How can anyone be sure there is no such place as Heaven, or Hell, or any other transdimensional place? Every legitimate religion is true in its own way, which is something you are sure to realize if you are studying religion in a logical context. People think they are just so clever rejecting religion/spirituality because it's "not true" as if rejecting religion/spirituality makes them smarter, when if anything, rejecting religion/spirituality means you are dumb. I know it's super trendy nowadays to say and act like religion is obsolete, but that's only because the higher ups of this world have convinced so many (dumb) people that religion is obsolete. Religion is not actually obsolete, at all. Don't even get me started on all of this "deep" spiritual crap that's all the rage, the New Age/enlightenment type stuff, all of that stuff is horse shit and leads people away from authentic spirituality, which can only be found in religion. You might want to argue, that the New Age stuff is a form of religion, well perhaps it was once upon a time, but nowadays it's definitely not a legitimate form of religion in any way, as the current trendy version of New Age teachings is so far removed from any actual truth, that some desperate/gullible people actually believe in lizard-esque humanoids living among us and "good aliens" vs. "bad aliens" and all you have to do is "raise your vibrations" and God is "pure love/light/consciousness" and blah blah blah, all of this crap. What I'm trying to do with this post, and all of my posts, is help people understand certain vital aspects of humanity.
How can anyone be sure there is no such place as Heaven, or Hell, or any other transdimensional place...
I mean it's pretty simple, look at how life is so perfectly designed to its core details, and tell me there's no creator of life, all these people that are atheists have either no reason or cannot cope with the religion's culture. 1+1 simply cannot be 0.
I wouldn't say I reject religion. I don't believe the perfectly structured religions that are force fed. To me, that's to control the masses. I also, don't buy into the Big Bang. There is something behind our existence that we cannot comprehend. I just don't believe in the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, etc... idea of God.
Few things are more humorous than idiots pretending to be smart.
Nothing more stupider than a person rejecting his lord.
I think this thread is 100% filled with trolls. No one is taking the bait.
What is pretending to be smart about something that cannot be proven in anyway? Being an edgy teen working out for you?
...
>Every legitimate religion is true in its own way, which is something you are sure to realize if you are studying religion in a logical context.
I guarantee I've studied religion more than you and this is about the most wrong thing I've ever read.
Without scientific proof you can only belive... or don't. And the later is my choice.
Ah, almost ya fucking angsty son of a bitch.
The sacred truth is your don’t have a life, you ARE life!’
You are not your name, your mind, your likes and dislikes....
You are it. You are source, the now. This eternal background. God.
Beg the question more.
Devildriver?
Nevermind. You got one.
Heaven exists and so does hell, hell is more expansive than heaven due to the nature of sin, while heaven is constantly under the same pretenses that exist in hell, there is simply no sin in heaven. Your sinning is what is causing a lack of eden upon earth, its directly your fault.
>look at how life is so perfectly designed to its core details
>everything that isn't "so perfectly designed to its core details" is work of the devil
Bruh moment. 1+1=2. Go send some money to Africa so you can expand their carrying capacity Christcuck.
Just dropping in to say this thread is cringey af and nothing is real, everything is permitted.
>Actually calculated
I'm making a point here dumb ass, you can't have all of this in place without the help of anything.
Why not?
How would something come out of nothing, I could explain the opposite side, now your turn.
... that's not an explanation. You just questioned how something would come out of nothing. You haven't explained why it couldn't. You haven't explained why it must.
You haven't explained anything.
How long have you suckled on Alastair Crowley's teet for?
Quoting AC is pretty fucking cringe too mate
Are you dodging the question here or can you not answer it? How would I answer your question.. I mean it's God that creates and destroys.
"Buddhist idea of God"
You are a literal retard mate.
How is life perfectly designed?
I have never seen anything perfect that wasn't man made.
nautilus shells
He did warn you the thread was cringey
I can answer the question, because there's no way in which the how contradicts the why. I could say anything, anything at all, and it would be an appropriate description of how something could randomly comes into existence. Literally, because it randomly comes out of existence. Anything, anything at all, is a valid answer.
I asked you, why something
>could not
come from nothing. I asked you, first, when you'd first insisted that you can't have
>everything
come into being without help from
>anything
So I asked you, and am asking you, why? Why is what you say, true? Can, do
>you
have an actual explanation, any logic, any evidence at all, for why you can't just have the universe just suddenly exist? Any reason? Anything? Any inarguable nugget of information? Because what you've done, is answer me with a question that doesn't at all address the problem you originally raised.
The how won't affect the why. The why supersedes the how. The why precludes the how, the why enables the how to even exist. And for your information, you are saying that something with mindful agency created the universe, intentionally. So, because you are in fact dodging the question that has plainly been asked of you, which has now been laid out for you, I summarily ask you this: who created God? Because, if no one did, if God always "just existed", outside of time, or whatever it is you're going to repeat? That would classify as something coming from nothing, from no thing that can ever be considered as pertinent to all of the existence you would have to use, so that you could entertain the entire act of examining existence itself.
