If God created everything who created God?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Surtur
Simple question, where'd God come from if he is supposedly the source of everything?

Lord Lucien
This is like... the anti-theism 101 question. Why bother asking it for the 100 millionth time?

Surtur
Simple: I got the idea from watching Star's video about how to explode an atheists head. In it they put forth some kind of stupid shit like how you can't get something from nothing. So for example they would say if you think a specific particle/element/whatever is responsible for the Big Bang..they'd go "well yeah but WHERE or WHO did that particle come from?" and on and on.

So I just thought I'd flip it over. Since they apparently believe whatever shaped the universe must of come from someone, I'm curious where they feel that someone came from.

Astner

Surtur
But that is the thing. If someone is willing to say a godlike being always existed, then why couldn't..whatever energies formed the universe of always existed? It doesn't mean I'm saying the universe always has, but perhaps the building blocks have.

So why can religious people go "oh all this had to come from somewhere, from someone" and at the same time be going "God came from nowhere, he has always been".

What am I kidding? I already know the answer people will give: because magic. I apologize, I tried to bring logic into something totally illogical. I imagine this is what a conversation with Bizarro feels like.

Shakyamunison
If the universe is the flash of two other universes colliding, then before the big bang there existed two other universes heading towards collision.

Q99
First there was an endless primordial ocean, Nun. Then Atum-Ra created themselves as a shining egg, and Atum-Ra then mated with himself and gave birth to Shu and Tefnut, who brought forth Geb and Nut, who in turn gave birth to the rest of the gods- Osiris, Isis, Set, Nepthys, etc..


Everyone knows that!

Adam Grimes
Now I want a fight with Atum Ra.

Astner

FinalAnswer
God would theoretically exist before the concept of time, so the idea would be he always existed.

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Surtur
Simple question, where'd God come from if he is supposedly the source of everything?
This is like asking why Big Bang happened.

There are certain matters that we might not be able to comprehend or explain, my friend.

Surtur
But you see the problem is some religious people take a lack of explanation for "it's magic yo". They will say something can't come from nothing, that everything has to of had a source. But of course not God, because he's magic.

So they can harp on people about the big bang, say "der where did the energy that started it come from if you can't get something from nothing?". Which means God came from something too, but nah cuz he's magic it doesn't work that way.

AsbestosFlaygon
Asking this question is like asking "Where did Matter come from?"

There is no definite answer. Even atheists/scientists cannot answer this type of question.

"How can something be created without a creator?" The classic chicken/egg argument. But we all know the chicken made the egg. Because everything starts from something, not from nothing.

I'd like to ask a few counter-questions: Can man create life from basic organic elements? What makes a heart beat? What makes our lungs breath air?

There are some things that our mortal minds will never be able to comprehend, that science and technology will never be able to explain.

Q99
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Asking this question is like asking "Where did Matter come from?"

There is no definite answer. Even atheists/scientists cannot answer this type of question.


We know where matter comes from. Sufficient densities of energy will form matter.

That's actually a pretty straightforward physics question and not a mystery. It's possible to create new matter as well. In super-colliders, when they talk about discovering new particles, they're literally *making* those particles occur by re-creating the conditions in which that type of matters forms.



Also, I will note that 'atheists' and 'scientists' are two separate groups. Not all atheists are scientists or believe in science, not all scientists are atheists.




Atum-Ra self-created as a shining egg.

AsbestosFlaygon
Originally posted by Q99
We know where matter comes from. Sufficient densities of energy will form matter.
I know that. I know we are all just particles of stardust fleeting in space.

But where does this energy come from? I mean the energy from the Big Bang. Where did it come from? It's impossible to come from nothing.

Q99
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
I know that. I know we are all but particles of stardust fleeting in space.

But where does this energy come from? I mean the energy from the Big Bang. Where did it come from? It's impossible to come from nothing.


Mm, in quantum stuff, that's not exactly true, a particle and anti-particle can form as long as they immediately self-annihilate (there's actual evidence of this, in the form of hawking's radiation). It's all incredibly small scale and rarely has an effect on anything, but that's in the universe's current conditions.

So in the pre-big bang conditions, those existing effects may be able to work on a larger scale.


In a way, it's similar to Atum-Ra creating himself as a shining egg, only possible in the endless primordial ocean of Nun....

Surtur
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
"How can something be created without a creator?" The classic chicken/egg argument. But we all know the chicken made the egg. Because everything starts from something, not from nothing.

I tend to agree, but to be fair we don't all know the chicken made the egg. Some obviously do believe God has no beginning or end.

Shakyamunison

Stigma
Originally posted by Surtur
Simple question, where'd God come from if he is supposedly the source of everything?
ii4QmFA--gs

This particular question is discussed, starting at about 5:00.


EDIT: Really touching the surface of the problem, but you'll easily find this claim backed up in many, much longer debates. Even in the one from which the excerpt comes from.

