“life doesn’t come from nonlife” is a illogical argument christian’s make

[superpsycho]

this shit is too high iq for me sorry

enjoy this song tho

 

[onelife]

I didnt say it came from nothing...

It came from something that has the ability to start a big bang... speaking from common sense... a big bang cant start without having the ability to start one...

bro is waiting for scientists to tell him a creator exists

i never said i was waiting for scientists to prove a creator exists. im just acknowledging that the origins of the universe are still an open question. acting like you have a definite answer when even experts don’t is what’s actually clown behavior my nigga

and ah yes, common sense - the most peer reviewed source of all time

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

How The Fuck is this Illogical?
In Nature we Observe Life coming from Nothing but Life. Cows Produce Calf, Bees Pollinate Plants, Humans Create Humans.
When We Question who came before Grandfather, And His Grandfather, And His, And His, And His and so on Their Must of been a Beginning; a First. So its Logical to Assume we Came from a Living Being that Came from Nothing

 

[JasGews69x]

i never said i was waiting for scientists to prove a creator exists. im just acknowledging that the origins of the universe are still an open question. acting like you have a definite answer when even experts don’t is what’s actually clown behavior my nigga

That just means the experts you worship are if they cant see something so obvious.

and ah yes, common sense - the most peer reviewed source of all time

Debunk it then

You cant start a big bang without having the ability to start one.

 

[onelife]

Yes the claim is that all things with a beginning have a cause

Not that all things have a beginning what don’t you understand?

bro the whole debate is whether the universe itself had a beginning in the first place. If it didn’t, then it doesn’t need a cause. that’s why alternative models, like a past eternal universe, are even relevant

The PSR is a logical object, if the PSR is false outside the universe then it would need to be false within the universe as well

If the PSR is false within the universe then it’s entirely possible that your perceptual states are occurring for no reason at all

So everything you believe could be occurring for no reason at all

So any argument you make would be void, you can’t use the PSR to attack the PSR.

the psr is a philosophical assumption, not an absolute law of nature. my nigga, even in physics, things like quantum mechanics suggest randomness at a fundamental level

so while psr might be a useful framework, assuming it applies universally, even outside space and time, is a big leap

It does prove the universe had a cause, because literally any explanation is more simple than the idea that the universe came from nothing because the universe coming from nothing isn’t an explanation at all(by definition)

its important to acknowledge that simplicity isn’t the only factor in truth. occam’s razor favors the least assumptive explanation, but if the universe can emerge naturally from quantum laws, that’s a simpler explanation than assuming a separate "cause" or some shit without evidence of what it really is

I agree here, I don’t believe in God. But the universe pretty obviously had a cause

i get where you are coming from to an extent, but this is still assuming a cause is necessary, which depends on whether time itself had a beg. If time came to be alongside the universe, then talking about a "before" prolly doesn't even make sense

No they don’t provide a link to such a model

eternal inflation, conformal cyclic cosmology, and some quantum gravity models suggest a past eternal universe. also, look up roger penrose’s ccc model or sean carroll’s work on time symmetr

Quantum fluctuations happen in a sea of fiction energy in a vacuum(space time)

You’re pre supposing that space and energy already exist to explain why space and energy exist.

that is entirely dependant on the model bro. cuz some interpretations of quantum cosmology talk about hoe spacetime itself can emerge from fluctuations, meaning space and time arent fundamental but byproducts of deeper laws

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

how is saying that the universe came from nothing any less logical than saying the universe came from god who came from nothing

like huhh

people say the universe coming from nothing is illogical, but god’s story is the same

“he always existed”

there has to be a start to everything that exists it’s simply impossible for something to never have a start and exist

Easy

There is only one constant we can be sure of, conciousness,

This is because we know we are concious

We cannot objectively prove we are in objective reality

We cannot prove we don't exist in a computer

But we can prove ourselves to be sentient

So what is conciousness? The constant.

It is more real than anything else

and im just talking about you,

You can't even prove there is anybody else on the planet,

"I think, therefore I am"

That's all you have. And so it's naturally that's how it started.

Furthermore, 1 and 2, the source conciousness was alone, and sought a partner

The feminine, from what was order, came chaos

And 3? What is 3?

The 3rd dimension, their child.

 

[onelife]

That just means the experts you worship are if they cant see something so obvious.

Debunk it then

You cant start a big bang without having the ability to start one.

"common sense" isn’t an argument my nigga, you’re just dodging the point

if a big bang needed something to start it, that something could just be the laws of physics rather than some mysterious external cause like you're trying to suggest

keep in mind i do not denounce christianity or religion outright, im just skeptical as a conflicted aging believer

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

i never said i was waiting for scientists to prove a creator exists. im just acknowledging that the origins of the universe are still an open question. acting like you have a definite answer when even experts don’t is what’s actually clown behavior my nigga

and ah yes, common sense - the most peer reviewed source of all time

How would you respond to this? Seeing as Sallaudoon wannabe is a bitch.

The evidence is that we need an explanation an account an justification for immaterial invariant principles that we know exist we know are real but are not based on material (universe) as I said mathematics for example, it’s not something based on material but is an universal invariant abstract entity, how do you account for such things such as knowledge, metaphysics truth and even ethics? These things need to be grounded in a transcendental being that is beyond material beyond the “universe” and also beyond the principles that undergird and structure then verse such as mathmatics.

This being is called god, all is a reflection of his divine mind, infact without a personal being called God you can’t say anything is ordered it’s all chaos but we can seee an order in creation that’s how the self is able to speak in space time and your able to pick up the speech the language interpret that within space time and relay the info back to me for my self to interest and respond back to it using LOGIC, another universal invariant abstract entity.


The rabbit hole goes deeper and your hand wavey explanation doesn’t cut it m8, do better GAYtheist boy, your half way there buddy

 

[JasGews69x]

common sense" isn’t an argument my nigga, you’re just dodging the point

'common sense is not good'
What am i dodging?

if a big bang needed something to start it, that something could just be the laws of physics

Laws need a law maker. Its simple. So its not the Laws of Physics.

keep in mind i do not denounce christianity or religion outright, im just skeptical as a conflicted aging believer

Hmm...

 

[onelife]

How would you respond to this? Seeing as Sallaudoon wannabe is a bitch.

if you're askin how i would respond to you and not the other guy (coming from a conflicted christian/believer), i would say you are somewhat throwing a bunch of abstract concepts together without supporting it enough. just cuz logic, math, & ethics exist as abstract principles doesnt mean they require a "transcendental being"

these things are descriptive, not prescriptive, so they come from patterns & relationships within reality, not from some external mind

also, claiming that without god, everything is "chaos" is just an assertion, not a reliable argument. however, i understand why you think this my nigga, not a direct fault with you

order exists in nature due to physical laws, not because of a divine mind. you technically haven't actually proven that a "universal invariant abstract entity" (idk what that means) must be a personal god

 

[onelife]

'common sense is not good'
What am i dodging?

Laws need a law maker. Its simple. So its not the Laws of Physics.

Hmm...

saying "laws need a lawmaker" assumes laws of physics work the same way as human laws, which is just not true

physical laws arent rules someone wrote down or some shit; they’re descriptions of how reality behaves

(ex: gravity doesn’t "need" a lawmaker to exist - it’s just how mass interacts)

so no, physics doesn’t require an external creator to function

 

[JasGews69x]

saying "laws need a lawmaker" assumes laws of physics work the same way as human laws, which is just not true

physical laws arent rules someone wrote down or some shit; they’re descriptions of how reality behaves

(ex: gravity doesn’t "need" a lawmaker to exist - it’s just how mass interacts)

so no, physics doesn’t require an external creator to function

so they created themselves?

