We all believe in causality. So, there has to be a first cause. What is the atheist answer to what the first cause is? And a question for religious people: If this first cause is God, why would said creator be a personal God? What makes your religion true? By the way, I don't believe in simulation theory.
Sorry If this was hard to read btw, English isn't my first language.
Other urls found in this thread:
scientificamerican.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Cause nothing literally doesn't exist
explain
atheists have no answer, they just say "i dont know lol science hasnt found out yet"
god is probably real but i have a hard time believing christianity is true and i am suspicious of the idea that god is personal but i can see why people would believe that since platonism is nonsense.
It is a concept that describes the absence of something but not the absence of everything
yes so why is there something rather than nothing
Because "nothing" is just something that you imagine in your head
“Nothing” is not understood. Is it your being when it wasn’t or will be again, or empty space?
In the former Nothing are periods of time, in the latter there is an abundance of it. Seems there’s more Nothing in the universe than Somethings
it's not too late user. come, become a soldier of Allah.
Start with the Introduction to the Studies of Hindu Doctrines
God is personal because He had a reason to create something instead of eternally being alone. This may be trite, but if God is inherently a loving God, then that love would therefore pervade His creation, even if this can’t be directly interacted with unless through some metaphysical means i.e. communing with God. Since God is inherently loving, it stands to reason that He would want to be loved, and the only way to do this without forcing his creation to love Him in all aspects is to allow His creations that have the choice of free will to either love or reject Him. Doing this must mean that God has to commune with His creation on a personal level, since how can you truly love something unless you know it intimately.
On the other hand, if you assume God is not inherently loving, then what would be His motivation to create anything at all? Despite how dark and evil the world can be, there are still plenty of examples of love and joy that wouldn’t exist as a concept unless it has existed within the creator in the first place. Consequently, acts of hate and evil are things that turn away from that starting point of love, but without that starting point, there would be no contrast i.e. nothing to compare it to: love vs. hate, good vs. evil.
>There has to be a first cause
Why?
post more pictures of that girl
For some reason he can fathom a time before everything.
Old people put the idea into his head and he can’t think outside that box
>durr 0+0=0>0
Every pseud and his dog has an alleged "explanation" for this. Why ask such a question on a Tanzania tourism forum?
>butterskank shitting up the thread again
Absolutely shocking.
>he can fathom a time before everything
?
>he can’t think outside that box
tell me how to think outside the box oh wise one
What are all the zeros for?
In my first post I make my take clear enough. There is an infinite and eternal universe of space/time and matter. You want a time when there was absolute zero?
It was my guess. Are you he?
>"nothing" is just something that you imagine in your head
but you cant imagine "nothing"
You literally do imagine it. What do you think it is?
Isn’t it just an absence of X, an emptiness?
What invalidates a Tazmanian tourist forum member's dog from throwing in his two cents? Are you a cunt?
what i mean is you cant just think of "nothing", nothing will always appear as something in your head when you imagine it. we know what "nothing" is, but does "nothing" really exist? do you know what im trying to say, tripfag?
>We all believe in causality
scientificamerican.com
psssh nothin personnel kid
Yes, I do. I agree. We need to define it, like most words. Tried to start that here
Unfortunately words don't reflect reality in an accurate way.
>We all believe in causality.
I don't
You also can't imagine a color that isn't visible by the human eye.
But you can conceptualize the idea of it existing, though the fact that you can create such concept doesn't imply that it exists.
