I wish I was Christian, and that god existed

[theRetard]

yea i meant the idea of a square circle, you cant imagine what it would look like but you can imagine the concept of it, but that doesnt bring it into existence so its not real.

square circle is self-refuting so it is a false idea

 

[Perfectiοn]

square circle is self-refuting so it is a false idea

in that case non existence not existing is also self refuting so its also a false idea.

 

[theRetard]

in that case non existence not existing is also self refuting so its also a false idea.

no, that's just false analogy. non-existence does not exist conceptually

 

[Perfectiοn]

no, that's just false analogy. non-existence does not exist conceptually

neither does a square circle then since you cant actually conceptualize it.

 

[theRetard]

neither does a square circle then since you cant actually conceptualize it.

square circle exists as a false concept, but non-existence, nothing, void, non-being do not exist even as concepts. such words are just linguistic constructs, they are ontologically impossible while square cirlce is only logically impossible

 

[WELOVELOOKS]

Take a chill pill bud if there is an intelligible answer you're sure to find out at the time of your death. If there is no intelligible answer than there's no point stressing about it.

I’m not really stressing bro I just enjoy talking about these things. It’s the biggest philosophical question of human nature

 

[Kayra139]

because christ isn't god

talk to the lord of christ

 

[WELOVELOOKS]

Sure, im just telling you what the scripture says, you dont have to believe it. But i would encourage you, regardless of how you feel okn this topic it doesnt actually present a hinging issue for Christianity, and instead believe it or not on the basis of the resurrection. Thing with choosing destiny is that we are predestined for either salvation or not because God never makes a plan to save someone and has it fail. This is called the doctrine of limited atonement if you want to know more. The bible says that we all know God inherently under the new covenant, see romans 1. In fact, Paul directly addresses your views throughout romans so even as a non believer id encourage you to meditate on it. So yes, we are responsible and blameworthy for going against Him according to scripture. As for what heaven will be like, we dont know. But the thing is, it’s not like we really could. It’s not something of this world and so we couldnt really comprehend it anyway. Regardless, I trust God enough to make a pretty good heaven, at least better than perishing. You speak of how there is mystery, which would mean a lack of evidence, so do tell: what evidence would it take to convince you of the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

“Have faith” is not an argument that would ever make me believe in god

Why should I have faith? Because god loves me? How can I actually know that? He’s never told me that.

If he did, I would believe it. If god came into my head, or yelled from the sky, I’d instantly believe in god.

Why in the absolute world would he have to be so incredibly vague about proving his existence if he wanted the world to be good

In my opinion, JESUS isn’t even enough proof. Why does he have to even use a human body as a vessel? Why can’t some ultimate, immaculate being just descend from the sky, if he wanted people to believe him so badly. He could do something on such a grand scale that it would be literally undeniable

Why is he so utterly allusive?

People in the world here, we know the laws for sure. There’s no question of what we can and can’t do. No mystery. There’s a 100% chance that if you break the law and are found doing it you will be punished. So that’s when you separate a good person from a bad person. The bad person knows the laws exist, objectively, with ultimate proof, and they still break them regardless of consequence, why should god no be the same way?

 

[takethewhitepill]

that's, because why thomists even decided that it is exactly god's work in all 5 arguments lul, it could be something different

its called a cosmological argument, not just used by thomists. it shows that reasonably there is a god, but it is always possible to come up with whataboutisms. however we want to show that it is more reasonable for one, and take occams razor to find a reasonable conclusion. Your argument couldnt be anything different purely because it is the loaded question fallacy (that is, you have assumed your conclusion in your premise)

i keep the same definition lul, how is this equivocation lul

give the definition. You can't just lul your way out, define your term and substitute it in and see that your argument it shit.

how resurrection is even related to this topic? ive never claimed something about resurrection lul. strawman fallacy in work

you dont know what a strawman is and you dont have a modicum of apologetics training clearly. the hinging factor of christianity as opposed to any other religion is the resurrection of Jesus Christ and that is what you must prove. You falsely draw the conclusion that Jesus is God because you have (in your own opinion) proved the existence of a god. You are turning athiests further from God by making shit arguments that cement them in their belief that they know you are wrong and hence they are right

 

[takethewhitepill]

“Have faith” is not an argument that would ever make me believe in god

Why should I have faith? Because god loves me? How can I actually know that? He’s never told me that.

If he did, I would believe it. If god came into my head, or yelled from the sky, I’d instantly believe in god.