Stigma
Originally posted by Surtur
But that is the thing. If someone is willing to say a godlike being always existed, then why couldn't..whatever energies formed the universe of always existed?
Because, if you go with personal, Christian God, his decision makes the universe to appear out of nothing. Meaning, just like a person, he decides to act.

Q99
Another answer: Time Travel.

Anyone else ever read a story where a time-traveler ends up creating themself or their time machine?


It's interesting no-one ever seems to attribute God as having time travel powers or consider the possibility.

Esau Cairn
Doctor Who has encountered the devil in his travels but never God.

End of discussion.

Tattoos N Scars
Originally posted by Q99
Another answer: Time Travel.

Anyone else ever read a story where a time-traveler ends up creating themself or their time machine?


It's interesting no-one ever seems to attribute God as having time travel powers or consider the possibility.


God is viewed as a Supreme Being outside of 'Time'. Time has no meaning in Eternity. It's something humans can't comprehend because we are bound to 'Time'.

Q99
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
God is viewed as a Supreme Being outside of 'Time'. Time has no meaning in Eternity. It's something humans can't comprehend because we are bound to 'Time'.

Oh, humans can comprehend quite a number of things without time, it's not all that hard, I can name some stories.


My point is more, however, that even though people say stuff like that (it doesn't exactly come up in the Bible itself), they still assume a rather linear approach when actually talking about God. Non-linear self creation doesn't crop up, nor does acting in any order other than linearly.



And no-one even mentions the possibility of self-creation in a shining egg over a primordial ocean...

MF DELPH
Yeah, that's pretty much bullshit. Something that exists outside of time can't have causal properties because you need a chain of events for actions to occur, meaning a passage of time. I think the real answer is that there's no such thing as non-existence, as in there never was "nothing". Existence has always existed, just not necessarily in the configuration it is in today. The universe didn't come from nothing, it's just that what we inhabit in the 'now' is simply one of many possible configurations of what has always been, and 'now' isn't static, because 'then' wasn't static, and neither is 'what will be'.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Yeah, that's pretty much bullshit. Something that exists outside of time can't have causal properties because you need a chain of events for actions to occur, meaning a passage of time. I think the real answer is that there's no such thing as non-existence, as in there never was "nothing". Existence has always existed, just not necessarily in the configuration it is in today. The universe didn't come from nothing, it's just that what we inhabit in the 'now' is simply one of many possible configurations of what has always been, and 'now' isn't static, because 'then' wasn't static, and neither is 'what will be'. thumb up

Inhuman
Humans created the concept of God

Mindship
So, both sides can agree that Something Always Was.

Kumbaya moment.

MF DELPH
Not necessarily.

Some people may misconstrue the position of existence always existing as adding validity to the belief that said existence must have been an eternal sentient being, or beings. That isn't the case.

Tattoos N Scars
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Yeah, that's pretty much bullshit. Something that exists outside of time can't have causal properties because you need a chain of events for actions to occur, meaning a passage of time. I think the real answer is that there's no such thing as non-existence, as in there never was "nothing". Existence has always existed, just not necessarily in the configuration it is in today. The universe didn't come from nothing, it's just that what we inhabit in the 'now' is simply one of many possible configurations of what has always been, and 'now' isn't static, because 'then' wasn't static, and neither is 'what will be'.

Is it eternal eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise, it wouldn't be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.
What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.

Emperordmb
My point of view as a Catholic is that the way our universe functions, one of the fundamental rules of our universe is that everything has a cause, but for that to be true, there has to be a reason for why the rules our universe follows are the way there are, and that with everything built upon something before it, there has to be some baseline for everything else to be built from. For that to be true, I believe there would have to be something existing outside of that rule of our universe that everything has to have a cause, ie. a higher power.

I personally believe in Christianity specifically because its the most in keeping with certain moral and philosophical values I've developed in my life (ie. the duality of choice and fate, the importance of love, purpose of life as it relates to oneself and humanity on the whole, etc.), but I respect the rights of others to believe what they will.

AsbestosFlaygon
Satanism believe the same thing. By that, I mean that he created the universe and is the source of chaos that sparked the big bang from the cosmic egg. Just change love with hate.

Emperordmb
Based on the advancement of humanity as a whole, I'm more optimistic.

MF DELPH
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Is it eternal eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise, it wouldn't be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.
What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.

Existence has always existed. Period. No degrees. And you can't have causal properties without causality, meaning a chain of events or actions can't occur without time. The universe isn't the totality of existence. Saying that this universe had a 'beginning' doesn't mean existence did. Non-existence is a paradox. At most you can say that existence hasn't always been in it's current state.

*edit

Also, you're own position betrays the special pleading necessary to propose a God or Gods.

Tattoos N Scars
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Existence has always existed. Period. No degrees. And you can't have causal properties without causality, meaning a chain of events or actions can't occur without time. The universe isn't the totality of existence. Saying that this universe had a 'beginning' doesn't mean existence did. Non-existence is a paradox. At most you can say that existence hasn't always been in it's current state.

