I am here to make the argument that at least one eternal thing exists...

I am here to make the argument that at least one eternal thing exists. It is the main body of the argument to the existence of god, because god is what we call the eternal thing that exists. Anybody who wants to participate in the argument would be welcomed and appreciated.

Attached: .goutputstream-P6R1ZZ.gif (553x463, 448K)

It's turtles all the way down, my guy. Checked.

The first part of the argument is some undeniable axioms. These axioms are undeniable not because there is no argument for their truth, but that it's impossible to make any argument toward their falsehood, short of obscuring or misunderstanding what they mean entirely. If there is a problem with these, feel free to discuss it and the meaning of what I say should be illuminated quickly.
Don't misinterpret the axioms for the argument, I am well aware that there is more to say than this before a proof is made, but every proof has foundational principles.

Axiom 1: Something cannot come from nothing
Axiom 2: Something cannot be caused by nothing
Axiom 3: If you have a case where something is to be true because of something else, and that the "something else" is said to be true because of a third thing, continued, then the first is true if and only if the final thing is true.

Here is also the first argument, I give you with the evidence of your own senses:

1. Something is real: Something must be real because we sense, and if nothing were real there would be no "we", and if nothing were real there would be no things and nor any contrast, and therefore nothing to sense.

Its Oðinn

"nothing" only extends to the boundaries of our knowledge and perceived "reality" user

Now if the things that are eternal, then cool, we're done. If, on the other hand, the things have come into being, there are some more steps to go.

Say that the things that are real have come into being.
Since something cannot come from nothing, those things must have come from something. Say whatever they came from is eternal. Then we have found an eternal thing, huzzah.
Otherwise, we must continue.
I say, that if you continue this process forever, you will eventually get to an eternal thing.

For postulate it that you never do. That is to say, that you have a case where "I am real" is said to be true because whatever I came from is real, and that is said to be true because whatever brought whatever brought me into being is real, etc, and that goes on forever, with no final bringer.
Well, if there is no final bringer, then it cannot be that you can say the final thing is real(For there is no final thing). Therefore, Axiom 3 has been contradicted.
Therefore, you must eventually get to an eternal thing.
Therefore, an eternal thing must be.

Well, the shit is complex af.

I prefer thinking that we live in a simulation. Our universe is built on a 10-dimensional engine, it's discreet (not continuous), see Plank's length. See delayed choice experient, it basically shows that for optimization particles movement just dissolves into a probability cloud, just like in modern computer game engines.

I understand nothing to mean "no thing."
That is, a complete lack of anything. Is that what you mean by "nothing," when you say it only extends to the boundaries of our knowledge and perceived reality?

if the things that are real are eternal*

>Something must be real because we sense, and if nothing were real there would be no "we", and if nothing were real there would be no things and nor any contrast, and therefore nothing to sense.

Somebody hasn't read/watched the Matrix

Attached: 3507da0a7cab6412233326badf059314.png (1024x768, 122K)

>Say whatever they came from is eternal. Then we have found an eternal thing, huzzah.

How can we actually prove something is eternal if we all eventually expire?

In the matrix there were real things. If there were no real things, the people wouldn't be able to sense, because there would be no machines causing them to sense.

The way I'm using "eternal" is to mean "has always been". The proof that such things "will always be" is elsewhere, but I believe that it exists.

The proof I've laid out that there are such things that have always been. It's not about us, it's about whether or not anything at all now could exist if it is predicated on something else, which is predicated on something else, ... infinitely.

Now, I think as a matter of intuitive reason, it'd be foolish to say that something that has always been wouldn't be outside of temporal things entirely(and therefore "will always be"), but that doesn't constitute a proof yet.

Its Oðinn, he lives in the heart of us all. Hell og lukkje fylhjer deg når du finn Allfaðr i ditt hjarte

I wish the universe's origin was as easy to dissect as a simple proof makes it sound to be. Unfortunately, that may not be the case.

The fact of the matter is, as far as we as a species have come to know thus far, any and all sensory faculties and intricacies that make life "conscious" or "animate" are the result of 100% pure biological processes and chemical reactions happening in our brains and throughout our bodies. When we perish, there's yet no reason to believe we'll somehow retain any form of sentience, consciousness, or, really, existence as a whole.

That, of course, isn't in direct conflict of what you're arguing. There can be an "eternal" source being while still the absence of any sort of post-life reality. They're not mutually exclusive. But the argument for one is so often predicated on the existence of the other, that it's almost tangential to argue either completely 'for' or against' both on the same side of the coin. You don't often see someone claiming a "God" exists while holding the belief that an afterlife of some sort does not, or vice versa, that an afterlife exists under the absence of a higher power.

Attached: 1580972503472.png (748x620, 128K)

There is another option. 2, in fact: so in short your idea is that everything is caused by something, which forms a chain of causality that describes everything, and the problem here is the top of the chain. This is basically Gödels incompleteness theorem: "A finite consistent system cannot prove it's own consistency".