 

[onelife]

so they created themselves?

that’s a loaded question because physical laws don’t "create" anything; they just describe how things work

you’re assuming they needed to be made, but that’s just an assumption, not a fact

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

bro the whole debate is whether the universe itself had a beginning in the first place. If it didn’t, then it doesn’t need a cause. that’s why alternative models, like a past eternal universe, are even relevant

Oh well in that case yea if they universe never had a beginning then obviously it wouldn’t need a cause

But earlier you said that Christian’s claim everything needs a beginning which isn’t true

the psr is a philosophical assumption, not an absolute law of nature. my nigga

The psr has to be true otherwise you can’t believe anything

For example if the psr is false then any state which cause you to believe anything could simply be occurring for no reason at all

You’re attempting to give logical arguments for why the psr could be false but to give such arguments you’d need to assume the psr is true

things like quantum mechanics suggest randomness at a fundamental level

Quantum mechanics doesn’t necessarily violate the psr it depends on the version of the psr we’re using

Also we don’t know which interpretation of quantum mechanics is true

but this is still assuming a cause is necessary

Causes are necessary for anything with a beginning

then talking about a "before" prolly doesn't even make sense

There’s a difference between something chronologically preceding a thing and logically preceding a thing

For example to a light beam everything in the universe happens instantly

But for example me sending you this message and then you replying to it still logically precedes you replying to my message

But not chronologically in a light beams reference frame

eternal inflation, conformal cyclic cosmology, and some quantum gravity models suggest a past eternal universe. also, look up roger penrose’s ccc model or sean carroll’s work on time symmetr

None of those models suggest that this instance of the universe was eternal

All of them either rely on other universes or a previous instance of this universe

spacetime itself can emerge from fluctuations

No they don’t, quantum fluctuations happen within space time. Physical things need space to exist(by definition)

Quantum fluctuations can explain how another universe can create another universe not how it would create spacetime

 

[JasGews69x]

you’re assuming they needed to be made, but that’s just an assumption, not a fact

Are the laws of a country not made?
They are also enforced by law enforcers (police etc)

You can say the same for the laws of the Universe?

Did they not create us?
Humans have knowledge,will, etc so by necessity who ever made us also has them but on a greater scale

 

[onelife]

Oh well in that case yea if they universe never had a beginning then obviously it wouldn’t need a cause

But earlier you said that Christian’s claim everything needs a beginning which isn’t true

fair enough on the first part, but my point was that many theists argue against an eternal universe by saying "everything must have a beginning", y'know?

if they don’t actually believe that, then an eternal universe should be just as valid an option as an eternal god

you can’t use that logic selectively

The psr has to be true otherwise you can’t believe anything

For example if the psr is false then any state which cause you to believe anything could simply be occurring for no reason at all

You’re attempting to give logical arguments for why the psr could be false but to give such arguments you’d need to assume the psr is true

just cuz rejecting some shit like the psr makes some things counterintuitive doesn’t mean it has to be universally true

even in physics, quantum mechanics shows that some events seem to happen without a clear cause

the fact that we can still do logic and reasoning doesn’t mean the entire universe follows the same rules our brains are wired for

Quantum mechanics doesn’t necessarily violate the psr it depends on the version of the psr we’re using

Also we don’t know which interpretation of quantum mechanics is true

fair, but at the very least, quantum mechanics challenges the idea that everything must have a direct cause

cuz even if we don’t know which interpretation is correct, the fact that randomness plays such a big role means we can’t assume causality is absolute

Causes are necessary for anything with a beginning

i understand your thinking, but thats assuming the universe had a beginning, which is exactly what’s up for debate rn

if time itself started with the universe, then asking "what caused it?" might not even make sense, since there was no "before" for a cause to exist in

There’s a difference between something chronologically preceding a thing and logically preceding a thing

For example to a light beam everything in the universe happens instantly

But for example me sending you this message and then you replying to it still logically precedes you replying to my message

But not chronologically in a light beams reference frame

i get what you’re sayin, but the true issue is whether the universe needs a "logical" cause at all

If time, space, and causality itself are part of the universe, then there’s no "before" in any meaningful way - logically or chronologically

you cant assume the universe needs a cause while ignoring that time itself may not apply before it

None of those models suggest that this instance of the universe was eternal

All of them either rely on other universes or a previous instance of this universe

that's true, but they still challenge the idea that the universe needed a single, absolute beginning. If the broader reality (whether cycles, quantum states, or a multiverse) is eternal, then the question of "what caused the universe?" might be like asking "what’s north of the North Pole?" - it assumes a starting point that might not exist

No they don’t, quantum fluctuations happen within space time. Physical things need space to exist(by definition)

Quantum fluctuations can explain how another universe can create another universe not how it would create spacetime

yeah in classical physics, sure

but some quantum gravity models suggest spacetime itself might emerge from something a lot deeper, like shit akin to entanglement or superposition

we don’t have a full answer yet, but it’s not as simple as saying "fluctuations require space to exist"

origin of spacetime is still an opennnnnn question

 

[onelife]

Are the laws of a country not made?
They are also enforced by law enforcers (police etc)

You can say the same for the laws of the Universe?

bro, laws of a country are created by people and enforced by authorities

but laws of physics aren’t "rules" made by someone - they’re just descriptions of how reality behaves

noone enforces gravity, electromagnetism, or thermodynamics cuz they just exist

Did they not create us?

that assumes the laws ofphysics are somethin separate from the universe itself, like a rulebook written beforehand

but laws of physics aren’t like instructions; they’re just patterns we observe in how things work

it aint a reason to assume they had to be "made" by anything

Humans have knowledge,will, etc so by necessity who ever made us also has them but on a greater scale

this is just assuming that intelligence is needed to create something

think about this for a sec: nature produces incredibly complex things like stars, galaxies, and even life without needing a conscious mind behind it

complexity doesn’t automatically mean it was designed

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

just cuz rejecting some shit like the psr makes some things counterintuitive

You’re not understanding what im saying, if the psr is false you can’t claim logical reasons for believing anything

You trying to come up with logical reasons for the psr to be false assumes that the psr must be true ironically enough

fair enough on the first part, but my point was that many theists argue against an eternal universe by saying "everything must have a beginning", y'know?

if they don’t actually believe that, then an eternal universe should be just as valid an option as an eternal god

you can’t use that logic selectively

Agreed

that's true, but they still challenge the idea that the universe needed a single, absolute beginning. If the broader reality (whether cycles, quantum states, or a multiverse) is eternal, then the question of "what caused the universe?" might be like asking "what’s north of the North Pole?" - it assumes a starting point that might not exist

Agreed, when I say “the universe had a cause” I’m only talking about this specific instance of the universe

As you pointed out it’s entirely possible that the universe is cyclical for example.

If time, space, and causality itself are part of the universe, then there’s no "before" in any meaningful way - logically or chronologically

Causality has nothing to do with the universe it would be true regardless of whether or not the universe existed

Occam’s razor already implies strongly that the psr is correct and to say we have the ability reason itself necessarily means that the psr is correct

yeah in classical physics, sure

Quantum mechanics is non classical by definition

like shit akin to entanglement or superposition

For those effects to happen particles need to exist and particles need space to exist

Find me a single source that talks about quantum fluctuations occurring outside a space time

That doesn’t even make sense if you understand what quantum fluctuations are

That’s like saying something can be a square and a circle at the same time

 

[onelife]

You’re not understanding what im saying, if the psr is false you can’t claim logical reasons for believing anything

You trying to come up with logical reasons for the psr to be false assumes that the psr must be true ironically enough

i get what you're saying bro, trust me

you're saying that rejecting the psr seems selfdefeating because reasoning itself depends on things making sense

but my point is that just because we rely on logical reasonin in everyday life doesnt mean the entire universe must follow the same structure

even if the psr works within our experience, that doesnt prove it applies to the fundamental nature of reality, especially in extreme conditions like before the universe existed (if that even makes sense as a concept)

Agreed, when I say “the universe had a cause” I’m only talking about this specific instance of the universe

As you pointed out it’s entirely possible that the universe is cyclical for example.

yea, that makes alotta sense. If you're saying this version of the universe had a cause, I can see why that follows. but if the broader reality is eternal (whether in cycles or some other shit), then the idea of a "first cause" might not even be necessary tbh

Causality has nothing to do with the universe it would be true regardless of whether or not the universe existed

Occam’s razor already implies strongly that the psr is correct and to say we have the ability reason itself necessarily means that the psr is correct

i can get where your comin from & shit but causality is something we actively observe within the universe, y'know?

if the universe itself had a beginnin, it’s not clear that causality even applies in the same way outside of it

ocam’s razor favors simplicity, but assuming that all things must have a cause could actually add an unnecessary assumption if reality itself doesn’t require one

Quantum mechanics is non classical by definition

exactly and because quantum mechanics is nonclassical, it means we cant assume that classical rules like strict causality or psr must always apply at the fundamental level, you feel me ?