What state WAS it in previously then?

MF DELPH
A state different than now.

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Inhuman
Humans created the concept of God
Correction:

Humans inferred the existence of God from certain observations; matters beyond their control. However, interpretations of the God have varied among civilizations throughout history. But humans continue to look for answers.

---

Decades ago, Albert Einstein predicted that gravitational forces maintain the Universe at large (i.e. theory of gravity). However, latest research reveals that a mysterious 'dark energy' is actually involved in the maintenance of the Universe at large (and its expansion). http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/01/-the-dark-energy-mystery-the-entire-universe-is-being-pushed-by-an-invisible-unknown-force-no-one-ca.html

Scientists have also predicted the end of Universe at a certain point in the future. http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_bigcrunch.html

---

Now, let us have a look at the interpretations of the God in the Holy Quran:-

"There is nothing whatever like unto Him." (42:11)

&

"Everything (that exists) will perish except His own Face." (28:88)

Mindship
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Not necessarily.

Some people may misconstrue the position of existence always existing as adding validity to the belief that said existence must have been an eternal sentient being, or beings. That isn't the case. Agreed, which is why the follow-up is important:

1. Something Always Was (hugs for all who can stick with this simplest starting point).
2. But ... what is it? How do we define it? How do we look for it?

Astner

MF DELPH
That's the rub. Which is why creation is likely not the correct term. I think the typical chicken:egg analogy leads to a false premise and the presupposition of intent and agency ('chicken had to lay the egg'). Matter is a state of energy, not a creation of energy, and when energy achieved the state of matter, as in matter became realized, the other properties from that state became emergent, though matter and energy consist of the same thing, and energy and it's potential was always there.

Astner
Matter is not energy.

Energy is defined as the relative state of particles; i.e. mass, movement and field displacement.

MF DELPH
Unless we took wholly different physics classes (which is possible), matter, as I was taught, consists of potential energy and has mass, but I took physics in 2002. What is it defined as now?

Astner

MF DELPH
So, if I'm remembering correctly, energy can not be created or destroyed, but matter, which has mass, can, correct?

Astner
Yes, through interaction with anti-matter it can be destroyed; and the energy the anti- and koinomatter had will then be transferred over to force carriers.

MF DELPH
Does it take energy to create matter?

Astner
Yes.

MF DELPH
So does energy equal mass or does mass equal energy?

Astner
Mass is a form of energy carried by matter.

MF DELPH
Does all matter have mass?

Astner
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Does all matter have mass?
Yes.

MF DELPH
Ok.

So does a particle consist of mass or take on mass? Mass is a requisite of being a particle, correct?

Astner
It takes on mass. Just as it takes on charge, spin, etc.

Mindship
God particle/Higgs boson 'gives' matter mass.

Actually, *God particle*, imho, was not the best tag (talk about miscontruing), but no doubt it helped sell the book.

MF DELPH
Can you have matter without mass?

Astner
Originally posted by Mindship
God particle/Higgs boson 'gives' matter mass.
You're thinking of the Higgs field, not the Higgs boson.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Can you have matter without mass?
Not according to current definitions.

Matter without rest mass wouldn't have any energy and so it would be impossible to detect or interact with.

Mindship
Originally posted by Astner
You're thinking of the Higgs field, not the Higgs boson.Do I get a point for saying 'Higgs'?

Astner
It's technically incorrect because the Higgs boson is an excited state of the Higgs field, while it's the Higgs field that particles—the Higgs mechanic for the vector bosons W and Z and Yukawa couplings for fermions—interact with.

MF DELPH
Ok, so:

-Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
-Mass is a state of energy.
-Matter requires mass.
-Energy is needed to create matter.

Is matter mass?

Astner
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Ok, so:

-Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
-Mass is a state of energy.
-Matter requires mass.
-Energy is needed to create matter.
Yes.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Is matter mass?
No.

MF DELPH
But mass is a requirement of matter?

A precursor?

*edit

or requisite?

Astner
All matter is composed of fermions, and all discovered fermions have mass. However, there are bosons (not matter) with mass as well.

MF DELPH
So, basically, all particles are energetic and have mass, but matter is not the sum of all mass, right?

Astner

MF DELPH
Ok, so:

"All matter consists of particles with mass and energy, but not all particles have mass, so not all particles are matter."

would be a true statement, no?

Astner
The W-, Z- and Higgs boson do not make up matter, but they have mass.

So while each statement is true, the third cannot be inferred from the previous two.

MF DELPH
Ok, so it's more along the lines of :


"All matter consists of particles with mass and energy, but not all particles have mass, and not all particles with mass are matter."

Astner
Yes.

MF DELPH
All particles have energy, however.

Correct?

Astner
Yes.

MF DELPH
Can energy become matter?

Q99
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Can energy become matter?

Yep. And the converse.

That's why when you break matter, energy comes out.

Astner

MF DELPH
I mean can an energetic reaction or event result in the formation of particles where no particles were present prior to said event?