You would answer my question, by answering my question without asking an irrelevant one. Without dodging it.
>How would something come out of nothing
How would God come out of nothing? Bruh moment nigga you just disproved your own argument.
If you wanted to say that "God" is the originator of everything and is infinite (which contradicts your previous assertion), then there literally are an infinite number of possibilities that can replace "God". No need to believe in Jewsus.
I mean you are still dodging the question, You questioned me, I answered, now you should too. Here it is : How does something come out of nothing without help of any external force greater than anything.
>life is perfectly designed
>how is life perfectly designed
>stop dodging the question
You're going to hell.
Those predate biblical Earth.
My answer is there was never nothing.
So, there is no beginning? Why is it then illogical for there to be no cause?
I don't know what you're getting at or how it relates to any of my posts.
See
>how can anyone be sure
That's the idea. This life is but a dream, I mean test. You will be judged for every deed/word/thought. Not against a common standard but against your own conscience. You will ascend or return. Act accordingly faggot.
This does though so you should answer
I'm asking you why it would be illogical for there to be no cause. It's not a trick question.
You're all lacking basic logic skills. Belief in anything without sufficient evidence is irrational. The soul is a metaphysical concept meaning empirical evidence cannot exist for it by definition. Believing it without evidence is irrational. Disbelieving without evidence is irrational. Lack of evidence is not the same thing as evidence against.
Ergo metaphysics remains unknown, end of story unless one has "metaphysical evidence."
>axioms
go to > and come back in a few months
>Belief in anything without sufficient evidence is irrational
Axioms are axioms-
This guy gets it.
I'm not the guy arguing in favor of creationism.
I never said it was illogical for there to be no cause. Why are you asking me?
what is sin?
You're free to believe what you want but fact is noone actually knows what lies on the other side.
ANYONE ARGUING IN FAVOR OF CREATIONISM MUST DEFEAT ME
>commies kinda believe this also
being trolled by O:T:O, user?
how it is perfect?
All of the above in simple.
>Why did God create the universe and life.
Different religions have their different teachings, not going into detail as to which religion has humanity's real purpose on earth.
>If something can come out of nothing, how come God can come from nothing?
Can God not overcome the laws of space and time? His own creation? What was before time and space anybody know? Why are you asking complex questions like you just graduated from oxford.
who's the judge? over which laws? who gave him authority to judge?
Because I'm expecting you to answer the negative of the question? You did just state that your answer to
>How does something come out of nothing without help of any external force greater than anything
is that
>there was never nothing
so I'd imagine you'd also find a non-caused world to be equally valid.
I probably want you to say "yes", and expect you to say "yes", because that would provide at least 3 different answers to OP's circus display. It's not like I'm challenging you or accusing you of being wrong. It's not a trick question. You don't have to affirm the negative of what I ask to answer, right?
>Can God not overcome the laws of space and time? His own creation?
no, nigga, if you make rules that you break yourself, you are your satan
>gnostic bros STFU
>no, nigga, if you make rules that you break yourself, you are your satan
This is a mindset of a uneducated atheist btw. God must obey to his created rules of space and time, give yourself a break and go watch some more of "RELIGION IS FAKE..GOD IS NOT REAL" on youtube by a mutt.
I just don't understand what you're trying to say. As far as I know all matter has always existed and the "cause" of the universe as we know it is chemical reactions.
What are you implying there's no cause for?
That's the incredulity fallacy. Just because the organization of the world is interpreted by you to mean intelligent design that does not in any way make it an axiom. That's the same line of reasoning as an atheist saying there's no way his exists because so many people are evil and miserable. It's making an assumption based on ignorance.
You make the axiom claim because you lack the capacity or logical foundation to give an argument on how your axiom is axiomatic.
>Can God not overcome the laws of space and time? His own creation? What was before time and space anybody know? Why are you asking complex questions like you just graduated from oxford.
Nice cop-out Christcuck. "Why are you asking complex questions" is the motto of every Christcuck that's just been stumped. You might as well say "don't think and give us your money". If something has to have an origin, so does a "god". The removal of time and space has no baring on this fact.
Because nobody has ever come from the other side to tell the tale.
As Rick said: "Don't touch me. You will die. There is nothing there. It all goes dark and there is no coming back"
Humanity is preoccupied with the afterlife for two reasons:
1. So that a code of morals can be used on ignorant and impressionable serfs, to keep them in line with the promise of a pleasant afterlife in exchange for this life of misery and exploitation.
2. As a mechanism of control. Undesirable or sociopath behaviour will be punished by "rotting in hell" - but last time I checked, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao died in their sleep after killing millions. So, no real punishment for very evil actions.
As Satre said: hell is other people.