For those effects to happen particles need to exist and particles need space to exist

Find me a single source that talks about quantum fluctuations occurring outside a space time

That doesn’t even make sense if you understand what quantum fluctuations are

That’s like saying something can be a square and a circle at the same time

thats a fair point cuz most quantum fluctuations happen within spacetime as we understand them today

but there are theories in quantum gravity and emergent spacetime that suggest spacetime itself might come from something deeper, like entanglement or quantum states beyond spacetim

shit, we dont even fully understand it yet, but saying spacetime must pre exist for quantum effects to work assumes that spacetime is fundamental rather than emergent
If spaectime emerges from deeper quantum laws, then its not a contradiction to say quantum effects could exist without spacetime

if you looking for realdeal discussions on this shit, check out loop quantum gravity (carlo roveli), causal dynamical triangulations (renate loll), or emergen spaetime models from quantum entanglement (juan maldacna & leonard susskind)

these are real deal areas of physics research that explore whether spacetime itself is fundamental or emergent

we aint even got a final answer, but saying "space-time must exist first" is noootttt a settled fact in physics

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

if you're askin how i would respond to you and not the other guy (coming from a conflicted christian/believer), i would say you are somewhat throwing a bunch of abstract concepts together without supporting it enough. just cuz logic, math, & ethics exist as abstract principles doesnt mean they require a "transcendental being"

these things are descriptive, not prescriptive, so they come from patterns & relationships within reality, not from some external mind

also, claiming that without god, everything is "chaos" is just an assertion, not a reliable argument. however, i understand why you think this my nigga, not a direct fault with you

order exists in nature due to physical laws, not because of a divine mind. you technically haven't actually proven that a "universal invariant abstract entity" (idk what that means) must be a personal god

Thank you for replying .


No the point I was making is that these are fundamental principles that do exist and are universal however they being immaterial cannot be grounded within a physicist/materialist worldview, a worldview such as your typical GAYthiest which relies on empirical sense data which in of itself presupposes fundamental categories which itself cannot account for such as identity over time and thus relies on induction (read David Hume for more) leads atheists with an incomplete metaphysical framework.



Well the reason why I say without order is just arbitrary based on individual human standards not objective all value etc is equal no such thing as “good” and “bad” truth and falsehood because we’d just be a mish mash of random atoms designed to survive not discover truth if our thoughts end experiences are in the lenses of chemical reactions in the brain, then we have no reason to trust our reasoning—because chemical reactions are not inherently “true” or “false” they just happen.

I’m not referring to physical laws such as gravity something that can be measured etc, this is a deeper question about abstract universal state of affairs and one’s own epistemic account for reality. I’m positing that my worldview ultimately is the most coherent.

When I say “Universal invariant abstract entity” I’m referring to the ontological state of abstract things that remain constant and can’t be changed such as 2+ 2 always = 4 this is universally true and cannot be changed, mathmatics is universal and we can tap into it but can’t actually grab the quiddity of mathmatics itself for it is beyond space time/universe. If it’s merely a description of what we see or nature then they aren’t necessary or universal this leads to absurdities.

Abstract necessary truths cannot come from an ever-changing, contingent physical universe, they must be grounded in something eternal and necessary—which is God.

Your argument relies on descriptive reasoning but if this were the case then logic could change if the universe changed, but as they are invariant (unchanging) and universal (constant) they remain regardless of the universe existing or not for example the law of non contradiction holds regardless if true or false which is why posit order is not just a pattern we observe in reality—it is a fundamental reality that exists because God exists

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

so they created themselves?

Don’t worry I have him

For once I’ll defend all thiests as supposed to my own paradigm, just this once

 

[NoReedemingFeature]

both ideas deal with the same problem which is something existing without a cause. If all things need a beginning, saying god has always existed contradicts that. if god can be eternal, why can’t the universe or whatever caused it be as well?

my answer and belief on this topic isn't definitive tho, i battle with it daily

Nigga the cosmological argument is that everything that began to exist has a cause.
The world began to exist, it has a cause.
The argument asserts this cause is an uncaused intelligence/creator/God, who didn't begin to exist at any point.

 

[onelife]

Nigga the cosmological argument is that everything that began to exist has a cause.
The world began to exist, it has a cause.
The argument asserts this cause is an uncaused intelligence/creator/God, who didn't begin to exist at any point.

nigga i get that the cosmological argument says everything that begins to exist has a cause, but that still assumes the universe had a beginning while making an exception for God

if something can be eternal, why can’t it be the universe (or something else) instead of God?

but regardless, I’ve already discussed this at extreme length with somebody else in this longwinded thread, so I’m not really looking to debate it again, respectfully

 

[NoReedemingFeature]

but regardless, I’ve already discussed this at extreme length with somebody else in this longwinded thread, so I’m not really looking to debate it again, respectfully

Idc about debating this

if something can be eternal, why can’t it be the universe (or something else) instead of God?

Universe supposedly began its existance.
If it's not eternal and hasn't always existed t's not the initial cause. Why'd something eternal that's not an intelligent being (like this theoretical universe) go on to create anything?

 

[moredatesmorerapes]

I'm not even religious but this argument is retarded

 

[onelife]

"Thank you for replying "

no problem bro

No the point I was making is that these are fundamental principles that do exist and are universal however they being immaterial cannot be grounded within a physicist/materialist worldview, a worldview such as your typical GAYthiest which relies on empirical sense data which in of itself presupposes fundamental categories which itself cannot account for such as identity over time and thus relies on induction (read David Hume for more) leads atheists with an incomplete metaphysical framework.

you’re assuming that cuz your worldview needs an external groundin for things like identity &induction, other worldviews must too

but a lot of different philosophies offer different explanations - some materialists see logic and math as emergent from physical reality, while others (like mathematical platonistss) think they exist independently

so just saying "atheists can’t account for it" doesnt necessarily make it true

Well the reason why I say without order is just arbitrary based on individual human standards not objective all value etc is equal no such thing as “good” and “bad” truth and falsehood because we’d just be a mish mash of random atoms designed to survive not discover truth if our thoughts end experiences are in the lenses of chemical reactions in the brain, then we have no reason to trust our reasoning—because chemical reactions are not inherently “true” or “false” they just happen.

this is just the "if the brain is just chemicals, we can’t trust it" argument, which doesn’t really hol up

chemical reactions follow laws of physics just like the wires, circuits, and shit inna pc

you wouldnt say a calculator is unreliable just cuz it runs on electricity, you feel me?

the same applies to our brains

evolution in general favors reasoning that maps accurately to reality because better reasoning = better survival

our thoughts aren’t "random" they’re shaped by natural selection to be useful and generally reliable

I’m not referring to physical laws such as gravity something that can be measured etc, this is a deeper question about abstract universal state of affairs and one’s own epistemic account for reality. I’m positing that my worldview ultimately is the most coherent.

coherence alone doesn’t prove truth, even tho i completely understand why you believe that

flat earth models can be "coherent" internally, but that doesn mean they’re correct

jus cuz your worldview gives an account of abstract concepts doesn’t mean its the only way to do so

yoi haven’t shown why logic or math need an external grounding in a mind instead of just being fundamental aspects of reality

When I say “Universal invariant abstract entity” I’m referring to the ontological state of abstract things that remain constant and can’t be changed such as 2+ 2 always = 4 this is universally true and cannot be changed, mathmatics is universal and we can tap into it but can’t actually grab the quiddity of mathmatics itself for it is beyond space time/universe. If it’s merely a description of what we see or nature then they aren’t necessary or universal this leads to absurdities.

just cuz math describes things beyond spacetime doesnt mean it requires a divine mind

why assume abstract truths like math need a "source"?

why not just accept that they exist as fundamental properties of reality?

you’re asserting that they must be "grounded" on something, but thats just an assumption

Abstract necessary truths cannot come from an ever-changing, contingent physical universe, they must be grounded in something eternal and necessary—which is God.

