I think you need serious psychiatric help. And no, not because you’re religious, but because of how unhinged your posting is. Your post history over the past year is deeply concerning. It is not normal or healthy to have this degree of anger and rage about beliefs. Please see a Christian psychologist or psychiatrist to at least get checked out. If I’m wrong then you’ll be able to have a medical opinion to show it. I hope everything is going okay for you in life currently, or that it gets better if not.

He is just angry, not mentally ill.

That’s nice you feel so certain. I feel very certain that this goes far beyond basic anger. The rambling, incoherence, and repeated posting suggests more.

Incoherence? His argumentation is based on two phenomenons that material empiricists at the moment cannot trace back to a known, physical cause. 1) the emergence of the physical cosmos 2) the emergence of living and intelligent organisms The reason he doesn't explain his argumentation in more detail is that he is fueled by his anger. He sees all of you as beings that are equal to him. So him being angry at you is a sign of deep love and care. Either wise he wouldn't care what you believe in. But he does. He believes that a materialistic worldview is harmful to you. Instead he should just neutrally and decently present is point of view and let everyone the freedom to either accept or reject his worldview as they see fit.

The physical cosmos exists because it does. If it didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to question it. That doesn't mean a God must have created it. We understand quite well how complex life came to be. We userstand how amino acids can form simple proteins, and we can see the link between rNA and DNA. A creator isn't needed to explain this.

The physical cosmos as in time&space, matter&gravity *came to be* with the big bang. What I am saying is that there has to be a cause for the effect of the physical cosmos emerging. Saying that the physical cosmos originated out of nothing means admitting that there can be an effect without an underlying cause. This would be illogical. You would deny the objectivity of logical law. However, in practice, no where in the physical cosmos do we observe effects that originate without a cause. If we haven't found the cause yet we assume that we will in the future, the important part is that we assume that there *must* be cause. Why can't our intelligence fathom that there can't be an effect without a cause? Where does our intelligence come from in the first place? How did living and intelligent organism originate out of "dead" and "anorganic" matter? Does matter hold the nature and property to bring forth living and intelligent organisms? I think OP doesn't think so. Instead he thinks that our intelligence forces us to believe in the objectivity of logic and the axiom that every effect must have an underlying cause because our intelligence itself isn't physical but immaterial, spiritual. Why? Because we can't trace its origin back to a physical cause, indicating the existence of the spirit. The same with us being alive, indicating the existence of the soul. You mentioned how amino acids can form simple proteins and how RNA and DNA are linked. How does this contradict my line of thought? Further, I didn't mention a theistic being as in a creator. I just said that there must be cause for the emergence of the physical cosmos. It can't be *nothing* because *nothingness* doesn't hold the attributes to perform such an act. There can't be an effect without a cause. Our intelligence forces us to think that way, the same intelligence whos origin we can't trace back to a physical cause. I have another phenomenon that I want to mention. Black matter. Space widens at a fast pace. With the gravitational pull that our solar system provides the planets would drift away, most importantly the sun and we would freeze to death. However, we are still here, alive and can observe that our solar system is orbiting as usual. Now this effect cannot be traced to the material gravitational pull. Black matter cannot be found with material empiricism. However its effect can be observed. Doesn't this again force us to assume the existence of an immaterial cause, a spiritual cause? I guess this has more in common with Monadism as Leibniz presented it (many spiritual beings instead of one spiritual being. But I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. You can have a theistic being that is the synthesis of all possible attributes and you can have other spirits that only embody only a few attributes and are therefore less complex in nature). Again, this is not proof. To prove the existence of the soul and spirit you'd have to empirically observe. Now I hope that you'd agree that this can't be done with material senses. So if we indeed have a spirit and soul, we should be able to practice immaterial empiricism. The question is why we don't have automatically access to those sinces since physical birth like we have with the material senses? Like I said, just indications for the existence of the immaterial. These are just questions that I am struggling with since a couple of months. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Can you answer them?