Why in the absolute world would he have to be so incredibly vague about proving his existence if he wanted the world to be good

In my opinion, JESUS isn’t even enough proof. Why does he have to even use a human body as a vessel? Why can’t some ultimate, immaculate being just descend from the sky, if he wanted people to believe him so badly. He could do something on such a grand scale that it would be literally undeniable

Why is he so utterly allusive?

People in the world here, we know the laws for sure. There’s no question of what we can and can’t do. No mystery. There’s a 100% chance that if you break the law and are found doing it you will be punished. So that’s when you separate a good person from a bad person. The bad person knows the laws exist, objectively, with ultimate proof, and they still break them regardless of consequence, why should god no be the same way?

Im not sure if you are saying this to me or to your experience, but have faith has never been my evidence.
you should have faith because it is the bridge to the gap between you having evidence that convinces you that Jesus is God and truly believing it. faith is built upon a rock of the evidence, this is shown wonderfully by Peter (literally the rock) giving his account at pentecost. you are right that you can never truly know, that is faith my friend. but dont be confused, faith is not blindly believing in something, you should decide on your own based on the evidence. you make a lot of various internal critiques here, all are answered in romans by Paul. to quickly answer though, God has made Himself known to you inherently and everyone knows the law in their heart. as for why Jesus had to die for our sins, biblically I can give you an answer but in terms of why He didnt just never let us sin or something we dont know but it doesnt really matter at the end of the day. clay to the potter, but just so we are on the same page internally He died because it would be unjust to just waive the price of sin. if you dont trust anything but your own eyes, id encourage you to reconsider your understanding of science and the entire world. eyewittnesses are reliable, and we have evidence. but if you dont trust it we have to just agree to disagree. feel free to ask me anything, im pretty well read and can tell you what bible says

 

[Perfectiοn]

square circle exists as a false concept, but non-existence, nothing, void, non-being do not exist even as concepts. such words are just linguistic constructs, they are ontologically impossible while square cirlce is only logically impossible

i feel like this entire argument is just circling back to the same point and theres no progress being made.

 

[theRetard]

its called a cosmological argument, not just used by thomists. it shows that reasonably there is a god, but it is always possible to come up with whataboutisms.

no matter how is it called, it's still very problematic. your whataboutism arguments makes 0 sense so as any thomistic argument because none of them is actually referring to god

however we want to show that it is more reasonable for one, and take occams razor to find a reasonable conclusion. Your argument couldnt be anything different purely because it is the loaded question fallacy (that is, you have assumed your conclusion in your premise)

my naughty boy, were i claimed that i want to show that it is more reasonable one? where i assumed the conclusion as premise lul? my premise is about non-existence does not exist. and so the conclusion is that god can't be non-existing

give the definition. You can't just lul your way out, define your term and substitute it in and see that your argument it shit.

how silly you arethere can not be any term for non-existence, because it does not exist. i can't give the definiotion to something that does not exists. how can you not understand this lul

you dont know what a strawman is and you dont have a modicum of apologetics training clearly.

ad hominem

the hinging factor of christianity as opposed to any other religion is the resurrection of Jesus Christ and that is what you must prove. You falsely draw the conclusion that Jesus is God because you have (in your own opinion) proved the existence of a god. You are turning athiests further from God by making shit arguments that cement them in their belief that they know you are wrong and hence they are right

my cutie, it's a strawman again and if it's not, then show me where i claimed that i'm a christian

 

[taai]

I think that God exists but it's not omnipresent or omnipotent. God is the very particular part of us that is universally present in everyone

 

[WELOVELOOKS]

I think that God exists but it's not omnipresent or omnipotent. God is the very particular part of us that is universally present in everyone

I’m not necessarily like 100% atheist, I tend to be pretty skeptical but there’s a part of me deep down that does believe that there has to be something bigger going on here regardless of what it is

I just hope we’re not in a quantum computer chip

 

[taai]

I’m not necessarily like 100% atheist, I tend to be pretty skeptical but there’s a part of me deep down that does believe that there has to be something bigger going on here regardless of what it is

I just hope we’re not in a quantum computer chip

well it's more like we are our own gods. And we are not yet revealed what God truly is. To me it makes sense that if god was revealed in the world and it's history it's not wrong to say that our history is deified however we are not yet there thus we find all these contradictions

 

[theRetard]

i feel like this entire argument is just circling back to the same point and theres no progress being made.

but i like this debate

 

[Sora_]

Just read David Bentley Hart or Edward Feser if you're actually open to the Idea & not a low-IQcel.

 

[copemaxxing123]

He does