Bentley
Originally posted by MF DELPH
I mean can an energetic reaction or event result in the formation of particles where no particles were present prior to said event?

Well, if an energetic reaction happened before there were any particles, that energetic reaction consisted of non-particles?

Astner
Originally posted by MF DELPH
I mean can an energetic reaction or event result in the formation of particles where no particles were present prior to said event?
You can't have energy without particles.

Originally posted by Astner
Energy is defined as the relative state of particles;

MF DELPH
Ok. So energy can not be created or destroyed, only transferred and converted from one form to another. Energy also equals mass. By our current model, all matter requires mass. All particles do not require mass, but all particles do require energy. Matter is a particle with mass.

If energy can not be created or destroyed, only converted, and all particles require energy, and you can't have energy without particles, are particles energy?

Astner
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Energy also equals mass.
Mass is a form of energy.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
are particles energy? Originally posted by Astner
Energy is defined as the relative state of particles;

MF DELPH
So yes.

Astner
Originally posted by MF DELPH
So yes.
No. Energy is carried by particles.

MF DELPH
But particles don't produce energy, correct?

How are particles produced?

Astner

MF DELPH
Ok.

So it takes energy to produce a particle, and particles are the base of matter, correct? Electrons, protons, etc., all have mass which requires energy (since mass is a form of energy)?

So energy (mass) is the primary requirement of matter, but matter isn't energy, it's simply made of particles which get their volume from mass/energy?

Astner

MF DELPH
For the intent of this conversation, we'll stick to ordinary matter, as in the particles which make up atoms with chemical properties. I'm not versed enough in things like dark matter or other virtual particles. You're better versed than me in contemporary physics.

Astner
Then aside from elementary particles not having volume it's correct.

MF DELPH
So mass, but no volume?

Astner
Yes.

Bentley
(Since we are in the religion forums)

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1454342925-20160201.png

Lord Lucien
Fish and chips>> hot rocks.

Van Hohenheim
With these types of questions, it makes me wonder what goes through a Christian's mind. Obviously there is no good answer to this question. If everything needs a cause, then God too would need one.

Emperordmb
The necessity for everything needing to be caused by something is based on deterministic principal, and I believe a higher power such as God would transcend the determinism of the physical universe.

Lord Lucien
Ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly.
http://static1.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11129/111294954/5369857-1922116106-tumbl.gif

Lord Lucien
http://img.pandawhale.com/post-30210-Neo-WOAH-gif-WHOA-mind-blown-T-IkVq.gif

The Ellimist
The idiocy in this thread made my sinful self squeal.

Stigma
Originally posted by Emperordmb
The necessity for everything needing to be caused by something is based on deterministic principal, and I believe a higher power such as God would transcend the determinism of the physical universe.
thumb up

The Ellimist
You realize that you could substitute "Invisible Flying Pink Unicorn" for God in that sentence and it would be logically equivalent, right?

Stigma
Originally posted by The Ellimist
You realize that you could substitute "Invisible Flying Pink Unicorn" for God in that sentence and it would be logically equivalent, right?
No, it actually wouldn't thumb up

I sense you want to delve deeply into this topic. Feel free to do so.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Stigma
No, it actually wouldn't thumb up


Wow, that's a pretty brilliant argument. I'm a believer now. thumb up

Astner
An invisible flying pink unicorn is contingent entity, not a necessary one.

The Ellimist
Not if the invisible pink unicorn created the universe. This "first cause" argument only makes remote sense if we're talking in the vaguest deistic sense, but EmperorDMB is talking about the Judeo-Christian God.

Stigma
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Wow, that's a pretty brilliant argument. I'm a believer now. thumb up
I didn't intend to make one, though.

It was you who first made the claim that pink unicorn creating the universe is a logical equivalent to God creating the universe, so.... I am sure you'll extrapolate on your argument in detail further on.

Good luck thumb up

Astner
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Not if the invisible pink unicorn created the universe.
A unicorn, regardless of how you want to define it, will either be contingent or impossible. It can never logically be necessary.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Astner
A unicorn, regardless of how you want to define it, will either be contingent or impossible. It can never logically be necessary.

Untrue. If the Unicorn created the universe, its existence is necessary as the "first mover" for the same reason God's would be.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Stigma
I didn't intend to make one, though.

It was you who first made the claim that pink unicorn creating the universe is a logical equivalent to God creating the universe, so.... I am sure you'll extrapolate on your argument in detail further on.

Good luck thumb up

mmm So you can defend the veracity of the original statement with a thumbs up, but if I were to say the same thing with unicorn substituted in, suddenly I need elaboration?

Of course, what can I expect from you?

Astner
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Untrue. If the Unicorn created the universe, its existence is necessary as the "first mover" for the same reason God's would be.
No. A creator of the universe is not necessary.

And no classical- or personal theist would argue that the necessity of God arises from the supposition that he's first cause, but rather a point that follows from how he's defined.

