relies on conditions being just right for it to sustain life. God did not begin to exist and does not depend on anything else.

So I as a Christian do not believe that something can come from nothing in the sense of the universe popping into being inexplicably. Rather, I believe that God is the eternal, metaphysically necessary being, while the physical universe is contingent. The cosmological argument aims to prove from reason that an uncaused first cause like God must exist as the source of all contingent reality.

The key difference between God and the universe is that the universe is contingent while God is uniquely necessary and eternal. So I don't believe "something can come from nothing" - I believe God is the eternal source of all contingent things that came into being. That's perfectly reasonable without any logical inconsistency. The alternatives actually seem far less plausible philosophically.

I hope I answered you I've had questions like these asked so many times

 

[Gengar]

You’re Christian? I thought you were Hindu. This is very unsettling.

 

[reptiles]

You’re Christian? I thought you were Hindu. This is very unsettling.

I have my reasons m8 very good ones

 

[EnglandBadman]

I'm not a Muslim because functionally Islam doesn't teach were inherently fucked creatures and it promotes horrible behaviour like polygamy or lust although hijab is based

Curious to know how it promotes lust? The main point of the hijab is to prevent lust. As for polygamy, at the time it was written there were many widows of men who died in war. So many men were dying in war that the number of women exceeded the men hence why they allowed men to marry more women, so that there wouldn’t be an excess of single women. Also if your not treating your wives equally you must divorce. Personally i would only have 1 wofe tho and thats the same for 99% of muslims.

 

[reptiles]

This is a weak argument, I think there are much stronger arguments against it such as it's lack of prophetic authenticity etc. Just because a religion doesn't teach original sin or total depravity, does not mean it isn't true. For instance some religions like Judaism speak of the depravity of man as a temporary fallen state we choose, and not something intrinsic to our soul like Catholic dogma teaches, and that we can ultimately overcome it with will, rather than the sheer grace of God.

but only the Christian narrative really explains the black pill and why we have sinful thoughts if we were all pure we would all naturally steer towards monogamy and raising a good family but were not in fact most guys here want to indulge in the flesh

 

[Deleted member 33108]

universe came from nothing didnt it

God is necessarily uncreated, otherwise He would not be God. However the universe is necessarily created, since the corporeal reality is necessarily not eternal and finite. And we know this, Sir Isaac Newton had very fundamental views about God's necessity in creation.

 

[Sprinkles]

people who think this physical 3D universe is all there is are the biggest kinds of npcs

the satanic elite laugh at them

 

[Deleted member 33108]

but only the Christian narrative really explains the black pill and why we have sinful thoughts if we were all pure we would all naturally steer towards monogamy and raising a good family but were not in fact most guys here want to indulge in the flesh

All religions affirm some degree of Satan's temptation. Catholicism just says its an intrinsic nature, to such a degree that unbaptized infants cannot overcome it and cannot enter into the kingdom of God. All other religions say its temporary temptation and not intrinsic to our being, and an effect of the fallen state, Orthodoxy also teaches this.

 

[EnglandBadman]

This is a weak argument, I think there are much stronger arguments against it such as it's lack of prophetic authenticity etc. Just because a religion doesn't teach original sin or total depravity, does not mean it isn't true. For instance some religions like Judaism speak of the depravity of man as a temporary fallen state we choose, and not something intrinsic to our soul like Catholic dogma teaches, and that we can ultimately overcome it with will, rather than the sheer grace of God.

Islam doesn’t deny were fucked creatures but it accepts it by basically saying Allah forgives all sins as long as you repent with true intentions. If the intentions are true and you keep committing the sin but then repenting truthfully, eventually you’ll stop committing the sin out of guilt.

 

[Deleted member 14693]

Here is a counter-argument from a Christian perspective:

The key distinction is between an eternal, necessary being versus a contingent being. The cosmological arguments propose that God is the eternal, necessary uncaused cause of all contingent reality. God did not "come from nothing" but rather is the eternal source of all else that came into existence.

Saying the universe could have popped into being uncaused out of nothing is completely different than proposing God as the eternal uncaused first cause. The universe is contingent - it began to exist, it's not metaphysically necessary, and it relies on conditions being just right for it to sustain life. God did not begin to exist and does not depend on anything else.

So I as a Christian do not believe that something can come from nothing in the sense of the universe popping into being inexplicably. Rather, I believe that God is the eternal, metaphysically necessary being, while the physical universe is contingent. The cosmological argument aims to prove from reason that an uncaused first cause like God must exist as the source of all contingent reality.