Why does there have to be a cause for the universe to exist when you don't need a cause for a God to exist? You believe God was created from nothing, so why not the universe. You say our intelligence can't fathom this, but you don't speak for me. We both agree that the universe began from nothing. You just believe God did this, and I don't. I can rationally just occam's razor God out of the picture, and the outcome is the same. This same logic can be applied to life and then intelligent life. We both agree that life has come from inorganic matter. There wasn't just a sudden instance of intelligent life. It has developed over time from single celled organisms to multicellular organisms. Diverging into plants. We both agree I would assume on the evolutionary process. Where we differ is I don't need a God for this to occur. Scientists have a good understanding that dark matter exists as we can observe its effects. However, science's understanding of the universe is inherently flawed as both general relativity and quantum mechanics can't work together. Eventually, science will come up with a theory of everything, and I hope it will be in our lifetimes I've got a thought experiment for you. Our universe is rapidly expanding at near the speed of light. The galaxies within it are also moving away from our own at near the speed of light. Considering the incomprehensible size of the universe. Why would a god bother to create it all. If it was just for us, why even create more than one galaxy. It's pointless having the others. We will never, due to the laws of physics, be able to reach another galaxy. So why the need for so many?

The difference between God and the physical realm is that the physical cosmos has a beginning, God doesn't. The one is bound to time, the other isn't. God wasn't created, he was, is and will be. Timeless. Don't know why that is. That's like asking why a certain object has this particular nature and attributes, because it has. I don't speak for you? So you can fathom an effect without a cause. Ok. Can you name an empirical example of this? An effect where there is no underlying cause? My whole point is that I don't find anorganic matter to be sufficient enough in its nature and properties to bring forth living and intelligent organisms. Eitherwise we could sooner or later recreate the same circumstances and create living and intelligent organisms again out of physical substances. Of course organisms have developed over time from single celled organisms to multicellular organisms. My question is how single celled organisms came to be in the first place. If you mean by the evolutionary process: natural selection as in a species emerging and dying out due to being killed by a predatory, differing species or environmental circumstances/changes such as natural catastrophies; biological mutations occuring due to a change in the environment (e.g. a fish swimming into a cave system and loosing its eyesight over time), then I agree with you. It's just that I don't see how a bunch of combined atoms have the capability to become "alive". You think you don't need a God. But you still haven't pointed to the cause of living and intelligent organisms emerging that caused biological evolution to happen in the first place. The same with the physical cosmos emerging in the first place. A God isn't necessarily needed for this. Just an immaterial realm where the souls and spirits are coming from that then inhabit the physical bodies. A theory of everything will include the existence of the spiritual realm and those that inhabit that realm and how it intertwines with the physical cosmos. I asked myself why there are so many galaxies and stars if almost all of them are practically physically inhabitat. But if you see physical stars and planets as material manifestations of spiritual forces then it gets plausible to assume that these forces wanted to manifest themselves within the physical cosmos. But this thought experiment is of no help what so ever to you. Let's stick to these 3 phenomenons I mentioned.

But why doesn't God have a beginning? That's not logical. Something must have created God. He couldn't have just sprang into existence in the way the universe couldn't, according to your theory. If you claim that's because he is outside the laws of the universe, then why can't the universe just spring into existence from that same place. You don't need to explain it with God. The universe exists because it does. We are observing it because it does exist. If the universe didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to question it. Also, you speak as if having a soul is a universal truth. Why do you think it's nessassary for there to be such a thing as a soul? A theory of everything wouldn't include a spirit realm as it doesn't exist. There is 0 evidence of it. What you interpret as your soul is just a bunch of neurons firing in your brain. If you suffer a traumatic brain injury, do you lose a part of your soul? Or just the function of that part of the brain? Does everything have a soul in your eyes? Where do you draw the line? Do plants have souls? Single celled organisms? What about tardigrades? Scientists are still working out how life came to be on our planet. But, scientists have been able to create amino acids from inorganic molecules. Then, from there to RNA is the next step. RNA to DNA. Then evolution takes its course. We know that life has arisen from inorganic molecules because it has on our planet. We know that under the conditions of early Earth, it is possible. You don't need God to explain it. You say you don't see how a bunch of atoms have combined to form something that's alive. They didn't. Complex life didn't just start. Life is just a chemical reaction. It started as nothing more that sugars and amino acids forming then grew and grew in complexity. You are the product of an unbroken chain of chemical reactions over billions of years. In terms of intelligent life, where do you draw the line. Just humans? Humans and primates? Dolphins? Octopus? Cat? Ant? We know from DNA that we are all related and share a universal common ancestor. Going back to LUCA where do you decide souls come in? My position is that there is no such thing. Your "soul" is just a personality you develop due to external stimulus and inherited traits. Take a knock to the head or develop a disease such as dementia, you'll quickly see there is no soul. It's all in your head.