why assume abstract truths "come from" anything at all?

things like the law of noncontradiction or mathematical truths don’t need to "come from" something any more than the number 3 needs to be "created"
they just exist as concepts

You’re asserting they need a grounding in God, but you havent actually proven that

Your argument relies on descriptive reasoning but if this were the case then logic could change if the universe changed, but as they are invariant (unchanging) and universal (constant) they remain regardless of the universe existing or not for example the law of non contradiction holds regardless if true or false which is why posit order is not just a pattern we observe in reality—it is a fundamental reality that exists because God exists

saying "logic exists because god exists" is just stating an assumption as if it’s fact

why not say instead "logic exists because it’s a fundamental part of reality"?

you haven shown why logic requires a being to ground it - it could simply be a brute fact of existence


you’re kinda primarily assuming that abstract truths need to be "grounded" in somethin rather than just existing as fundamental parts of reality
thas a metaphysical assumption, not proof of god

 

[onelife]

Idc about debating this

you say you don’t care about debating, yet here you are debating which is hella dope

Universe supposedly began its existance.
If it's not eternal and hasn't always existed t's not the initial cause.

the bigbang describes the expansion of spacetime, not necessarily the ultimate "beginning" of everythin

some models suggest a prior state, like an eternal quantum vacuum, a cyclic universe, or sumn deeper

so sayin "the universe began to exist" is an assumption- not a confirmed fact

If it's not eternal and hasn't always existed t's not the initial cause.

this assumes there must be an "initial cause" at all

if reality itself is eternal in some form, whether through cycles, quantum states, and etcetera, then asking for a first cause might not even make sense, just like asking "what’s north of the north pole"

Why'd something eternal that's not an intelligent being (like this theoretical universe) go on to create anything?

who says "creation" requires intelligence?

stars form, planets collide, and natural processes happen all the time without a mind guiding them

if an eternal universe or deeper reality exists, it doesn’t need a mind to transitio into different states cuz it just follows its own fundamental properties


i’ve already had this discussion at length, and im not looking to go in circles

you assume an eternal being must be intelligent; i don’t see why that has to be true (coming from a conflicted christian believer myself) we’ll agree to disagree

 

[NoReedemingFeature]

this assumes there must be an "initial cause" at all

Yes, one way around the argument is to reject its premises

 

[onelife]

Yes, one way around the argument is to reject its premises

its not "getting around" the argument cuz it’s questioning whether its assumptions are even necessary

if you assume there must be an initial cause, then of course you’ll conclude there is one

but that’s just assuming the conclusion instead of proving it lol.

 

[NoReedemingFeature]

its not "getting around" the argument cuz it’s questioning whether its assumptions are even necessary

if you assume there must be an initial cause, then of course you’ll conclude there is one

but that’s just assuming the conclusion instead of proving it lol.

I'm not even claiming the argument to be correct. All that was to say you can simply reject the premise, not that doing so is some form of mental gymnastics.
Frankly idgaf about any cosmological argument, personally I believe the earth to be flat.

 

[onelife]

I'm not even claiming the argument to be correct. All that was to say you can simply reject the premise, not that doing so is some form of mental gymnastics.
Frankly idgaf about any cosmological argument,

lmao, so after all that, you don’t even care about the argument? sick

if rejecting the premise was always the obvious answer, why argue the initial cause position at all? jfl

personally I believe the earth to be flat.

ah flat earth, the final stage of every failed debate

i respect the commitment to the bit my nigga

 

[Harold O'brien]

insanely easy argument to obliterate because the boundaries of what consititute and does not constitute as life are extremely fuzzy

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

"Thank you for replying "

no problem bro


you’re assuming that cuz your worldview needs an external groundin for things like identity &induction, other worldviews must too

but a lot of different philosophies offer different explanations - some materialists see logic and math as emergent from physical reality, while others (like mathematical platonistss) think they exist independently

so just saying "atheists can’t account for it" doesnt necessarily make it true


this is just the "if the brain is just chemicals, we can’t trust it" argument, which doesn’t really hol up

chemical reactions follow laws of physics just like the wires, circuits, and shit inna pc

you wouldnt say a calculator is unreliable just cuz it runs on electricity, you feel me?

the same applies to our brains

evolution in general favors reasoning that maps accurately to reality because better reasoning = better survival

our thoughts aren’t "random" they’re shaped by natural selection to be useful and generally reliable

coherence alone doesn’t prove truth, even tho i completely understand why you believe that

flat earth models can be "coherent" internally, but that doesn mean they’re correct

jus cuz your worldview gives an account of abstract concepts doesn’t mean its the only way to do so

yoi haven’t shown why logic or math need an external grounding in a mind instead of just being fundamental aspects of reality


just cuz math describes things beyond spacetime doesnt mean it requires a divine mind

why assume abstract truths like math need a "source"?

why not just accept that they exist as fundamental properties of reality?

you’re asserting that they must be "grounded" on something, but thats just an assumption


why assume abstract truths "come from" anything at all?

things like the law of noncontradiction or mathematical truths don’t need to "come from" something any more than the number 3 needs to be "created"
they just exist as concepts

You’re asserting they need a grounding in God, but you havent actually proven that


saying "logic exists because god exists" is just stating an assumption as if it’s fact

why not say instead "logic exists because it’s a fundamental part of reality"?

you haven shown why logic requires a being to ground it - it could simply be a brute fact of existence


you’re kinda primarily assuming that abstract truths need to be "grounded" in somethin rather than just existing as fundamental parts of reality
thas a metaphysical assumption, not proof of god

Why TF did this shit site not alert me to you responding


That’s rediculous… how can you posit that a physist/Materialist paradigm can possibly account for something universal and immaterial when such things literally cannot exist within their paradigms it cannot be an emergent thing from phaycla reality, and yes it is something separate entirely but what is it ultimately grounded in? They have no answer, this is why I said the typical Gyatheistic paradigm with all its presumptions regarding metaphysics is ultimately incomplete and therefore untrue infact these retards literally copy paste from other worldviews and when asked to provide an account they have none as you have just demonstrated .

So yes atheists being unable to account for it means that their paradigm is proven false because their worldview cannot explain or allow for such things existence which runs counter to their worldview

well chemical reactions are random and our reality is based upon survival not on finding truth due to evolution, a calculatior is created by somebody for a purpose hence why it’s reliable, your framework cannot explain why humans have the capacity to reason, and perceive abstract truths such as law of non contradiction suggests that it’s grounded in something beyond chemical processes I mean without a grounding for how our brain abstractly maps reality your left with illogical slop and mystery which unironically makes you as bad as those religious nutjobs with shitty reasons to be religious.

The idea that “2 + 2 = 4” holds regardless of our physical existence—points to an absolute, unchanging foundation. If abstract truths are mere brute facts, they remain inexplicable; why should they exist uniformly in a contingent, material world? this points to the existence of a divine mind (God) an invariant abstract unchanging universal being the source of all rationality.

Going back to what I said in the first paragraph the assumption that “abstract truths are fundamental aspects of reality” is itself a metaphysical presupposition that needs grounding. Without God, there’s no ultimate source for the logic and mathematics we rely on; they’re not self-explanatory. So essentially once again your cribbing from paradigms to fill in the gaps in yours without stopping and thinking to realise how inconsistent that is.

Internal coherence? Wasn’t expecting this to come up your good however this doesn’t in any way posit truth, internal consistency I’m sure you’ll agree on doesn’t guarantee truth. The thing is our reasoning is reliable in both material and abstract domains points to a transcendental source that is unchanging as supposed to evolution or chance which less plausible.

So evolution may explain why our brains work well enough to help us survive, the existence of objective, immutable abstract truths (such as those found in logic and mathematics) requires an external, absolute grounding in a divine mind (an personal entity that is universal abstract and beyond principles and material). Without that grounding, our cognitive reliability remains an unexplained, almost miraculous, phenomenon which is unironically BASED ON FAITH WHICH is why I often refer to GAYthiests as Tolkien tier fantasy fans

This is not a near assertion, this is a logical conclusion drawn from the nature of abstract truths, which neither can be explained within the materialistic or naturalistic paradigm. This means it must be grounded in a mind that’s abstract universal invariant and unchanging. This then underpins your worldview which has to tackle philosophical challenges such as the uniformity application of logical laws across different contexts and cultures. Without acknowledging a divine foundation, one cannot coherently account for the existence and consistency of these abstract entities.