The key difference between God and the universe is that the universe is contingent while God is uniquely necessary and eternal. So I don't believe "something can come from nothing" - I believe God is the eternal source of all contingent things that came into being. That's perfectly reasonable without any logical inconsistency. The alternatives actually seem far less plausible philosophically.

I hope I answered you I've had questions like these asked so many times

This doesn't proof that god is a concious being at all. Could be just a natural phenomenon.

 

[reptiles]

All religions affirm some degree of Satan's temptation. Catholicism just says its an intrinsic nature, to such a degree that unbaptized infants cannot overcome it and cannot enter into the kingdom of God. All other religions say its temporary temptation and not intrinsic to our being, and an effect of the fallen state, Orthodoxy also teaches this.

I mean I'm defending the Christian view point I don't care about dogmatic stringencies at the end of the day Christianity protestant orthodox or catholic models much better for human nature than other faiths Islam and Judaism for instance teach humans are instrincally born good then turn evil I take the opposite All humans are born evil but turn good through faith in Christ but I wanna apply this for us black pillers.

Societies which are Christians have higher birth rates, less lookism as it becomes less about looks and more faith in god and every 1 benefits

 

[Deleted member 33108]

people who think this physical 3D universe is all there is are the biggest kinds of npcs

the satanic elite laugh at them

Akin to a fetus saying the womb is all there can ever be, because it is the only observable thing. This is the the foundational teaching of the Greeks, and that which the Maccabees fought against. I recommend you read that book for an interesting approach to the secularist issue.

 

[EnglandBadman]

Someone post the strongest argument FOR and AGAINST religion

 

[Deleted member 33108]

I mean I'm defending the Christian view point I don't care about dogmatic stringencies at the end of the day Christianity protestant orthodox or catholic models much better for human nature than other faiths Islam and Judaism for instance teach humans are instrincally born good then turn evil I take the opposite All humans are born evil but turn good through faith in Christ but I wanna apply this for us black pillers.

Societies which are Christians have higher birth rates, less lookism as it becomes less about looks and more faith in god and every 1 benefits

Ultimately there hasnt been any proof for or against the position of original sin, it comes down to what seems logical to the individual. It would be much better suited to discuss more objective reasonings.

 

[RecessedChinCel]

The universe must have had a beginning. Something can't come from nothing. There must have been a powerful first cause that created the universe. This first cause must be God.

Life is too complex to have formed by chance. DNA is like a code that requires an intelligence. The amazing design of life shows it must have been designed by God.

This is literally just the fine tuning argument and it has already been debunked countless times lol.

The entire argument is based on fallacious reasoning.

 

[reptiles]

Islam doesn’t deny were fucked creatures but it accepts it by basically saying Allah forgives all sins as long as you repent with true intentions. If the intentions are true and you keep committing the sin but then repenting truthfully, eventually you’ll stop committing the sin out of guilt.

Most Muslim scholars i've met say humans are born and turn fucked up later I'm saying humans are born fucked up but then turn good later through faith in Jesus if it's true faith your actions will match your words

 

[reptiles]

This is literally just the fine tuning argument and it has been debunked countless times lol.

The entire argument is based on fallacious reasoning.

I went into meticulous depth in the original of this post

 

[Deleted member 19453]

yeah but this completely falls apart when you realize the "axioms" and "definitions" are pulled out of nowhere lmao come up with an argument that doesn't fail on line 1 next time christ cuck

 

[reptiles]

yeah but this completely falls apart when you realize the "axioms" and "definitions" are pulled out of nowhere lmao come up with an argument that doesn't fail on line 1 next time christ cuck

Which ones don't line up refute my argument point by point

 

[Deleted member 33108]

Someone post the strongest argument FOR and AGAINST religion

An argument Christians in the west hardly ever raise is that of the old testament, millions of people affirmed one faith and gave testament to one event (receiving of the law at Sinai), and affirmed this for thousands of years afterwards. This is a historical proof in and of itself, if we consider the impossibility of secular hypothesis as to the origin of that faith (somehow converting millions of people based on something that would have happened to their ancestors, which is unverifiable is not passed down stringently).

 

[EnglandBadman]

This is literally just the fine tuning argument and it has already been debunked countless times lol.

The entire argument is based on fallacious reasoning.

Explain?

