GOD EXISTS

[crazyguy]

they either give the different definition to universe or just wrong

whats your definition of the universe

 

[theRetard]

whats your definition of the universe

universe=everything, so everything can't come from nothing, because nothing is nothing, so it doesn't exist. so universe has always existed

 

[crazyguy]

universe=everything, so everything can't come from nothing, because nothing is nothing, so it doesn't exist. so universe has always existed

thats the same definition of universe that mainstream scientists use

youre right, everything cant come from nothing, but that doesnt mean that everything has always existed. this is where the role of a creator comes into play

 

[theRetard]

youre right, everything cant come from nothing, but that doesnt mean that everything has always existed.

if everything can't come from nothing, then everything has always existed, because if we assume that it didn't, then everything would not exist too, it would be nothing

this is where the role of a creator comes into play

no, creator is already something rather than nothing

 

[crazyguy]

if everything can't come from nothing, then everything has always existed, because if we assume that it didn't, then everything would not exist too, it would be nothing

no, creator is already something rather than nothing

you dont get it
the creator isnt part of the "everything", it exists outside of the universe
im saying that there was nothing, until the creator created the universe

 

[WELOVELOOKS]

not claiming something=/=not believing

even if i believe, then it doesn't mean that i must claim it

why is this stupid? debate that he didn't create the uni

I won’t respond to the argument until you tell me your age

 

[theRetard]

I won’t respond to the argument until you tell me your age

twenty

 

[theRetard]

you dont get it
the creator isnt part of the "everything", it exists outside of the universe
im saying that there was nothing, until the creator created the universe

if the creator isn't a part of everything, then it is nothing (but it is impossible).
if the creator exists outside of the universe, then he does not exist, because universe is already everything, include the "existence" concept, so if the creator doesn't have the predicate of existence, then he does not exist as well.
and if there was nothing until the creator created the universe, then apart from nothing, the creator must exist, but it is already anything than nothing

 

[Gargantuan]

Obviously God exists, just not in the way most people can conceptualise.

 

[JordanFagget271]

if the creator isn't a part of everything, then it is nothing (but it is impossible).
if the creator exists outside of the universe, then he does not exist, because universe is already everything, include the "existence" concept, so if the creator doesn't have the predicate of existence, then he does not exist as well.
and if there was nothing until the creator created the universe, then apart from nothing, the creator must exist, but it is already anything than nothing

creator exists as abstract being, u were right first it was abstract and then there was physical, uve proven me wrong in my thread ngl

 

[crazyguy]

if the creator isn't a part of everything, then it is nothing (but it is impossible).
if the creator exists outside of the universe, then he does not exist, because universe is already everything, include the "existence" concept, so if the creator doesn't have the predicate of existence, then he does not exist as well.
and if there was nothing until the creator created the universe, then apart from nothing, the creator must exist, but it is already anything than nothing

no
think of it like this, lets say someone (the creator) is building a lego house (the universe), does he reside in that house or is he outside of it?
he's outside of it, beyond time, space, all that shit

 

[iblamexyz]

prove me wrong

Prove me wrong?

you alr know the truth? what is this cope thread

@subhuman1996 @takethewhitepill @PrinceLuenLeoncur

 

[theRetard]

creator exists as abstract being, u were right first it was abstract and then there was physical, uve proven me wrong in my thread ngl

no
think of it like this, lets say someone (the creator) is building a lego house (the universe), does he reside in that house or is he outside of it?
he's outside of it, beyond time, space, all that shit

well if universe=everything include abstract things then the creator did not created everything because he is already something.
but if by universe you mean everything, but exclude abstract things (so only the matter=everything), then yeah there might be a creator of everything. but there's no logical meaning to exclude abstractions from everything. also the matter is already an abstraction, making the argument self-refuting

 

[theRetard]

Prove me wrong?

you alr know the truth? what is this cope thread

@subhuman1996 @takethewhitepill @PrinceLuenLeoncur

i do

 

[JordanFagget271]

Prove me wrong?

you alr know the truth? what is this cope thread

@subhuman1996 @takethewhitepill @PrinceLuenLeoncur

point of the thread prob to debate and see if his viewpoint changes??? ts is off topic anyway

well if universe=everything include abstract things then the creator did not created everything because he is already something.
but if by universe you mean everything, but exclude abstract things (so only the matter=everything), then yeah there might be a creator of everything. but there's no logical meaning to exclude abstractions from everything. also the matter is already an abstraction, making the argument self-refuting

didnt we say that matter itself isnt abstraction, so matter did have to have a beginning, abstractions dont since time is v/s, time didnt exist before matter and so abstract creator existed for as long as time itself, tho he is the creator of time since he is the creator of matter, does that make sense?

