Parmenides destroys atheism. You can't refute him. Nothing comes out of nothing...

Parmenides destroys atheism. You can't refute him. Nothing comes out of nothing, there must be a BEING at the very beginning. Why things exist instead of not-existing? It's clear that there is a purpose.

Attached: Being_Parmenides.png (200x200, 35K)

Other urls found in this thread:

thisblowsmymind.com/ricky-gervais-to-stephen-colbert-you-dont-believe-in-2999-gods-i-dont-believe-in-just-1-more/
bible-codes.org/Names-Bible-Prophecy-Code.htm
jewsforjesus.org/answers/top-40-most-helpful-messianic-prophecies/
youtube.com/watch?v=XiSXX00X4NE
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Nothing never was and cannot be. Something can be. Nature just abides by the cold rules of logic. Refute this.

Even when atheists say that there is an end and your conscience is done, just disappears, that's not true, because nothing cannot be. Your conscience must rejoin an universal conscience, God or whatever.

None of that makes any sense, OP. Look:
>nothing comes out of nothing.
We don't know enough about the universe to say shit like that, but assuming it's true, so what? a cycle of exploding plasma and inverting black holes every few trillion years is hardly evidence of a deity.
>there must be a "being" at the very beginning.
No, there really doesn't have to be.
>Why [ESL]
No, nothing needs a purpose, and the fact something exists only counts as evidence of a cosmic purpose if you're scared and grasping for straws. Of course it takes a leap of faith, since by "created" you mean "created by an intelligent self-aware conscious omnipotent entity that guides everything that happens on this planet or in the universe." There is no evidence that supports your particular deity in nature or human experience or writings. Complexity of design derives from a very long process of adaptation and change: it doesn't necessarily require a sentient architect. Also, (and this tends to be VERY very hard for monotheists to grasp, so please bear with me), the idea that some great creative force that might be called intelligent or sentient from our perspective started our ecosystems has nothing to do with your specific religion. It's not an all-or-nothing situation, where a "creator" must mean a deity with an ongoing role in shaping human affairs, a weirdly specific interest in our mating habits, a complex set of demands from all human behaviour coupled with a coy refusal to be forthright in communicating these demands, and so on. Humans create deities that act just like them. A few religions try to argue for omnipotence, but they can't grasp the concept adequately, so it's contradicted through all their religious writings and doctrine. Saying I don't personally know what began the universe is in NO way related to accepting any culture's fairy tales. The two concepts are unrelated. We are designed to appreciate our environment, and our brains call this "beauty" and "order." That doesn't mean it had a specific creator. Also, the idea of intelligent design could be incredibly distant from any organized faith: I can imagine a being that created our world and not call it a deity, just a higher life form. Are stars sentient on some level? Quite possibly, but we're not qualified to judge.

>beginning
Parmenides doesn't believe in the concept of things beginning, only an eternal now.

The world isn't involved in the causal nexus, the world is the set of things that can be thought of as causal.

"Atoms are round therefor any object is round."

Read more than one philosopher dummy.

God is Truth. He necessarily exists. Truth is only its proper self when it goes beyond itself into creation, which allows it to look out and observe that which it is not, and reflect back into itself and see its own nature, thus fulfilling its omniscience and omnipotence. Why is Truth concerned with us? “What is man, that Thou art mindful of him?” Because we are mindful of God, and existence is perception. God is the highest laws of logic, the meta-logic that exists for itself and by itself, which can do all things that preserve itself. God is the great “I AM”

What do you mean when you say that god is truth?

he is right btw

Please. What utter tripe. God must exist because I want him to"? Religion answers a profound frustration and insecurity in our species: the limits of our puny power over our lives, and the shadow of our own mortality. When you confuse the limits of our puny imagination with the limits of reality itself, expect to be laughed at.

Not OP, but holy fuck; go back.

Truth is that which is. Capital t Truth is all of that which is. It contains all truths. But it cannot contain all truths unless it contains the truth of itself, thus requiring it to know itself. It cannot say “I am Truth” without knowing what the “I” is. God told Moses this exact phrase when asked what he should be called: “I AM THAT I AM”

Consciences have a beginning. They must be derived from something.

Looks like user read Descartes and decided to share it with Yea Forums today.

>God must exist because I want him to"?
Straw man. God is that which exists by itself and for itself. God is that maxim that says “God can exist.” Consider the law of non-contradiction. If it does not exist, then it does exist. Self-creation. God is the highest level of logic.

It’s another way of conceptualizing Parmenides’ meaning of the non-existence of nothing. When nothing “exists,” there is a contradiction. Truth should not exist in this realm, yet it IS true that nothing exists. The “is not” is.

when did all you godbothering fucknuts crawl out of the woodwork again? can't you just fuck off?

It is true that the word nothing exists, yes.

we'll put user. still, it's a hopeless endeavor to convince a theist of the idea that there really could be no god. they are too stubborn and not open-minded enough. they lack skepticism.

...

recognizing the possibility of God not existing doesn’t imply that we shouldn’t believe in God. I know that I know nothing, but having no beliefs is a death sentence.

you can’t recognize Hegel?

And tell me, what is the origin of these rules of logic which the universe follows? Random chance?