 

[Deleted member 23558]

Can you prove axiom 1 in the teleological argument

 

[Mr. President]

the cosmogilogical argument.
Here is an expanded and highly complex version of the cosmological argument for monotheism at an advanced D.Sc level:
Ontological Substruction of Prime Origination
Definition 1: Existence precedes essence ontologically. That is, existence as being is irreducible, while the essence of particular things derives from their participated being.
Axiom 1: Absolutely no potential can actualize itself, for a potential lacks the actuality required to become actual.
Axiom 2: Only actualizers can actualize potentials to their actualized terminated states.
Theorem 1: If some collection of actualizers C exists, there must be at least one purely actual actualizer P not dependent on any other actualizers in C for its actuality. Proof: Regressing through the collection C, we must terminate in a purely actual actualizer P, else C would consist in an infinite essentially ordered regress of actualized potential actualizers, which is a logical impossibility by the principle of sufficient reason.
Definition 2: The complete absence of any potentiality in P entails that P exists outside space and time and lacks any material or temporal parts or passions.
Theorem 2: There can be no more than one purely actual actualizer P. Proof: If there were two purely actual actualizers P and Q, the identity of indiscernibles requires that they have identical attributes, in which case P and Q are one and the same purely actual actualizer.
Axiom 3: Existence is good, and the maximal existence of a purely actual actualizer would therefore be good to the maximal degree metaphysically possible.
Definition 3: A personal being is one with intellect and will. Only personal beings are capable of self-determination and exercising causal power voluntarily.
Theorem 3: The purely actual actualizer P must be a single all-good personal God with maximal existence metaphysically possible. Proof: Only conscious voluntary agency provides sufficient reason for the origin of spatiotemporal contingent existence from absolute metaphysical nothingness. Therefore, P must be personal. By Axiom 3 and the supreme perfection of P in Definition 2, P must also be all-good.
Conclusion: Therefore, monotheism as defined is logically proven to follow from ontological analysis of the necessary preconditions for the existence of contingent being. This provides a fully valid metaphysical demonstration of classical monotheism under the assumptions and axioms stipulate


the telelogical argument

Teleological Monogenesis of Biological Complexification

Observation 1: Biological life has evolved over billions of years from simple structures to highly complex organisms through minor variations and natural selection.

Axiom 1: Functionally complex systems capable of self-replication and information processing cannot emerge from purely stochastic processes. Some degree of teleological orientation is required.

Axiom 2: Intentionally guided evolution implies a goal-oriented intelligence behind the process.

Theorem 1: The fine-tuned fitness of organic chemistry, genetic coding machinery, and irreducible complexity of biochemical systems imply teleological guidance of abiogenesis and biological evolution toward greater complexity.

Axiom 3: Parasitism, predation, pain receptors, and mass extinctions reveal no single omnibenevolent teleological agent, since these processes are not optimally good.

Definition 1: Cooperative symbiosis and complex ecologies exhibit far more sustainable good than parasitism. Group competition selects for moral cooperation within groups.

Theorem 2: Biological evolution has been guided by a teleological demiurge pursuing an overarching goal of maximizing cooperative symbiosis, despite allowing partial evils due to initial constraints.

Axiom 4: A plurality of demiurges could not consistently cooperate toward a unified teleological goal due to diverging interests.

Theorem 3: Biological evolution has therefore been intricately directed by a single supremely rational demiurge toward the telos of self-aware cooperation. This entails metaphysical monotheism.

—Anticipated Objections—

Objection 1: Complexity can emerge from stochastic evolution without teleological guidance.

Reply: Irreducibly complex systems could not plausibly self-organize without goal-directed configuring of information.

Objection 2: Sociobiology explains cooperation from group selection without teleology.

Reply: Altruistic behaviors transcend reproductive fitness and cannot be explained reductively.

Objection 3: An evil demiurge or imperfect designer is not ruled out.

Reply: A wholly evil demiurge could not guide evolution toward cooperation, nor could squabbling demiurges collaborate on a unified teleological process.

Conclusion: Biological evolution exhibits ontological monogenesis by a supremely rational single Creator minimizing evil to achieve the good of symbiotic community. This demonstrates metaphysical monotheism as the only coherent explanation of biological teleology.


I'm sick and tired of these cock suckers on atheist sites acting like all religious people are retarded


@TRUE_CEL

as for why I'm a chrstain and an black piller it's simple the bible is more accurate on human nature why life is a hell and i think society would be a better place if it was christain

holy shit your into theology imma dm you.

 

[depressionmaxxing]

God is necessarily uncreated, otherwise He would not be God. However the universe is necessarily created, since the corporeal reality is necessarily not eternal and finite. And we know this, Sir Isaac Newton had very fundamental views about God's necessity in creation.

explain y newtons thought god was essential for creation

 

[Deleted member 19453]

Which ones don't line up refute my argument point by point

Definition 1: Existence precedes essence ontologically. That is, existence as being is irreducible, while the essence of particular things derives from their participated being.