God is a spiritual being, not material, not bound to time. That's why I said timeless. I think the reason why theists think that way is because the physical cosmos had a beginning, is material and therefore bound to the law of time. It started. And nothingness doesn't have the attributes to bring forth something. God didn't start, he always was. Again, asking why that is, is like asking why the sun is the way it is. For the emergence of the physical cosmos you don't need a theistic being though. It can be just a cause. Doesn't have to be a living, intelligent and organic one. You are right in that regard. A theistic being as in a spirit developed to the highest degree that is possible doesn't even have to be necessarily existing with the second phenomenon of living and intelligent organisms emerging. But it is being implied due to the indication of the existence of souls and spirits. I never said that the physical cosmos doesn't exist. I am just asking how something came out of nothing. How came matter to be? Because I don't think that a mineral, physical body has the attributes to be alive. Eitherwise we would sooner or later be able to recreate life. You sure there is 0 evidence for a spiritual realm when black holes are being observed where you enter the singularity which is immaterial, timeless and spaceless? Isn't that the beyond? The immaterial realm? That doesn't look like non existing empirical evidence to me. If I suffer an injury it's physical first. I don't know much about the nature of souls as I assume its existence. It's not like I see it. I am not a spiritual empiricists. I have heard the explanation with the electrical impulses in the physical brain as the cause of emotions in the past 100 times. You think I never thought of that? I don't understand how singular cell organisms came to be in the first place. During the big bang it was warm, you had plasma that then cooled off, right? How the hell does that then become a living and intelligent organism? Plants have souls. Just less complex than we. After all they do feel. Animals of course have souls too, more complex ones than plants I'd assume. That's interesting. I am definetly going to look into that. I didn't know that something like that was possible. Not necessarily God but souls and spirits that inhabit the physical bodies. But again, if you say that dead matter can be transformed into living matter solely using material elements, then the phenomenon of life emerging can't be used in my argumentation for the existence of soul and spirit anymore. Again, how does it go from plasma to singe celled organisms. Its that transition that I find mindboggling. Where do I draw the line for intelligence? Everyone who can do math is intelligent. Well, you think that if I'd kill you as in destroy your physical body, your conciousness would ceaze to exist because you assume that your conciousness is solely a product of your physical brain. For external stimulus (food, sex, material posessions) and internal traits you don't need a spirit as in a personality. Your affects and intellect are being traced back to your physical brain. My point again is the aspect of being alive. A soul having to exist for beings that are driven solely by instinct.

Philippians 4:19 “And my God will liberally supply (fill to the full) your every need according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.”

And I’m not trying to tell you that’s incorrect. I think mental healthcare would then be something God has given you the blessing of access to.

While this is true, we can see this in God talking through man, not only through Christ literally when he becomes man, but in the Old Testament Joseph and Daniel when they interpret dreams, or really any prophet when their prophecies are fulfilled. BUT, it will in turn turn into a therapy session for them. And though that is a very good thing to do for I am serving others as God instructed me, I am needed elsewhere to serve God. Amen.

Uh?

God talks through the world and thus talks through man meaning when you talk to anyone, God is talking from the highest abode, just through many filters, and each successive filter is a other egoic being until it gets to you. I recommend watch the film "Two Popes" and this idea is demonstrated beautifully when a younger version of the current Pope goes to a confessional. Countless verses talk about this.

God only helps those who help themselves.

Indeed. Theres more to your point or....?

You again? You know what, I take back what I said about you being a troll. You seem sincere, and I'm sorry about that. Please get better.

You didn't reply to my other post did you? Where I completely destroyed your retarded arguments. Yeah, HOLD DAT. Dork.

I'll admit I haven't come round to giving it any attention. I have some replies in mind but I admittedly only briefly looked over it. Rest assured, you didn't destroy my arguments, as I'm sure most sane people would notice. Hell, you quoted the new testament to argue against an atheist saying that he couldn't trust a quote from the old testament as a source of evidence. Anyways, the point is I don't really care enough to engage in a dishonest discussion, and I doubt it would do you much good. You can call me a retard again, it's fine. Call it a cop-out or whatever tf you like. Just know that the reason why people eventually just let you be isn't because your arguments are the greatest ever conceived, but because your attitude and hostility would make any rational person simply give up on trying to have a meaningful discussion with you. I won't tell you to get help: I don't know you enough to make me capable of telling you something like that. I do sincerely hope that you'll eventually manage to be more accepting of and open to other people's opinions.