 

[crazyguy]

well if universe=everything include abstract things then the creator did not created everything because he is already something.
but if by universe you mean everything, but exclude abstract things (so only the matter=everything), then yeah there might be a creator of everything. but there's no logical meaning to exclude abstractions from everything. also the matter is already an abstraction, making the argument self-refuting

the creator is not abstract, hes a concrete being who made everything. hes both beyond abstract stuff like time and beyond whats actual
hes not an idea or a thought

 

[theRetard]

point of the thread prob to debate and see if his viewpoint changes??? ts is off topic anyway

didnt we say that matter itself isnt abstraction, so matter did have to have a beginning, abstractions dont since time is v/s, time didnt exist before matter and so abstract creator existed for as long as time itself, tho he is the creator of time since he is the creator of matter, does that make sense?

abstractions are general things (universals) instead of concrete particular things, so the matter falls in that category of abstractions because we are saying about it in general.
and time might exist independently from god, and also time is literally a change, both changes and time are abstract. change is not necessary dependent to the matter

 

[theRetard]

the creator is not abstract, hes a concrete being who made everything. hes both beyond abstract stuff like time and beyond whats actual
hes not an idea or a thought

if creator is not an abstract idea, then he is a material being, but if he is a material being, then how did he created everything? you can't create the matter from a matter, and so you can't create the abstract from a matter. because the matter is already an idea

 

[JordanFagget271]

abstractions are general things (universals) instead of concrete particular things, so the matter falls in that category of abstractions because we are saying about it in general.
and time might exist independently from god, and also time is literally a change, both changes and time are abstract. change is not necessary dependent to the matter

why does matter fall into non abstract things?

 

[Rapelord]

prove me wrong

demiurge exists

 

[crazyguy]

if creator is not an abstract idea, then he is a material being, but if he is a material being, then how did he created everything? you can't create the matter from a matter, and so you can't create the abstract from a matter. because the matter is already an idea

thats not something we know, we dont know how everything got created because we're not the creator

 

[greycel]

He's real and the evolution theory is fake

Not either or
Depends on interpretation

We came from lighting

Literally lighting struck water and created an enzyme that became life over millions of years

At what point did the immaterial get introduced? If you acknowledge a transition in state occurred (not severity water, I'm assuming you don't believe rocks have life), when, how and why?

Also why does something exist? Why did it converge into existence rather than not... for everything in the Universe and as a whole. Whatever reason for ots total existence can't be in the Universe itself as it is dependent on it, circular
So this has to be something that exist as a truth + have the ability to create the Universe

if creator is not an abstract idea, then he is a material being

Not either or

 

[theRetard]

why does matter fall into non abstract things?

because we are talking about it in general rn, like it is an universal concept.
if we were talking about for example a particular thing (like a specific book, or an atom) then they are not abstract

 

[theRetard]

thats not something we know, we dont know how everything got created because we're not the creator

if we don't know, then how do you know that he knows that he created everything?

 

[crazyguy]

if we don't know, then how do you know that he knows that he created everything?

because the universe is not infinite, based on the proof that the scientists you believe in, it has existed for billions of years
there has to be a start to this, and that start is the creator

 

[Vazelrr]

Nice engagement farm boyo
Also no point in arguing with atheist they just say the same points over and over again lol

 

[rotation]

prove me wrong

can you prove yourself right?

 

[theRetard]

because the universe is not infinite, based on the proof that the scientists you believe in, it has existed for billions of years
there has to be a start to this, and that start is the creator

by universe we literally mean everything, and if everything is not infinite then there must be a border that distinguishes everything from nothing (which is non-existing by definition) lul.
but such a border is impossible cuz nothing cannot exist, so there is no edge/limit where everything stops and nothing begins

 

[theRetard]

can you prove yourself right?

yes, what about you?

 

[theRetard]

Nice engagement farm boyo
Also no point in arguing with atheist they just say the same points over and over again lol

all i see is them saying "muh your arguments are retarded"
literally in this thread lul and in almost any other case

 

[rotation]

yes, what about you?