 

[JasGews69x]

bro, laws of a country are created by people and enforced by authorities

but laws of physics aren’t "rules" made by someone - they’re just descriptions of how reality behaves

noone enforces gravity, electromagnetism, or thermodynamics cuz they just exist

Ok, so they enforce themselves

this is just assuming that intelligence is needed to create something

yOurE JuSt AssUmIng

Intelligence is needed to create something like a phone so yes it is, as well as power and will

think about this for a sec: nature produces incredibly complex things like stars, galaxies, and even life without needing a conscious mind behind it

Ok so you've taken nature as your god since it it doesnt tell you how to live your life
'Nature' created Humans beings with consciousness without having consciousness itself unless you're saying you dont have consciousness

That is like making a bike without the materials needed to make a bike.
That means there is a conscious mind behind it (Nature), you're just assuming there isnt since you havent seen it.

complexity doesn’t automatically mean it was designed

if something can be eternal, why can’t it be the universe (or something else) instead of God?

bro is trying hard to reject his Natural Inclination of God

The Universe is just atoms, they arent eternal since they will decay which means that something external (and eternal) brought into existence as well as everything else which means it not the Universe and there is no cyclical universe either

Extreme power,knowledge,Will and being Eternal are needed to bring in a Universe to existence. People call that God
If they aren't why dont you make a Universe then?

You were talking about peer reviewed science, the same science says that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, so you reject the science when convenient and reject it when its inconvenient

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

so they created themselves?

As I said I kept my promise

 

[onelife]

Ok, so they enforce themselves

no one enforces gravity, it just happens

that’s literally the whole point lol

natural laws aren’t ‘rules’ that need an enforcer; they’re just descriptions of how reality behaves

yOurE JuSt AssUmIng

nah, you’re the one assuming that everything complex must require intelligence

we see natural processes creating complexity all the time ( stars, galaxies, life itself) without any sign of a guiding mind

if you dont like me using a word like "assuming" in a topic like this where it is used the most, then dont debate with me any further lmaooo the other guy clearly understands why i use it so much

Ok so you've taken nature as your god

never once said that

you’re making stuff up because you can’t argue against what I actually said

nature existing doesn’t mean it has to be a god

'Nature' created Humans beings with consciousness without having consciousness itself unless you're saying you dont have consciousness

that’s like saying fire can’t produce light because fire itself isn’t made of light

consciousness emerges from complex systems so it doesn’t have to come from something that’s already conscious

That is like making a bike without the materials needed to make a bike.

no, it’s more like a tree growing from a seed without needing someone to "design" it

complex things can emerge from simpler processes without needing an intelligent designer

bro is trying hard to reject his Natural Inclination of God

ah, when logic fails, go for the "you secretly believe what I believe" argument. classic

Extreme power,knowledge,Will and being Eternal are needed to bring in a Universe to existence. People call that God
If they aren't why dont you make a Universe then?

bro you are just assertin that these things are needed, when you haven’t actually proven it

why assume the universe needs "power and will" when natural processes explain how things form without them?

You were talking about peer reviewed science, the same science says that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, so you reject the science when convenient and reject it when its inconvenient

scienc says the universe as we know it is 13.8 billion years ol, but it doesnt confirm that nothing existed before it

some models suggest a prior state

youre pretending science is on your side while ignoring the parts that don’t support your conclusion


you’re not engaging with what I’m actually saying, you’re just throwing out bad analogies and laughing like that makes an argument

if you actually wanna debate, step up

if not, I’m done entertaining this

everybody else here is at least saying something that makes sense and is interesting to engage with lol

 

[onelife]

my sleep patterns are super fucked up and i stay up late so forgive me for such a late reply my nigga

how can you posit that a physist/Materialist paradigm can possibly account for something universal and immaterial when such things literally cannot exist within their paradigms

thiss issa false premise bro

materialism doesn’t necessarily deny the existence of abstract truths, it just doesn’t assume they require a mind

there are multiple explanations for abstract truths:

• mathematicalplatonism holds that mathematical objects exist independently, beyond space &time
• formalism/conventionalism argues that mathematics is jus a system of rules humans made to describe patterns
• structuralism sees math as a description of relationships between things rather than "entities" that need a source

atheists being unable to account for it means that their paradigm is proven false because their worldview cannot explain or allow for such things existence which runs counter to their worldview

this is jus a god of the gaps argument

jus cuz someone ain’t gotta fully fleshed-out answer doesnt mean your answer is automatically correct

by your logic, if science doesnt currently explain something, we should just assume a divine being did it

thas just not an argumen -it’s just plugging in "god" whenever there’s a gap in knowledge

chemical reactions are random and our reality is based upon survival not on finding truth due to evolution,

this is just straight up wrong

evolution selects for useful reasoning, not random nonsense


iff our perception of reality were completely unreliable, we literally wouldnt survive
organisms that better understand their environment thrive
thats why our reasoning aligns with reality cuz it has practical survival benefits

a calculatior is created by somebody for a purpose hence why it’s reliable, your framework cannot explain why humans have the capacity to reason

I brought up the calculator to show that physical processes (whether electrical circuits or chemical reactions) can still produce reliable outcomes
but you’ve misinterpreted the analogy

acalculator is designed for precision, while the human brain evolved under natural selection

our reasoning isn’t "designed," but it was shaped by survival pressures to be good enough to navigate reality
evolution doesn’t need a conscious designer, it just favors accuracy over time

The idea that “2 + 2 = 4” holds regardless of our physical existence—points to an absolute, unchanging foundation. If abstract truths are mere brute facts, they remain inexplicable; why should they exist uniformly in a contingent, material world?

youre assumin abstract truths need a source rather than just existing as fundamental aspects of reality
why assume they require a divine mind? thats not a logical necessity - it’s just an assertion

also, even if logic &math exist beyond spacetim, that doesnt mean they need consciousness behind em

numbers arent "thoughts", theyre jus relationships that hold true in any system where definitions remain consistent

youre smuggling in the assumption that they must be "thoughts in a divine mind"without proving it

Without God, there’s no ultimate source for the logic and mathematics we rely on; they’re not self-explanatory. So essentially once again your cribbing from paradigms to fill in the gaps in yours without stopping and thinking to realise how inconsistent that is.

WHICH is why I often refer to GAYthiests as Tolkien tier fantasy fans

this is a bit of a burden shift bro

you’re the one claiming logic must be grounded in a divine mind, but you havent justified why that’s true

why should I assume logic needs a source at all? why not just say its a brute fact of existence?

This is not a near assertion, this is a logical conclusion drawn from the nature of abstract truths, which neither can be explained within the materialistic or naturalistic paradigm. This means it must be grounded in a mind that’s abstract universal invariant and unchanging. This then underpins your worldview which has to tackle philosophical challenges such as the uniformity application of logical laws across different contexts and cultures. Without acknowledging a divine foundation, one cannot coherently account for the existence and consistency of these abstract entities.

this is just restating the same assumptions I already addressed

you keep insisting that logic and math must be "grounded"in a divine min,

but youve never actually demonstrated why thas necessar

i like talking to you specifically, but at this point, we’re just going in circles

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

my sleep patterns are super fucked up and i stay up late so forgive me for such a late reply my nigga

thiss issa false premise bro

materialism doesn’t necessarily deny the existence of abstract truths, it just doesn’t assume they require a mind

there are multiple explanations for abstract truths:

• mathematicalplatonism holds that mathematical objects exist independently, beyond space &time
• formalism/conventionalism argues that mathematics is jus a system of rules humans made to describe patterns
• structuralism sees math as a description of relationships between things rather than "entities" that need a source

this is jus a god of the gaps argument

jus cuz someone ain’t gotta fully fleshed-out answer doesnt mean your answer is automatically correct

by your logic, if science doesnt currently explain something, we should just assume a divine being did it

thas just not an argumen -it’s just plugging in "god" whenever there’s a gap in knowledge


this is just straight up wrong

evolution selects for useful reasoning, not random nonsense


iff our perception of reality were completely unreliable, we literally wouldnt survive
organisms that better understand their environment thrive
thats why our reasoning aligns with reality cuz it has practical survival benefits