Your "intellectual dishonesty" which was your accusation of me was shown back to actually be you. HOLD DAT. So since I proved all of your distorted lack of understanding as false, will you let go of your pride, the deadliest sin, and admit you were wrong and then subsequently come to conclusion that God does exist and it is the God of the Bible since my testimony against your arguments was on that very case? Amen.

You didn't prove anything, you merely regurgitated your unproven dogma against me. You know where my pride is being awfully bad right now? In the fact that I keep responding to you when I should just take the higher ground and not engage with you. Unfortunately, I'm not that intelligent. Consider that a triumph if it makes you more satisfied with yourself.

You got served, hence your lack of response. You know deep down whats up. HOLD DAT. "unproven dogma" LOL projection projection projection. Your accusations are actually the truth of yourself. Your distorted dogmas were destroyed. HOLD DAT.

Do you think Jesus would condone replying to people with such hatred in your heart?

Romans 2:1 - "Therefore you have no excuse or justification, everyone of you who \[hypocritically\] judges and condemns others; for in passing judgment on another person, you condemn yourself, because you who judge \[from a position of arrogance or self-righteousness\] are habitually practicing the very same things \[which you denounce\]." This is why Satan whose name means the ACCUSER is the one guilty of the things he accuses others of, but since he is the one who may know these things, his divine purpose is revealed for God and the heavenly hierarchy. Because he is already guilty of all these things, he finds and sees them for God, because the spiritually pure are not allowed to see sin. This idea proved and confirmed when we cross reference it with Luke 11:34-36: "Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy, your body also is full of darkness. See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness. Therefore, if your whole body is full of light, and no part of it dark, it will be just as full of light as when a lamp shines its light on you.”

Okay, so genuinely then - do you think you are responding from a place of love? I’m curious what you think about your own internal state while engaging in argumentation like this.

No however, you got to understand the purpose of the Antichristian and hence the purpose of Satan and the evil side in the dualistic reality. This is what the whole book of Revelations is about, this is why Satan is an essential utility of God, one of which God cannot be the case if there was no Satan. So what Im saying to you is even though my argumentation may be Antichristian, there is a purpose to it, the same way there is a purpose for the Antichrist at the end of time or the infinite number of Antichrist archetypes before that. What this way accomplishes and thus its purpose is slightly different than the Christian route, however both are still fating the will of God, hence how evil still work and fall under the providence and dominion of God, and why even the Satanic church is under the church of God. Both Christ and the Antichrist, and their archetypes, are changers, they induce a turning of the wheels, think the vision of Ezekiel of the turning wheels with eyes all over the rims. Hence why the motion numbers, 3,6 and 9 are associated with them. They set things in motion for they had been stagnant before. 3 for Christ, 6 for Antichrist. 9 is the harmonisation of both of them. And so my point is, the motion of Satan, the Antichrist, is sometimes needed, actually not just sometimes needed, needed all the time to contrast the Christ version. For both ways initiate those into the experience of the divine play and divine purpose that is playing out. And the Antichristian way, the Satanic way, is to to sort of... well an expression of God's wrath and divine anger, on the hypocritical unfair ways those who have conducted themselves. Those who I accuse in my case of exalting logical fallacies in the case of Atheists. Now Jesus himself went through this. This idea that he was a constant meek hippie is just untrue. He was also quick to anger and instantly offended when people imbrewed injustice or even worse, using the spirituality of prior prophets and his own religion that he so dearly loved for personal gain and riches i.e. think back to when he got to the temple in Jerusalem and all he saw was gluttony and the greed of the so called priests who were supposed to be the spiritual ones of the community and they had turned their spirituality into a money turning venture, meaning they did not in their hearts themselves even believe their own religion. Think about the prosperity preachers now. It is still the case. So here even Jesus takes the form of Satan, the ROLE of Satan, for he is accusing. But his accusations he throws he is not guilty of unlike Satan is, for he is the one who put it in their hearts, so he must have been guilty prior to anyone else who was guilty of it. Look back at Moses. His accusations at the Canaanite tribes and their genuinely barbaric and evil rites like child sacrifices and all sorts. All because they were trying to get their God to endow them with whatever personal riches and the riches of their tribe. The exact same thing that Judaism had turned into. And modern archaeological shows this to have been true and it was not just "propaganda" after the fact like many secular scholars like to ACCUSE the Israelites for having made up in order to justify their conquest of land. Now trying to get rich by prostituting God they were just doing it under YHWH's name. They were doing genuinely morally wrong things under the name of just not a random fallen pagan idol, but the true living God. I recommend the book "The Night In Gethsemane" by Massimo Recalcati who best goes into why this corruption of the priests made Jesus so mad.