Your solution is to call the top eternal, but that just dodges the theorem using infinity. You could also assume the chain to be of infinite length. But I have a better solution: What if the chain wasn't infinite, but circular? The universe started with the big bang, and ends with the big crunch. Maybe those 2 are actually just 2 descriptions of the same event, the former being a retrospective and the latter a prospective

I'm the Jungian mystic whose threads you may have seen here from time to time. I have talked to the gods many times, and they're not what most people think they are. The gods are archetypal entities, thoughtforms which inhabit the collective unconscious and form the primary colours from which we manufacture our own identities.

One interesting thing to note is when I've suggested to the gods that they aren't real, they've consistently laughed at me, telling me that they're *more* real than I am, and that while I will die one day, they will exist as long as there are humans to manifest them.

Beyond the gods, there is also the One, whatever one chooses to call it. It's the Great Mother of Taoism and the Kether sephiroth on the Tree of Life, the quantum foam from which contains all possibility, from which all things emerge and to which all things eventually return. It's not conscious in any sense we'd recognize, but it's probably beyond our ability to comprehend its actual nature for the same reason you can't teach algebra to a cat.

Attached: seal.png (220x220, 31K)


You're really making the prime mover position sound more complicated than it is

I've seen some of your threads before, and actually replied a couple of times in one about a month ago.

As I said back then, I've still little-to-no understanding of what you're talking about beyond the things any given person would be able to take away from your post here, but I do want to address that last statement you made.

>...probably beyond our ability to comprehend its actual nature for the same reason you can't teach algebra to a cat

I think, in almost any context this argument is made, it kinda falls short. Humans, unlike any other species of life (that we know of, en masse), possess one special quality that differentiate us from the rest: the capacity for introspection.

A cat cannot be taught algebra because it physically and mentally lacks, at every level, the capacity not just to comprehend the concept of algebra, but even deeper than that, a cat hasn't the ability to 'know' it lacks this comprehensive facet that humans possess.

With that in mind, it wouldn't be fair to say that we fail to understand the true nature of the One the same way a cat fails to understand the nature of algebra, because unlike the cat, we're at the very least able to grasp the idea that there are qualities of this reality beyond our own capacity to truly digest.

I think the notion you're going for here would be more akin to the idea that the true nature of sight cannot be truly and fully conveyed to a blind person, who can still be mindful of this fact, yet still forever incapable of overcoming this limitation.

Bit of a nitpick, but it seemed necessary.

I'm the guy who always answers you with this picture

Attached: siegel.png (626x626, 99K)

>Your solution is to call the top eternal, but that just dodges the theorem using infinity
It doesn't dodge anything. The problem is that something cannot come from nothing, and the solution is that it didn't come to be; it always was.

>You could also assume the chain to be of infinite length
I explained thoroughly why that can't solve it.
The whole "A is true because B is true because C is true because..." must have a final clause, or you can't say A to be true. Do you disagree with that? The same way "I exist because something else exists because a third thing..." must be true if and only if the chain is finite, because otherwise it has no last clause, and therefore the last clause can't be true.

>What if the chain wasn't infinite, but circular
I don't know. Is it reasonable to say that something is true because of the truth of a second thing, and that the second thing is true because of the truth of the first thing? I would consider that presumptuous.

i like you, jordan peterson RPer.

First, I'm curious how you're so sure that cats aren't aware of their limitations. But beyond that, it's not just that we're incapable of understanding, it's that we are fundamentally *prevented* from understanding by the mechanism of our thought processes.

The human mind manifestly operates by creating dichotomies. In a Kantian sense we manufacture schema: hot and cold, light and dark, male and female, good and evil, and so on. Our minds are not able to function with totalities. It seems to be part of the nature of consciousness as we understand it to dissect and split rather than perceive holistically. We can play word games to express Oneness, but we can't actually conceive of it, the same way there's simply no way to fit algebra to the reality of a cat's existence in a way it can understand.

It's both amusing and extremely relevant that you demonstrate pareidolia by seeing a face in the Seal of Solomon. Pareidolia is a special case of apophenia (in which the unconscious sees faces in random media), and apophenia is the primary way we access the unconscious. Apophenia is the tendency for the human mind to find patterns in media where there is no inherent pattern -- which makes it useful because we can be sure any patterns which emerge are therefore located in our own unconscious minds.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." (Hawking)

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

I'm not doing your essay, fuck off.
Matter is eternal, once all energy is spent all that will be left is a bunch of absolute zero particles standing still.

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

God of the gaps.

It's been done.

Not even slightly accurate. First of all, energy can be neither created nor destroyed, assuming the Universe is a closed system. While energy can be reduced to a less organized state in which it is evenly distributed, it's still there, in precisely the same amount.

But beyond that, the arrow of entropy is arbitrary. Unlike other quantum arrows, entropy can run in either direction. What this means is that in several trillion trillion trillion years when the last brown dwarfs give up their heat and the last particles break down, stochastic fluctuations in the quantum foam will give birth to an entirely new Universe. This may, in fact, have happened many, many times before.

And that's leaving aside the increasingly likely probability that this is only one of many Universes with wildly different emergent "laws."

Basically God is everything. Think of God like the computer, and all of the universe including us are programs running within God