I brought up the calculator to show that physical processes (whether electrical circuits or chemical reactions) can still produce reliable outcomes
but you’ve misinterpreted the analogy

acalculator is designed for precision, while the human brain evolved under natural selection

our reasoning isn’t "designed," but it was shaped by survival pressures to be good enough to navigate reality
evolution doesn’t need a conscious designer, it just favors accuracy over time


youre assumin abstract truths need a source rather than just existing as fundamental aspects of reality
why assume they require a divine mind? thats not a logical necessity - it’s just an assertion

also, even if logic &math exist beyond spacetim, that doesnt mean they need consciousness behind em

numbers arent "thoughts", theyre jus relationships that hold true in any system where definitions remain consistent

youre smuggling in the assumption that they must be "thoughts in a divine mind"without proving it




this is a bit of a burden shift bro

you’re the one claiming logic must be grounded in a divine mind, but you havent justified why that’s true

why should I assume logic needs a source at all? why not just say its a brute fact of existence?

this is just restating the same assumptions I already addressed

you keep insisting that logic and math must be "grounded"in a divine min,

but youve never actually demonstrated why thas necessar

i like talking to you specifically, but at this point, we’re just going in circles

I enjoy speaking to you as well bhaiii (no homo)


I get what you mean but if mathematics exists in an abstract realm, then its existence must be grounded in something eternal and unchanging… your just begging the question essentially moving back a step, what is the source of this timeless realm of forms? This is a silly assertion the only explanation for this is a rational mind beyond this, the unmoved mover.

The 2nd point about convention well that’s retarded and don’t account for the universality of the rules and necessarily true the fact these work in every culture situation etc is proof that they are not encumbant upon human intervention

You cannot explain the relationship with mear human interaction or emergent properties the fact these structures is immutable as relationships and consistency posits that there is an ultimate grounding for this, your just positing theories that just push the question back a point but doesn’t get to the accounting for the proposition because you have yet to explain how these make up for the properties of universality necessity and immutability.





True whisky evolution does indeed select for organisms with traits to ensure a reliable cognitive faculty the fact remains this doesn’t account for the possibility of us taping into abstract reasoning that is universal, true and immutable. So there’s a reason for survival sure, but there’s no justification for the necessary nature of abstract principles.

Abstract truths aren’t approximations as your positing but are objective facts that hold regardless of humans and space time and thus aren’t contingent on material processes, I’m positing that this must be grounded in something ultimately beyond.

Your critique that it’s a God of the gap argument is fallacious because I’m not imply science cannot come to reasonable conclusions I’m stating that the very nature of abstract reality requires there to be objective truth and if our rational faculties can access this truth then there must be an ultimate foundation for said truth.

Naturalism therefore cannot explain why these faculties should correspond to external immutable orders such as objective truth in spite of them being good enough for our survival. I mean think about it if what you said was the case regarding chemlicwl reactions then we’d literally have no guarantee that The abstract structures we discover have any objective existence, however the reality is these are constants regardless of place and culture. This is an argument for the possibility of knowledge itself and I’m saying God is the necessary precondition for knowledge







Asserting that abstract truths exist without grounding is in of itself a metaphysical presupposition, to say it exists as a brute fact means that there is an ultimate basis for that brute fact.







Why is it god necessary?


The use of logic and reason presupposes order, a rational framework, something impossible without a divine creator, without this grounding your reliance on these tools unironically becomes inconsistent and illogical.

Other explanations fail to provide a coherent account, secular explanations for abstract entities fail in providing an account for their universality and immutability in this regard as perfectly demonstrated in this dialogue. Once again leading to incoherency.

Finally epistemic certainty, without acknowledging god as the foundation of these abstract principles any claim to knowledge becomes unstable leading to epistemic relativism which undermines the certainty of any knowledge and thus truth claim.

I’m positing that the very possibility of knowledge mathematics and objective truth/Knoweledge presupposes the existence of a divine mind at the meta level as it undergirds the foundational preconditions that make rational discourse possible. You literally have no account for how you can even use sentences or logic which you’re using to debate me it’s ironic tbh.

 

[onelife]

I get what you mean but if mathematics exists in an abstract realm, then its existence must be grounded in something eternal and unchanging… your just begging the question essentially moving back a step, what is the source of this timeless realm of forms?

the idea that math needs an external "grounding" isn’t a given - its just one interpretation

there’s no contradiction in saying that mathematical truths simply exist as fundamental aspects of reality

sayin they need a source doesnt prove they do, it just raises the same question at another level: what grounds that source?

The 2nd point about convention well that’s retarded and don’t account for the universality of the rules and necessarily true the fact these work in every culture situation etc is proof that they are not encumbant upon human intervention

that logic works universally doesnt mean it requires a divine source cuz it just shows that logical relationships are consistent patterns in reality

structuralists and formalists don’t claim that humans ‘invent’ logic; they claim it describes relationships that exist regardless of minds

whether these truths are fundamental or emergent is a separate question, but their universality alone doesnt prove they must be rooted in a divine mind/god

evolution does indeed select for organisms with traits to ensure a reliable cognitive faculty the fact remains this doesn’t account for the possibility of us taping into abstract reasoning that is universal, true and immutable

evolution explains why our reasoning is generally reliable, but the nature of abstract truths is a separate question

even if logic and math extend beyond human minds, that doesnt mean they require a divine source; only that they describe consistent relationships that hold regardless of physical reality

without acknowledging god as the foundation of these abstract principles any claim to knowledge becomes unstable leading to epistemic relativism which undermines the certainty of any knowledge and thus truth claim

again, you're assuming logical consistency depends on a divine foundation

it follows from the nature of logical relationships themselves

you haven’t shown that truth collapses without god, only that this is the explanation you prefer

The use of logic and reason presupposes order, a rational framework, something impossible without a divine creator, without this grounding your reliance on these tools unironically becomes inconsistent and illogical.

this is just another way of saying "logic must be grounded in god" without proving why

you keep repeatedly assuming that logic and reason require a divine foundation, but you havent actually justified it

why not just accept that logical principles are fundamental parts of reality?

why assume they need a "mind" to exist?



again, order and consistency in logic dont automatically point to a divine foundation
logical structures hold because of how relationships between concepts work, not because they need an external force to maintain them
if logic were truly dependent on god, youd need to show how that connection works rather than just stating it as a necessity.
there are multiple competing explanations for abstract truths that dont require god, and just calling them "incoherent" doesn’t make it so

honestly, i think we’ve covered our main points pretty thoroughly and repetitively at this point

you're standing on logic and truth as necessarily tied to a divine mind, while im standing on see them as being fundamental properties of reality

i dont think we’re going to settle that very important core of this entire thing here, so i’ll leave it at that

but i very much appreciate the discussion

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

the idea that math needs an external "grounding" isn’t a given - its just one interpretation

there’s no contradiction in saying that mathematical truths simply exist as fundamental aspects of reality

sayin they need a source doesnt prove they do, it just raises the same question at another level: what grounds that source?


that logic works universally doesnt mean it requires a divine source cuz it just shows that logical relationships are consistent patterns in reality

structuralists and formalists don’t claim that humans ‘invent’ logic; they claim it describes relationships that exist regardless of minds

whether these truths are fundamental or emergent is a separate question, but their universality alone doesnt prove they must be rooted in a divine mind/god



evolution explains why our reasoning is generally reliable, but the nature of abstract truths is a separate question

even if logic and math extend beyond human minds, that doesnt mean they require a divine source; only that they describe consistent relationships that hold regardless of physical reality


again, you're assuming logical consistency depends on a divine foundation

it follows from the nature of logical relationships themselves

you haven’t shown that truth collapses without god, only that this is the explanation you prefer


this is just another way of saying "logic must be grounded in god" without proving why

you keep repeatedly assuming that logic and reason require a divine foundation, but you havent actually justified it

why not just accept that logical principles are fundamental parts of reality?

why assume they need a "mind" to exist?



again, order and consistency in logic dont automatically point to a divine foundation
logical structures hold because of how relationships between concepts work, not because they need an external force to maintain them
if logic were truly dependent on god, youd need to show how that connection works rather than just stating it as a necessity.
there are multiple competing explanations for abstract truths that dont require god, and just calling them "incoherent" doesn’t make it so

honestly, i think we’ve covered our main points pretty thoroughly and repetitively at this point

you're standing on logic and truth as necessarily tied to a divine mind, while im standing on see them as being fundamental properties of reality

i dont think we’re going to settle that very important core of this entire thing here, so i’ll leave it at that

but i very much appreciate the discussion

Yeah I mean it’s best to leave it here tbh you clearly don’t understand what it means to give an account for your worldview and instead insist on begging the question ad-infinatum

I mean the silly proposition that these are brute facts in of itself is a metaphysical claim essentially positing irrationally that without a grounding that these can just be… philosophical baby steps tbh You claim that abstract truths are self-existent, but if they are merely brute facts, then why do they exhibit the kind of consistency, universality, and necessity that we observe?” This is exactly the sort of question that presuppositional apologists like Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen have raised: if our reasoning works at all, there must be an absolute standard—a divine mind—that undergirds it. Without that, you’re left with a self-referential system where nothing is ultimately secure.