>Seems there’s more Nothing in the universe than Somethings
See, think the opposite, i think there can ONLY be something, since "nothing" does not exist
i think this user has good take on it, so you mean that nothing is something that you are not able to imagine? like, lets say the end of the universe -- and because we cant clearly imagine it, we see it as a big "nothing", although it does somehow exist or do you mean only the concept of the end of the universe and a big "nothing" can be thought of?
well words are just there for us to interpret something, right? communication and getting close to describe "feelings". wether its scientific like lucky/happy feelings and dopamine or trying to describe by comparing something that is imaginable and "relatable", with pictures or whatever, right?
holy shit i hope i got this out of my head without sounding like an absolute retard
well fuck, guess i did what i was scared of
this and also remember to worship a dead jew and believe in jewish fairy tales OP
Schopenhauer btfo the first cause argument. First cause is a contradiction; a cause must follow an effect just as much as an effect must follow a cause. If something causes the state of an object to change, then that object must have had a previous state for it to be changed from. This only concerns the states of objects, eg if they are hot or cold, not matter itself. Causality only concerns the "how" of things but not the "why". A scientist can answer how gravity works, but the question of why gravity works has no objective answer. How did matter come to be? Why did matter come to be? Schopenhauer pointed out that these are two completely different questions and even thinkers like Descartes and Spinoza have been confusing them for centuries. The confusion arises because causality is how we make sense of our immediate surroundings and it should never be applied to the why, but as I said the why has no objective answer.
Cringe
makes no sense
Neither did UG.
A lack of corollary has little bearing on actuality/possibility.
99% certain that this is, as it always is, an astroturfing Christian
>inb4 nooo ur a jew or uhh ur not let redpill
>What is the atheist answer to what the first cause is?
the existence of the big bang (theory) was caused by a friction of two (could several idk) megabranes located in a higher dimension
now if you want to ask me how this megabranes came to an existence, or the existence of reality itself (the whole spectrum of dimensions, universes, and much more), then i don´t have a clue for what was the first cause
>If this first cause is God, why would said creator be a personal God?
There is no "personal" God. To have God be personal defeats the whole idea of God, does it not? God is one, a collection of everything that has and everything that ever will be; it shouldn't be "personal" to anyone. If it is, then you don't believe in God; you believe in *a* God, which is not the same.
God has and will exists without me, or anyone. When we're all gone he is all that will remain. Does that mean we all eventually 'become' God? I guess we'll have to find out.
The answer is divine superabundence. See pic.
youtube.com
here is great talk about it. Why deisum does not make sense as you look at the big picture.
Take the Jew pill
God is immaterial hence he must have an interpersonal relation with us, total love, yet we can only reach closest in value to God by way of historic progress, the tragedy, suffering, movement, victory. You'll understand when you do but just know that ideally that there we must strive between the divine and survival. This duality has been a prominent one, compare Wagner to Nietzsche as the two epitomisations of these beliefs. Though ultimately a false schism of existence. In reality we can only achieve the divine by our greatest survival, and we can only survive our greatest by reaching the divine. In total movement and progress, in desire, in suffering can we be most like God. This is because to be content in ourselves would to be content in lesser, in half, in the unfinished nourishment of the carpenter. The life rejecting principle of Buddhism is a becoming development until it is not. We can never be content in ourselves, happy-in-our-own-thought as God is. And so we achieve the greatest innate by the greatest movement simultaneously. Siegfried the Heroic of history, of the true creative fire, is the closest man may gain to the divine.
>God is one, a collection of everything that has and everything that ever will be
You're describing pantheism, and pantheism is a load of steaming bullshit.
You're right. I didn't mean it like that; I take back what I said.
What i was trying to say is you can't compare God to a person because he isn't anything like a person. We can only think as people and thus we can't comprehend the reasons behind what God does.
>imaginary sky daddy created the universe
based retard
top 3 insults on this Mongolian weaving board:
>incel
>retard
>faggot
Obviously, nothing does not exist. God doesn't help to explain anything. God might explain the universe's existence but the existence of god is still not explained.
Nothing is no-thing. No time-predicates, no space-predicates, no substance-predicates.
heidegger "introduction to metaphysics"
There were no laws in place to stop it from becoming "something"
Unbound Telesis, the man, the myth, the legend Chris Langan has the answer
there doesn't have to, we think of time as a straight line when its really just a measurement of distance/speed, whos to say things have just been in a constant circular motion of rotting away oly to be replicated again a couple trillion years later, matter doesn't just dissolve it transfers, and there always been the same amount so the only difference is the form it carries at any given point