Stigma
Originally posted by The Ellimist
mmm So you can defend the veracity of the original statement with a thumbs up, but if I were to say the same thing with unicorn substituted in, suddenly I need elaboration?
Huh. It's simply an expression of liking the idea.

You were the one who contested Emperor's point and provided, although in general terms, your own point... so why not present your argument in detail.

Feel free to elaborate indeed. You're among friends here thumb up

Grand-Moff-Gav
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Not if the invisible pink unicorn created the universe. This "first cause" argument only makes remote sense if we're talking in the vaguest deistic sense, but EmperorDMB is talking about the Judeo-Christian God.

Why bother engaging with arguments if youre not willing to engage with the argument?

Emperordmb
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Not if the invisible pink unicorn created the universe. This "first cause" argument only makes remote sense if we're talking in the vaguest deistic sense, but EmperorDMB is talking about the Judeo-Christian God.
I'm not saying the "first cause argument" proves the Judeo-Christian God, I have other reasons for that, merely that it proves a higher power. And it's not like I was even trying to assert something about a higher power, merely that being the cause of deterministic principal excluding you from deterministic principal isn't a fallacy.

But no, it appears you're one of the ******* atheists who can't healthily coexist with religious people and thinks we're all retarded scum, so have a nice day or a bad day, I really couldn't give a shit. I don't really care to discuss this with you of all people. Despite all your posturing, trying to appear fair minded, trying to establish yourself as some gift to the world with your fancy ivy-league education or some shit, you spend your time on the internet trolling people, and its pathetic.

And you'll probably quote this, and type out several paragraphs trying to spin some logic to provide a justification for your trolling that makes you appear a reasonable individual that's just looking for discussion, or perhaps try and twist it around on me with some "we are the same" bullshit, but it's pretty obvious to anyone with a modicum of observational ability that most of the shit you do is to bait people.

Surtur
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Not if the invisible pink unicorn created the universe. This "first cause" argument only makes remote sense if we're talking in the vaguest deistic sense, but EmperorDMB is talking about the Judeo-Christian God.

I feel like you need to get your facts straight. The unicorn is blue, with golden eyebrows. His name is Chester, but you can totally just call him "Chest" if you want.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Surtur
I feel like you need to get your facts straight. The unicorn is blue, with golden eyebrows. His name is Chester, but you can totally just call him "Chest" if you want. Chester is not a f*cking unicorn you ignorant unbeliever, get your facts straight.




http://www.seantiffany.com/images/Gallery/Image/A/A06_ChesterRocketImage.jpg

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm not saying the "first cause argument" proves the Judeo-Christian God, I have other reasons for that, merely that it proves a higher power. And it's not like I was even trying to assert something about a higher power, merely that being the cause of deterministic principal excluding you from deterministic principal isn't a fallacy.

But no, it appears you're one of the ******* atheists who can't healthily coexist with religious people and thinks we're all retarded scum, so have a nice day or a bad day, I really couldn't give a shit. I don't really care to discuss this with you of all people. Despite all your posturing, trying to appear fair minded, trying to establish yourself as some gift to the world with your fancy ivy-league education or some shit, you spend your time on the internet trolling people, and its pathetic.

And you'll probably quote this, and type out several paragraphs trying to spin some logic to provide a justification for your trolling that makes you appear a reasonable individual that's just looking for discussion, or perhaps try and twist it around on me with some "we are the same" bullshit, but it's pretty obvious to anyone with a modicum of observational ability that most of the shit you do is to bait people.

lol, and you wonder why people think you have anger issues. I'm so sorry that I dared disagree with you on something.

Don't you whine about political correctness a lot? I'm so sorry I was politically incorrect towards your incestuous Jesus. I forgot that you only think political correctness is bad when a minority you don't like is doing it.

Surtur
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Chester is not a f*cking unicorn you ignorant unbeliever, get your facts straight.




http://www.seantiffany.com/images/Gallery/Image/A/A06_ChesterRocketImage.jpg

Chester just has many avatars.

I certainly know when I played the Chester the Cheetah game for SNES I felt a tiny sliver of divinity every time. The game was called "Too Cool to Fool" and he really WAS too cool to fool.

Astner
Originally posted by The Ellimist
lol, and you wonder why people think you have anger issues. I'm so sorry that I dared disagree with you on something.
There's no reason to raise a point if you're not willing to defend it.

Surtur
Originally posted by Astner
There's no reason to raise a point if you're not willing to defend it.

Will you bet your life savings on it though?

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Astner
There's no reason to raise a point if you're not willing to defend it.
It's not that he disagreed with me, it's that he was being an *******. I'm not gonna open myself up like that and discuss beliefs that are central to who I am with a person who wants to discuss that with me with the intended goal of doing whatever he can to piss me off. He can say what he wants, but a person like that is someone I'd rather not open up to, and I can make the choice not to open up to him in just the same way he can make the choice to try and piss me off.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Emperordmb
It's not that he disagreed with me, it's that he was being an *******.