My justification is God, admittedly this isn’t a view I came up with it’s the Trancendetal argument for God it posits “the very possibility of rational thought, and of knowing truth in any reliable way, presupposes an ultimate, unchanging foundation. “ other philosophers propose such as Alvin Plantinga’s that if our cognitive faculties are solely the products of unguided evolutionary processes, then there’s no independent standard against which to measure their truthfulness. Our capacity to reason about abstract concepts and to arrive at consistent mathematical and logical truths implies that our reasoning isn’t just “useful” for survival—it tracks an objective reality

Evolution may help our reasoning with us navigating the physical world as it can select for traits that help organisms thrive but it doesn’t account for why and how we can access use and understand these abstract laws. Back to the calculator, its reliability comes from its design, not from the chaotic nature of electricity. If our abstract reasoning were simply a byproduct of evolutionary pressures, there’d be no guarantee that the logical structures we discover wouldn’t vary from one context to another. Their remarkable stability across all possible worlds suggests they’re grounded in something absolute.


Alternative explanations fall short as I have already refuted them

• Platonism posits an independent realm of forms, but then you must ask: why does that realm have the particular properties it does, and what ensures its timeless consistency?


• Formalism or conventionalism makes mathematics a mere human invention—yet if that were true, why would the same mathematical truths hold in every conceivable universe?


• Structuralism (the best one out of these 3) reduces math to relationships, but the relationships themselves are immutable, which again begs the question of why they exist so uniformly without an external grounding.


TLDR without external divine grounding, our system of thought is arbitrary. If abstract truths were just “brute facts,” then there would be no ultimate reason for their consistency or for our ability to know them. This isn’t a “god-of-the-gaps” move, it’s an inference drawn from the very nature of truth. When you see that logic, mathematics, and even moral values have a necessary, unchanging quality, you must ask: What is the source of this order? That source is God.

 

[chrishell]

Something and nothing is a false binary

 

[JasGews69x]

nah, you’re the one assuming that everything complex must require intelligence

no its a logical conclusion based on experience. Everything complex around us has been designed such as the table you're using. Even if you havent seen it, you're not gonna say it came by 'chance' or 'natural processes'.
I have no reason to doubt, so why would I?

Intelligence is required for a table, the Universe is infinitely more complex, so i conclude an infinitely greater intelligence made it.

Finding a car in the middle of the desert, you wont say that naturally formed over millions of years.

never once said that

you’re making stuff up because you can’t argue against what I actually said

nature existing doesn’t mean it has to be a god

No, you keep on misunderstanding everything im saying.
You've taken nature as your god.
Instead of saying God, you say 'Nature'

consciousness emerges from complex systems so it doesn’t have to come from something that’s already conscious

complex systems that shows signs of design

no, it’s more like a tree growing from a seed without needing someone to "design" it

the seed is programmed to grow into a tree.
You're ignoring the base

complex things can emerge from simpler processes without needing an intelligent designer

such as?
have you ever seen it?
Everything complex around me has been designed by intelligence.

ah, when logic fails, go for the "you secretly believe what I believe" argument. classic

Another misunderstanding
Look up Justin Barret study
Babies are born with the Natural Inclination to believe in Something above us that is unlike anything without being taught anything.
So you're denying your instinct which I can see pretty clearly.

why assume the universe needs "power and will" when natural processes explain how things form without them?

Atoms (what makes up the universe) have power in them
What happens when you manipulate them?
A massive explosion, thats power
They were brought into existence since they arent eternal which means a Will and Power Willed for it to be brought into existence.

The Natural Processes are bound by time which means they didnt exist at one point which means they were created lol

Your entire argument is that you havent seen the Creator therefore he doesnt exist

 

[onelife]

Yeah I mean it’s best to leave it here tbh you clearly don’t understand what it means to give an account for your worldview and instead insist on begging the question ad-infinatum

I mean the silly proposition that these are brute facts in of itself is a metaphysical claim essentially positing irrationally that without a grounding that these can just be… philosophical baby steps tbh You claim that abstract truths are self-existent, but if they are merely brute facts, then why do they exhibit the kind of consistency, universality, and necessity that we observe?” This is exactly the sort of question that presuppositional apologists like Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen have raised: if our reasoning works at all, there must be an absolute standard—a divine mind—that undergirds it. Without that, you’re left with a self-referential system where nothing is ultimately secure.

My justification is God, admittedly this isn’t a view I came up with it’s the Trancendetal argument for God it posits “the very possibility of rational thought, and of knowing truth in any reliable way, presupposes an ultimate, unchanging foundation. “ other philosophers propose such as Alvin Plantinga’s that if our cognitive faculties are solely the products of unguided evolutionary processes, then there’s no independent standard against which to measure their truthfulness. Our capacity to reason about abstract concepts and to arrive at consistent mathematical and logical truths implies that our reasoning isn’t just “useful” for survival—it tracks an objective reality

Evolution may help our reasoning with us navigating the physical world as it can select for traits that help organisms thrive but it doesn’t account for why and how we can access use and understand these abstract laws. Back to the calculator, its reliability comes from its design, not from the chaotic nature of electricity. If our abstract reasoning were simply a byproduct of evolutionary pressures, there’d be no guarantee that the logical structures we discover wouldn’t vary from one context to another. Their remarkable stability across all possible worlds suggests they’re grounded in something absolute.


Alternative explanations fall short as I have already refuted them

• Platonism posits an independent realm of forms, but then you must ask: why does that realm have the particular properties it does, and what ensures its timeless consistency?


• Formalism or conventionalism makes mathematics a mere human invention—yet if that were true, why would the same mathematical truths hold in every conceivable universe?


• Structuralism (the best one out of these 3) reduces math to relationships, but the relationships themselves are immutable, which again begs the question of why they exist so uniformly without an external grounding.


TLDR without external divine grounding, our system of thought is arbitrary. If abstract truths were just “brute facts,” then there would be no ultimate reason for their consistency or for our ability to know them. This isn’t a “god-of-the-gaps” move, it’s an inference drawn from the very nature of truth. When you see that logic, mathematics, and even moral values have a necessary, unchanging quality, you must ask: What is the source of this order? That source is God.