>Hegel

I believe in God but you are an idiot, no one can prove that whatever conception of God they have is veridic and corresponds to reality, they can just make it plausible.
Stop being a moron and accept our belief in God as what it is, a belief that preceeds rational knowledge. Read Anselm and then Kant

>no one can prove that whatever conception of God they have is veridic and corresponds to reality
I don’t mean to do that. Good catch. Typically when responding to objections we don’t say “it’s possible” over and over again. Obviously I could be wrong about everything I’m saying.

>believing logic has an origin instead of being necessary
Go back user

Are you saying that the rules of logic preceed the universe?

I will believe you but since you start out by saying he "destroys" atheists and can't be refuted, you appeared to be categoric in your statements.

Anyway, regarding purpose, we can't know that: we know we do things with a purpose but we can't know that about nature, it's an enormous leap to posit that those ideas inside us correspond to either God or Nature. See Spinoza and Descartes

sigh, I'm tired of arguing with "believers";-)
thisblowsmymind.com/ricky-gervais-to-stephen-colbert-you-dont-believe-in-2999-gods-i-dont-believe-in-just-1-more/

I’m not the OP

bible-codes.org/Names-Bible-Prophecy-Code.htm

jewsforjesus.org/answers/top-40-most-helpful-messianic-prophecies/

There are “infinite” religions, but the unthinking atheist assumes that they’re all equally probable. As if extinct religions, unknown religions, unprophesied religions, can be as probable as Christianity. Good Christians are good Buddhists, good Hindus, etc. Even the Quran says that there are Christians in heaven (2:62). But Jesus says “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one may come to the Father except through me.” The practical conclusion is to be a Christian. Why is Jesus the way? Because no one is good. Everyone sins. What arbitrary distinction is there between good and bad people in those religions that emphasize good works? The only threshold that makes sense is that only perfect people are good. So works alone is not sufficient, as we are all sinners.

Deuteronomy 4:29
>But from there you will seek the Lord your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Proverbs 8:17
>I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
Jeremiah 29:13
>You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.
Matthew 7:7-8
>Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.
Isaiah 55:6-7
>Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Lamentations 3:25
>The Lord is good to those who wait for him, to the soul who seeks him.
James 4:8
>Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded

Necessary things can have an origin.

There could be no God, but I recall well that that notion took hold because it was believed materialism was true, and materialism/physicalism's days are numbered.

I've been puzzling over this, and for some reason I just hadn't twigged that you meant "consciousness" and not 'conscience." It's silly either way, but this is a bit more sensible.

Sorry I'm ESL speaker, you're right

>Nothing comes from nothing?

>Does god come from nothing then?

>No, God is eternal.

>So what if the world is eternal?

There you go christtards.

>As if extinct religions, unknown religions, unprophesied religions, can be as probable as Christianity.
They can and are

You treat your own works and reasoning with complete carelessness and disregard for it. So should everyone else.

laws of nature are a bit arbitrary. God makes more sense as the necessary being

LOL

I can see OP's basic description of the Prime Mover point went completely over your head with that black hole reply.

The religious gods definitely make less sense than just saying the world is eternal. 'God', taken as an abstract entity not tied to any religion, is still, it seems to me, just as likely to have caused the world as the world being eternal. In fact, some physicists now believe the world is probably eternal, so to act like atheism has been refuted is ridiculous.

“What is not cannot be” can be an argument for theism and atheism. Theists can say nothing can’t exist, and so “what is” fundamentally must be eternal. Atheists can say that by force of this same logic, nothing but the universe could exist, it had to exist, and so doesn’t need a cause beyond sheer logic

Not an argument

>Nothing comes out of nothing, there must be a BEING at the very beginning.
Bullshit. Stop talking out your ass like a faggot.

>Even when atheists say that there is an end and your conscience is done, just disappears, that's not true, because nothing cannot be. Your conscience must rejoin an universal conscience, God or whatever.
conscience is a pattern of preexisting material, the pattern changes and so consciousness dissapears, the material that formed consciousness exists in a different form after the end of conscience

god becomes arbitrary then

the Gravitational constant is a bit more arbitrary than a being that sustains all creation, no?

Sure, because this is the very first time I've ever heard the "Prime Mover= YHWH" argument. Honest. It hasn't been making me think people are morons for decades at all.

we'll put user. still, it's a hopeless endeavor to convince an atheist of the idea that there really could be god. they are too stubborn and not open-minded enough. they lack skepticism.

No evidence for that. The only consistent physicalist position is eliminationism (consciousness doesn't even exist), which shows how physicalism is impossible.

Or think of it this way: you think matter is the only thing. How does that explain how you came to inhabit your particular cartesian theatre (i.e. how you came to be)? What physical reason determined it would be that one you're in and not someone elses?

The present is just the past making decisions.

youtube.com/watch?v=XiSXX00X4NE

reddit

both of these are rules that work within the universe. we don't know what the rules were that created our rules. having any claim from within is lying to yourself.

>there has to be a being
>when no one exists in the first place
youre a figment of my imagination

Found the God

The beginning is existence eternally being born anew, all things being whole in the birth of the son of God. God gave birth to herself. i think the trinity can contain a description of the most fundamental reality. This universe is so small and near to being nothing at all. Only people caught up in the illusion of this world would come to the conclusion that you can build a tower up to heaven. One can not know reality very well by studying an single eyebrow hair. I as a microtheos come to know the macrotheos.

>So what if the world is eternal?

I'd wager it is. Concentric eternities are, in fact, congruent with THE eternity (of God).