Oh, go cry. The tone of my reply was infinitely friendlier than half of your own replies to far more trivial issues about Star Wars; your hatred of individuals like Aubere has spawned you to go on rather comical rants of hostility that make my slight, barely perceptible snark seem like Mr. Rodgers in comparison.

But what makes you an even more pathetic person, to be honest - as I've come to conclude, is how hilariously your obsession with politeness when people address you contradicts not only the way you treat others you don't like (Aubere, SW_Legend, etc.), but also your pathetic political "crusade" against political correctness, where you go on incoherent rants about how awful social justice warriors are. Remember that time you went on a hate spree against Jmang for telling you not to use "an hero" because it was mocking a real life suicide? You mocked and belittled him with a disturbing fervor - so, to make it clear, you think me showing some smugness at your stupidity is worse than making fun of someone who committed suicide. And what's worse, you don't even have the guts to address me face to face, always dodging out of debating me one vs. one and instead doing these weird addresses in the third person.

Are your double standards and hypocrisies the result of stupidity or a lack of personal integrity? While you're not necessarily a genius, you're probably intelligent enough to figure out these double standards if you wanted to, which leads me to think that you're just a whiny, self centered little sh*t who can't figure out how to conduct himself in a society without creating twenty different special entitlements for himself for being the mighty EmperorDMB. Hopefully at some point you get a wakeup call and stop being a little sh*t, because if you earned a reputation like you have on KMC in a real job, you wouldn't last very long. thumb up

Surtur
Seriously though, there was a Chester the Cheetah video game, actually two of them. That happened. Man what a glorious time the 90's were.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Oh, go cry. The tone of my reply was infinitely friendlier than half of your own replies to far more trivial issues about Star Wars; your hatred of individuals like Aubere has spawned you to go on rather comical rants of hostility that make my slight, barely perceptible snark seem like Mr. Rodgers in comparison.

But what makes you an even more pathetic person, to be honest - as I've come to conclude, is how hilariously your obsession with politeness when people address you contradicts not only the way you treat others you don't like (Aubere, SW_Legend, etc.), but also your pathetic political "crusade" against political correctness, where you go on incoherent rants about how awful social justice warriors are. Remember that time you went on a hate spree against Jmang for telling you not to use "an hero" because it was mocking a real life suicide? You mocked and belittled him with a disturbing fervor - so, to make it clear, you think me showing some smugness at your stupidity is worse than making fun of someone who committed suicide. And what's worse, you don't even have the guts to address me face to face, always dodging out of debating me one vs. one and instead doing these weird addresses in the third person.

Are your double standards and hypocrisies the result of stupidity or a lack of personal integrity? While you're not necessarily a genius, you're probably intelligent enough to figure out these double standards if you wanted to, which leads me to think that you're just a whiny, self centered little sh*t who can't figure out how to conduct himself in a society without creating twenty different special entitlements for himself for being the mighty EmperorDMB. Hopefully at some point you get a wakeup call and stop being a little sh*t, because if you earned a reputation like you have on KMC in a real job, you wouldn't last very long. thumb up
I don't hate any of those people any more, I don't hate you anymore, and I realize how unjustified my past arrogance was.

What's depressing is that you perceive me as being so plagued with these problems, and instead of trying to help you call me a little shit, try to make me feel terrible about who I am etc. It's depressing and a little disturbing to see that this is how we sometimes choose to deal with other people's problems. I legitimately hope you can reach a point in your life where you can validate yourself without the need to put yourself over people on a ****ing internet forum

The Ellimist
I didn't do any of those things, pal. All I said was:



This is one of the most innocuous debate posts you'll ever find on KMC. I'm struggling to figure out which part of it you thought was rude. I guess I used "invisible pink unicorn", but that's just a reductio ad absurdum, and a reasonable one to illustrate my point. I did say that your point didn't make any sense, which you tell people 5232 times on KMC. Heck, you said that to Azronger like a few hours ago.

Emperordmb
I wasn't saying that it specifically proved the Judeo-Christian God though, merely countering the notion that the first cause argument contradicts itself.

And after seeing how you treat religious points of view time and time again, I concluded you were mocking me. If I was wrong to assume that, that's on me, and either way I apologize for that reaction.

I'm aware that I'm not perfect, recently had an experience where I questioned my worth as a person, and came out of it revolted by human arrogance, and even though I can never be exempt from that part of human nature, I'm making a conscious effort to push myself away from that type of behavior, and realize I've been a dick and made a lot of mistakes in the past.

If you really want to have a positive impact, then attacking people when you perceive a flaw really isn't the best way to do that at all. Consider it the difference between constructive and destructive criticism.

I am legitimately sorry for being a dick, and hope we can move past this. But if your next post is just you attacking me and trying to make me feel terrible about myself as a person, then I'm done with this conversation.

The Ellimist
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I wasn't saying that it specifically proved the Judeo-Christian God though, merely countering the notion that the first cause argument contradicts itself.