“brute facts = metaphysical claim = irrational”?

you said treating abstract truths as brute facts is “irrational,” but again, that depends on what we mean by “irrational"

you’re calling it irrational because it doesn’t offer an explanation beyond itself but that’s not the same as a contradiction or incoherence

some things may just be foundational

saying “god is the explanation” doesn’t escape the same issue -it just pushes the brute fact one step back to god’s nature

at some point, every worldview has to deal with bedrock facts

the question is which assumptions are simpler and less speculative




"why do abstract truths behave the way they do?”

i think this question is a bit like asking, "why is 2 + 2 = 4?” it just is

the structure of logic and mathematics seems to emerge from the way definitions and relationships work

there's no contradiction in thinkin those structures just are that way, just like theres no deeper reason why a triangle has three sides

Is it mysterious? sure

but appealing to a mind (especially a divine one) only raises more questions

Why does that mind have these properties? why must a mind exist to "hold" concepts like these?



you make a fair point that evolution ensuring our survival doesnt automatically explain our access to “objective truth"
but the consistency of logic might simply reflect how nature works

if the universe operates according to consistent rules, it makes sense that brains wired to track those patterns would emerge


that doesnt prove we’re tapping into some eternal divine realm (it just means our brains happen to model the world well enough for survival and abstract thought)

naybe that’s surprising, but it’s not proof of anything supernatural





you say you’ve “already refuted” platonism, structuralism, and formalism

but those aren’t refuted just by asking “why do they work?”
thass a fair question, but not some knockout blow
they’re still live philosophical options that dont require a divine mind


asking why abstract truths are the way they are doesnt mean the answer has to be a god

it could be that they don’t “come from” anything;they just are

you’re welcome to find that unsatisfying, but calling it incoherent doesn’t make it so


I get that you're saying God is the “best explanation,” but you still haven’t shown why abstract truths need any explanation beyond their own structure—let alone a personal mind behind them.

TLDR:
I get that you're saying god is the “best explanation,” but you still haven’t shown why abstract truths need any explanation beyond their own structure- let alone a personal mind behind them


at the end of the day, I see logic and math as fundamental frameworks that describe consistent relationships, not as thoughts in a divine mind. i totally get why you find your view coherent, I just don’t think it’s the only coherent option

anyway, I think we’ve reached the point where we’re both circling around wellexplored positions

i’ve appreciated the depth of this convo a lot (even if we don’t agree)

i respect the way you’ve presented your case

 

[onelife]

Another misunderstanding
Look up Justin Barret study
Babies are born with the Natural Inclination to believe in Something above us that is unlike anything without being taught anything.
So you're denying your instinct which I can see pretty clearly.

dawg, i understand what you're saying, please stop doing that

having an instinct to believe something doesnt make it true
kids are also naturally afraid of the dark, but that doesnt mean monsters exist

just because humans are prone to agency detection doesnt mean theres actually an agent behind everything

Atoms (what makes up the universe) have power in them
What happens when you manipulate them?
A massive explosion, thats power
They were brought into existence since they arent eternal which means a Will and Power

youre using the word "power" in two totally different ways

saying atoms contain energy doesnt mean they were created by a conscious "will"
that’s just jumping categories

natural processes explain how atoms behave once they exist, not that they require a mind to make them

Natural Processes are bound by time which means they didnt exist at one point which means they were created

sayin sumn didn’t exist "in time" doesnt automatically mean it was created by a conscious mind

some models of physics suggest time itself is emergent

not everything that begins needs to be willed into existence by something with intent

Your entire argument is that you havent seen the Creator therefore he doesnt exist

thas not my argument at all, this is so disingenous

im not saying "I haven’t seen god so he doesn’t exist"

im saying the evidence doesn’t point there - and alternative explanations exist that dont rely on addin a conscious creatorwhere its not neede

So you're denying your instinct which I can see pretty clearly.

question everything, regardless of what you believe
if anything, that makes what you believe stronger

i honestly think whenver people say stuff like this, theyre afraid of the possiblity that He isn't real, which is clearly understandable as human





at this point we’re just coming from completely different frameworks

i respect that youre making your case clearly, but i dont find it convincing, and i dont think we’re going to bridge the gap here

youve repeated a few points that i’ve already addressed (like the power/atoms thing & the idea that "timebound" means created by will

at this point, I think we’re just talking past each other

you’re still inherently framing everything through intent & i’m just not convinced by you thatss necessary

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

“brute facts = metaphysical claim = irrational”?

you said treating abstract truths as brute facts is “irrational,” but again, that depends on what we mean by “irrational"

you’re calling it irrational because it doesn’t offer an explanation beyond itself but that’s not the same as a contradiction or incoherence

some things may just be foundational

saying “god is the explanation” doesn’t escape the same issue -it just pushes the brute fact one step back to god’s nature

at some point, every worldview has to deal with bedrock facts

the question is which assumptions are simpler and less speculative




"why do abstract truths behave the way they do?”

i think this question is a bit like asking, "why is 2 + 2 = 4?” it just is

the structure of logic and mathematics seems to emerge from the way definitions and relationships work

there's no contradiction in thinkin those structures just are that way, just like theres no deeper reason why a triangle has three sides

Is it mysterious? sure

but appealing to a mind (especially a divine one) only raises more questions

Why does that mind have these properties? why must a mind exist to "hold" concepts like these?



you make a fair point that evolution ensuring our survival doesnt automatically explain our access to “objective truth"
but the consistency of logic might simply reflect how nature works

if the universe operates according to consistent rules, it makes sense that brains wired to track those patterns would emerge


that doesnt prove we’re tapping into some eternal divine realm (it just means our brains happen to model the world well enough for survival and abstract thought)

naybe that’s surprising, but it’s not proof of anything supernatural





you say you’ve “already refuted” platonism, structuralism, and formalism

but those aren’t refuted just by asking “why do they work?”
thass a fair question, but not some knockout blow
they’re still live philosophical options that dont require a divine mind


asking why abstract truths are the way they are doesnt mean the answer has to be a god

it could be that they don’t “come from” anything;they just are

you’re welcome to find that unsatisfying, but calling it incoherent doesn’t make it so


I get that you're saying God is the “best explanation,” but you still haven’t shown why abstract truths need any explanation beyond their own structure—let alone a personal mind behind them.

TLDR:
I get that you're saying god is the “best explanation,” but you still haven’t shown why abstract truths need any explanation beyond their own structure- let alone a personal mind behind them


at the end of the day, I see logic and math as fundamental frameworks that describe consistent relationships, not as thoughts in a divine mind. i totally get why you find your view coherent, I just don’t think it’s the only coherent option

anyway, I think we’ve reached the point where we’re both circling around wellexplored positions

i’ve appreciated the depth of this convo a lot (even if we don’t agree)

i respect the way you’ve presented your case

The gist is the transcendental categories the lanes since they do not operate in a vaccume on their own and they require more or a bigger thing to ground them As they ground knowledge. This is the i was getting it. If you still cannot provide an justification for knoweledge then your belief is ultimately irrational as you are just haphazardly using laws that you just presuppose to exist as brute facts despite having no justification for them to exist in the ontological state they do in the first place something you have yet to provide a coherent retinal explanation to.

Suggesting it’s a brute fact is a metaphysical claim your literally making a claim about how reality ought and is to be to make any statement or argument means you need universal quantifyers even contrasting your personal exp to “reality” your invoking something as a universal truth claim which once again BEGGING THE QQQQQQ. So even saying human knowledge is limited or comes from sense data etc these are universalised claims, now if you don’t mean it as a universal claim then your not saying anything other than YOURE own personal subjective exp which is arbitrary which is what you’re entire paradigm and worldview ultimately is even if you don’t realise it. I’m asking for a justified true belief style explanation of how that is the CASE when everything material else runs contrary to these abstract invariant universal laws. Simply hand waving and saying “Why can’t it just beeeee “ doesn’t solve the problem it’s like me saying “God just is because god just is lol KEK just accept got as exaiging “ you won’t accept that, neither would I and for good reason it’s a shitty answer.

You can exp stuff sure but that doesn’t have anything to do with universals and universal character of things that are law like such as law of identity which are necessary for you to predicate any meaningful statements or even arguments, the knoweledge claims the assertion etc all rely on categories that aren’t reducible to physical matter and sense data nor are they limited to your own direct experience because ofc if they were they would be universal duh . If there aren’t universal or law like things like that then knowledge is ultimately impossible and you cannot even make statements, because remember knowledge rely on logical laws, reliability of the mind, and objective truth. As I said not in a vacuum and you have yet to present any foundation for how you come to acquire knowledge which presupposes Objective truth which presupposes other transcendental categories which you have thus far failed to provide an account for or a decent response 2


Your a nice man, but no offence but you may just be incapable of understanding the point I mean it’s very obvious I’m asking you a meta level question about the precision for logic for knowledge etc at its starting level and simply saying MUH REALITY isn’t an adequate response and relying on nonsense like mathematical platoonism just begs the question moving it back a step