I cant prove god isnt real

and you cant prove god is real

I can just admit that I do not know

 

[NinjaRG9]

Yeah he exists but he’s cruel

 

[theRetard]

I cant prove god isnt real

and you cant prove god is real

I can just admit that I do not know

non-existence does not exist

so god cannot be non-existing

so he does exist

 

[rotation]

non-existence does not exist

so god cannot be non-existing

so he does exist

Defining something as necessarily existent doesn’t make it real

existence isn’t guaranteed by words alone

using this logic, I can say "chad aliens with massive cocks have to exist, because non-existence doesnt exist"

or that "flying humans have to exist, because non existence doesnt exist"

it does not make sense to me

 

[theRetard]

Defining something as necessarily existent doesn’t make it real

existence isn’t guaranteed by words alone

using this logic, I can say "chad aliens with massive cocks have to exist, because non-existence doesnt exist"

or that "flying humans have to exist, because non existence doesnt exist"

it does not make sense to me

if it's not a predicate of existence makes something existent, then what does?
and thoughts do exist

 

[rotation]

if it's not a predicate of existence makes something existent, then what does?
and thoughts do exist

you are confusing mental existence with real-world existence

just because thoughts exist in your mind doesn’t mean the thing you’re thinking about actually exists (outside ur mind)

if i think about a unicorn it proves the thought exists but it does not prove that unicorns exist in reality.

defining god as necessarily existent proves the concept of ur god exists, not the entity itself.

 

[theRetard]

you are confusing mental existence with real-world existence

just because thoughts exist in your mind doesn’t mean the thing you’re thinking about actually exists (outside ur mind)

if i think about a unicorn it proves the thought exists but it does not prove that unicorns exist in reality.

defining god as necessarily existent proves the concept of ur god exists, not the entity itself.

the whole idea of different existence is retarded because mental existence already exists in the real world (otherwise you couldn't able to think because by that logic thoughts aren't real).
so existence=thoughts (we can't even think about something non-existent)

 

[rotation]

the whole idea of different existence is retarded because mental existence already exists in the real world (otherwise you couldn't able to think because by that logic thoughts aren't real).
so existence=thoughts (we can't even think about something non-existent)

no, this argument is retarded

so, gandy is god just because I can produce the thought that he is?

maybe im retarded and can't understand, but thats just how it seems to me

 

[theRetard]

no, this argument is retarded

so, gandy is god just because I can produce the thought that he is?

maybe im retarded and can't understand, but thats just how it seems to me

gandy being god is just self-refuting, self-refuting things exist only as false ideas. your argument about if there's mental and real world is also self-refuting because if there's some external real world are also only your thoughts

 

[greycel]

non-existence does not exist

It does exist depending how u define it
For example Athiests believe in absence of “something”. Good is absence of bad, dark is absence of light, death is absence of life.. a bubble within existence where consciousness no longer lives (pun intended). They don’t believe in presence of absolutely “nothing”

 

[theRetard]

It does exist depending how u define it
For example Athiests believe in absence of “something”. Good is absence of bad, dark is absence of light, death is absence of life.. a bubble within existence where consciousness no longer lives (pun intended). They don’t believe in presence of absolutely “nothing”

absence is literally absent, so it is already false.
no matter how you define nothing, you are defining it then i already becomes something instead of being nothing, so it is literally impossible to define nothing

 

[greycel]

because the universe is not infinite, based on the proof that the scientists you believe in, it has existed for billions of years
there has to be a start to this, and that start is the creator

How do you know it isn't recursive?
If something did create it, then it would exist outside of it. If it existed outside of it, why is it also limited to cause and effect, as what's contained in its creation

 

[greycel]

absence is literally absent, so it is already false.
no matter how you define nothing, you are defining it then i already becomes something instead of being nothing, so it is literally impossible to define nothing

Well done you refuted yourself:

non-existence does not exist

Also you ignored the other definition as a placeholder term for absence

 

[crazyguy]

How do you know it isn't recursive?
If something did create it, then it would exist outside of it. If it existed outside of it, why is it also limited to cause and effect, as what's contained in its creation

thats where the "i dont know" part kicks in
its of course still a belief, we wont ever know this much about our universe
you could be right, @theRetard, i could be right, we dont know

but, i believe that the creator is a being that completely ignores everything like cause and effect
like i said, its like a person building a lego house

 

[theRetard]

Well done you refuted yourself:


Also you ignored the other definition as a placeholder term for absence

well how did i refute myself?

 

[greycel]

well how did i refute myself?

Because you defined it

 

[theRetard]

Because you defined it

i didn't

 

[greycel]

i didn't

non-existence does not exist

 

[theRetard]

@greycel this is a negation of the category instead of a definition

 

[theRetard]

non-existence of non-existence is literally a negative predicate lul, i didn't define it (it's impossible)