Well if you think my argument is a strawman, you can just say that, no personal slight needed. But I assumed that the ultimate goal of your case was related to Christianity, since...well, you're a Christian.



Even if I mocked religious points of view (where?), why can't I do that? You mock political beliefs you don't like, including Jmang just pointing out that you shouldn't use a phrase that makes fun of a suicide victim. I wasn't even mocking you personally, I was just disagreeing with you, which I think I'm allowed to do.



Well I accept your apology, but I don't really accept the conditions on it, because I didn't do anything at all to attack you here. I think it's unreasonable that you expect a high level of civility from everyone else (even though I wasn't even being uncivil) but then gladly on on rants about other people's beliefs.

I'm sure you're going through difficult times and maybe that's clouding things, but of course I hope you get through it alright.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Well if you think my argument is a strawman, you can just say that, no personal slight needed. But I assumed that the ultimate goal of your case was related to Christianity, since...well, you're a Christian.
Yeah, the cosmological argument is only a part of the logical justification for how I view religion, the universe, spirituality, etc. A necessary part, but not one that holds all the answers.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Even if I mocked religious points of view (where?), why can't I do that? You mock political beliefs you don't like, including Jmang just pointing out that you shouldn't use a phrase that makes fun of a suicide victim.
Yeah and that personal failing, hypocrisy, and hubris is something I realized about myself in the past few days that I'm looking to change.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I wasn't even mocking you personally, I was just disagreeing with you, which I think I'm allowed to do.
Sometimes its hard to distinguish the difference given how much we identify ourselves with our arguments.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Well I accept your apology, but I don't really accept the conditions on it, because I didn't do anything at all to attack you here. I think it's unreasonable that you expect a high level of civility from everyone else (even though I wasn't even being uncivil) but then gladly on on rants about other people's beliefs.
You're original post might have been civil, and I may have misinterpreted it, but what followed from both of us after that point certainly wasn't.

And again, my mockery of other people is something I realized the hypocrisy and lack of justification for in the past few days, and it's something I'm looking to change about myself.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I'm sure you're going through difficult times and maybe that's clouding things, but of course I hope you get through it alright.
Thanks, I've mostly come through it alright, as a more loving less arrogant person, though I'm still sort of processing it and trying to make sure I don't stray from that path (which is why you might see me a bit less active in SW debating on KMC for a little while). I'm happy we were able to get to this point in this conversation, since I've made it a point to get past a lot of the negativity in relationships in my life. Consciously its much easier to control my arrogance than subconsciously, so if I slip up in my treatment of you in the future or start talking shit or something, please feel free to give me a heads up.

The Ellimist
Well, that's good. College is going to change you, probably for the better.

Lord Lucien
Unless it's a libtarded SJW school amirite? *smug smile*

Emperordmb
The University of Texas at Austin is a pretty liberal school, but luckily I haven't seen much SJW shit.

emu
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Yeah, that's pretty much bullshit. Something that exists outside of time can't have causal properties because you need a chain of events for actions to occur, meaning a passage of time. I think the real answer is that there's no such thing as non-existence, as in there never was "nothing". Existence has always existed, just not necessarily in the configuration it is in today. The universe didn't come from nothing, it's just that what we inhabit in the 'now' is simply one of many possible configurations of what has always been, and 'now' isn't static, because 'then' wasn't static, and neither is 'what will be'. My very thoughts, but not so eloquent.

NewGuy01
Originally posted by Emperordmb
The University of Texas at Austin is a pretty liberal school, but luckily I haven't seen much SJW shit.

"Liberal Texas."

Emperordmb
Originally posted by NewGuy01
"Liberal Texas."
Texas as a whole is extremely conservative, but Austin is this monumental island of blue in a sea of red.

NewGuy01
I was just being facetious. That being said, I'm legitimately not surprised that you're not having SJW problems in Texas. Austin isn't California.

Emperordmb
Well I mean I ran into a lot of that shit in high school and at my college orientation, so I'm a bit surprised I haven't seen it much at my college.

There was a protest against open carry with the slogan "cocks not glocks" where a huge ass mob of college students were throwing around dildos.

NewGuy01
That sounds awesome. I'll stick with a glock myself, though.

|King Joker|
Originally posted by NewGuy01
That sounds awesome. I'll stick with a glock myself, though. loser

Surtur
I do remember when I was in high school and I was riding home on the bus and one of the students had a gun in his book bag. But this wasn't like a Columbine type situation, he carried with it for protection because the way he had to walk home was potentially dangerous.

It was an odd thing to have happen and it got awkward obviously once he explained to us why he had it.

Surtur
I wonder what Trump's presidency says about the existence of God? Man, that guy must be a douche.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Surtur
I wonder what Trump's presidency says about the existence of God? Man, that guy must be a douche.

God or Trump?

Surtur
God.

So God either hates a lot of people on the planet or really really loves Trump. I wonder which is worse for people?