/B is a mini-version of hell, condensed and redacted for the amusement of the casual webuser.
he must obey his rules, therefore a) this is a universe with no limits or b) there are limits
both of them makes god not god
Well I'm not Christian but good try trying to guess, My point came across and now all of you are denying that God cannot overcome his own laws. Look little friend, there was once.. long ago.. a big bang, ever heard of it? Right right yes. That big bang was the beginning of space law and time, and to this day space is expanding, With scientific evidence that is. So.. just to let's say before that big bang even occurred, How would nothing become something, back to square one guys.
No, not back to square one. That is sufficient to say that all religions that claim their GODS are infinite and omnipotent are fake.
>He must obey his rules.
And who's forcing God to do so my guy?
> Look little friend, there was once.. long ago.. a big bang, ever heard of it? Right right yes. That big bang was the beginning of space law and time
OPIATE OF THE MASSES
himself faggot, again, if you make rules and then yourself break them, you are your satan
To add to this post. I've been thinking about it and now I'm assuming you mean there should be a cause to all matter existing.
For that to be true it would have to be possible for matter to materialize from nothing. I'm willing to believe it's a possibility but until it can be proven I will continue to believe there was no beginning.
You are either retarded or just trolling, point is proven.
then explain why do you need to make rules that you will break anyways?
...
The universe? If matter has always existed, when did it start? Because the implication there is that there was a "time" with a state of "not-started".
... or, my axiom is that organization of the world doesn't have to mean intelligent design? Maybe? I can't remember arguing for intelligent design. I don't even know if
>the organization of the world is interpreted by you to mean intelligent design
is an axiom... or anything I've expressed. I'm not sure where you learned that about me. How are you sure that this is how I interpret things? What I replied to insists that belief in anything without sufficient evidence, is irrational. That would mean that all axioms, period, would be irrational.
Which is hard to reconcile, given that most axioms, while being plain old assumptions, are usually "true" without needing proof. They are, "self-evident". You wouldn't need to go further to establish that
>parallel line segments never cross over one another
An axiom is only ever an axiom, even, when it is so "self-evident" that it's unreasonable to just discount it by virtue of itself. There's no real crisis of truth with those. So, that makes what I read, more confusing.
An atheist could totally say that there's no way his
>?
exists because so many people are evil and miserable. It just wouldn't mean that God, I'm assuming, would have to be benevolent. But, see how that follows from implying that God, I'm assuming, has to be something? The axiom is the springboard for all further reasoning. If it isn't self-consistent, it isn't really an axiom. I make the axiom claim, because I'm a very logical person. I most definitely can summon the logical foundation to do what you ask of me- unless it's unreasonable, or deliberate. Like protracting an argument on why an axiom is axiomatic- that a self-evident thing is self-evident?
I mean, user. What do I do with that? Axioms are axiomatic. What more do you need?
Axioms exist, user. That's what was said.
>Why do you need to make rules that you will break anyways.
Let's get one point across, God did not make space and time for his sake.
We are talking about God bro not a human.
It's like you are assuming that God made space and time for his environment.
I'm meaning that there shouldn't have to be a cause. That it's plausible for there to have been no cause, by virtue of it being plausible for there to have never been nothing, or a beginning.
Not that it's true, or that it must be, or that it's the only possibility, but that it's possible. Which is what you seem to have picked up on, so we're good. This means OP has to acknowledge the fact that this happened between 2 distinct individuals.
You are setting limits for a force that has unlimited power.
There is heaven and hell, it's called life.
The average person is a sheep and that's why religion is good for them because it controls them, but religion wouldn't be needed if people weren't so fucking stupid. Religious people also tend to be really shitty advertisements for the religion they're trying to sell so that by itself could explain why people turn away from it.
Why would he need to live by the same laws as us?
Do cattle follow the laws of man?
Not the guy you're arguing with, just thought I'd give my input.
I specifically said it didn't start. It always was.
If you mean the big bang, the general idea is that the materials that make up the universe were drawn to each other by gravitational forces and various elements crashing into each other set off chemical reactions. Either that or the collisions heated things up to such a degree that it caused a massive explosion.
I'm not an expert on the big bang theory but that's how I've interpreted it.
Ah my mistake.
>You are setting limits for a force that has unlimited power.
I'm setting limits for a hypothetical force whose only purpose is justified based on the presuposition that forces cannot be infinite. That was the presupposition you made when you said that the universe cannot be infinite. Consider an infinite meta-universe that existed before the universe in place of theism. That has no less credence than theism, so there is no reason to believe in some Jew.
>Saying there was nothing before the universe.
Please go back and re read the whole thread, I urge you to seek some knowledge before you comment.
I've never argued that there was nothing before the universe. I simply have proven that the likelihood of there being an omnipotent god recorded in "spiritual" texts is infinitesimally small.
That likely hood percentage again comes from your limitation of imagination, don't confuse yourself with God.
>Religious proof comes down to your imagination instead of empirical evidence that you can articulate. This is called "faith".
I think that's a good summary of this argument. You're the one that shouldn't confuse yourself with "god".