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Surtur
God.

So God either hates a lot of people on the planet or really really loves Trump. I wonder which is worse for people?
My belief is that the world exists with its pain and imperfection exists to separate us from God enough to be our own individual beings with free will, so we can truly progress on our own strength and forge ourselves as beings.

I believe when we die, our bodies transcend the physical universe, and we reach a perfect understanding of how we've lived our lives, which is more/less painful/pleasant depending on how good/bad we've been. I believe that that is where the punishment for man's sin comes from, and I believe that understanding allows us to purge ourselves of our remaining imperfection to allow us to reach a perfect state of existence in heaven, with a pure loving connection with God and other dead people for eternity.

So ultimately, I believe the pain of this world becomes a trivial thing after death, but we carry the individuality we've forged in this world.

And ultimately aside from sharing teachings of love and transcendence and the dangers of pride, I believe the purpose of Jesus coming down to Earth was to put himself in our shoes, feel the pain we go through, and that for the three days when he died he was subjected to hell for three days to feel a pain beyond what the entirety of humanity would ever have to feel.

I get that you don't have virtually any respect for religion, but I don't think God is a dick.

Surtur
I don't think God is truly a dick either. Sort of like how I don't think Pre Crisis Superman is a dick, fictional characters in the end aren't dicks, the people that create them are.

So you see we, us humans, created this crazy psychopathic version of a deity and..people are surprised we elected Trump? Haa.

Emperordmb
personally I think the idea that we and our logical ordered universe just came from random chance or exists "just because" is pretty ridiculous, but whatever. No offense but it's clear that discussing my religious beliefs with you isn't going to get either of us anywhere, and I hoped since you take what I think is the best approach to atheism and I take what you think is the best approach to religion we could have a little more respect for each other, but whatever.

Aside from your condescension towards liberals and religious people you seem like a pretty smart chill guy, so i honestly think it sucks that there has to be that barrier between us.

NewGuy01
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Personally I think the idea that we and our logical ordered universe just came from random chance

This thought process strikes me as backwards. If the universe worked differently, or if events played out differently, then the result would just be different. It's not like everything conveniently fell into place in pursuit of getting this result. Rather, this just happens to be the result of what did happen. What exactly makes it "orderly" or "logical"? Those are just terms we invented to describe the reality of the world that's around us.



Why can a god exist "just because" and not the rest of reality?

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by NewGuy01
It's not like everything conveniently fell into place in pursuit of getting this result. This is the key mistake people make when they consider the evolution of the cosmos; thinking from their own, present-day perspective as modern humans that everything has been on a planned trajectory to the here-and-now ever since the beginning. It's an appealing notion that helps make us feel special and important, but that's about it. We're not the point. We never were.

Adam_PoE
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/11/12/1a/11121a43c20166b4ff095f71018d4266.jpg

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/11/12/1a/11121a43c20166b4ff095f71018d4266.jpg

thumb up

Emperordmb
Whatever, I've reached a point in my life where my religious beliefs are based around my logical/philosophical conclusions based on my understanding of the universe and my existence rather than blind faith, my beliefs have helped me reach a point of moral/spiritual enlightenment, as well as inner peace and happiness, and I approach my religion as it was meant to be approached; through love rather than arrogance. My religious views have been a positive drive in my life, and even if it turns out I'm wrong about the existence of God, my faith in love isn't misplaced, and my beliefs drive me towards love, self-improvement, and progress in the world around me.

As such, I have no interest anymore in opening up and debating this with strangers on the internet who, when seeing something so central to who I am as a person, are going to mock me, assume I'm retarded, and believe I'm deluding and lying to myself on one of the most fundamental levels.

If you really want to convince someone God isn't real because you legitimately think that'll help them, try being civil and expressing a legitimate concern for their well being and a concern to help them and they'll be more likely to consider your arguments with an open mind. Attack them and try to make them feel like shit, and they'll return the hostility and be more close minded to your ideas. If you're trying to actually help people, I'd advise using constructive criticism since that's what people tend to respond positively to. If you aren't actually trying to help people, then you're just being dicks, and not being productive at all.

The Ellimist
You're relapsing, DMB. People are not assuming you're retarded - you're not DarthAnt66 - they're just disagreeing with you through argumentation, and the occasional photo.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by The Ellimist
You're relapsing, DMB. People are not assuming you're retarded - you're not DarthAnt66 - they're just disagreeing with you through argumentation, and the occasional photo.
I'm fine with disagreement. And LOL at the DarthAnt66 thing. I can totally understand the lesser of two evils mentality with Trump, but his glorification of him... yea...

The Ellimist
His points are also comically incoherent. He defended the electoral college by pointing out that the Republican counties covered more land area (???), said that porn stars can't be president but when pressed for reasons said that it's impossible to give a reason for anything because everything's subjective, and thinks that legal immigrants are bad for Americans, aside, you know, from basically building America.

Emperordmb
Didn't he basically say that morality=social norms?

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>