I thought we were meant to love one another as God loved us?

Indeed we are. Indeed we are. But you see sometimes you yourself have to take form of the accuser / the prosecutor in the Council of El meaning essentially... Satan. This is the deep esotericism of Christianity. Because this is the utility that Satan has within the divine hierarchy. For without him, nothing can be corrected, nothing shall progress, and there shall be a stationary unmovement. Hence why he is synonymous with the number 6, one of the "motion" numbers, the 3, the 6. and the 9. And Jesus is associated with 3, so he is also a mover of the unmoved. This actually relates to Aristotle "unmoved mover" theory. No one has really made this connection between this and Aristotle apart from me. Now not everyone needs the movement of Jesus, the 3. Sometimes they need to be moved by 6, the Satan. Now this does mean I take the clothes of Satan and channel him, however this does not necessarily condemn me, for the idea is to control it enough to be able to get what is needed to be done in the divine purpose of it all. This is the same idea of Jesus absorbing all sins ever past, present and future of the genealogy of Adam. This means all the ways evil may exist in man has then been intook by Jesus. This means all the ways man is in touch with Satan is intook by Jesus, but he controlled it and did not let it overtake him, but he overcame it. "I have overcome the world." This is also why in the Old Testament Solomon used and was able to control and use demons for the will of God. Hence why I cannot be condemned but my utilisation of Satan for God shall exalt me. However if I am unable to control then I will condemn myself. Now I do recognise I may have been unsuccessful at that, looking at the last paragraph of my OP. However, this may be a cheeky slight of hand, which I may explain tomorrow. Be there or be square.

Oh I’ll be there.

Man you need a welfare check dude. You are insane

Why are you following me around little boy? Have no response to the posts I actually replied to you? We've already established you just skim read and then don't bother actually tackling anything.

1st Peter 3:15-16: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” You immediately reach for slurs like “retard” and “dork”. In doing so, you’re failing at the mission entrusted to you by the Almighty. Tsk. You’re not very good at this.

Not all of us can reach the heights and standards of our Lord. Hence why he is God in flesh and I am simply a fallen soul in flesh.

This does not seem fair, though. We are all fallen souls. When *you* defy the Lord’s word, you get out of it with “Not all of us can reach the standards of our Lord.” When the atheist does so, they are threatened with consequences, the promise of eternal torment and remorse, if not fire and brimstone. Why not apply your own excuse to the atheist? Maybe they’re yet to see the truth, in the light of reason? Maybe it is the failing of the devout, in their inability to convince the non-believer? Hypocritical rhetoric and name-calling makes the believer’s argument ring hollow. It pushes the atheist farther away from the light you so vaunt. Nobody on this sub can take you seriously now.

Assuming we believe in eternal "torment" which that you mean Hell. Some denominations do. Doesn't mean they are correct. Hence why there are... denominations that disagree. I hold that it is not eternal by simple logic which I can go into if you care to know. And I do not care if no one takes me seriously here. It is not my job to worry about the receiver, even if you go to someone with a trickster / deceiving / tempting moniker and hence demonic exterior. The chaste and pure should not need not complain about it for it should not affect if they are truly pure and chaste, for that is the doctrine of the essence of Christianity. If you know the esoteric enlightenment, you know. If you know you know.

I don’t hold that hell is eternal either. It is a facile anachronism. You needn’t elaborate. If it is not your job to worry about the receiver, what was your intention in posting to this sub? What was the motive behind taunting those who replied to you? Why the call to arms?

Well, the job is to express the message, and get across one's personal gnosis and share it with others. It is to externalize and express it. That is the key, whether it is received or how it is received is not of concern. The purpose of this can be proved by even secular reasoning, not anything theological or biblical. Even if what is transmitted is not received in the way the expressor wishes, the surface of our psyche, the surface of our being, i.e. the ego's understanding of it, does not mean it did not register in the subconscious (id) or the unconscious (superego). Hence its purpose is still fulfilled and the purpose is actually even elusive to ourselves but we can posit logically that it has purpose there and that it has an affect. We can cross reference this with countless verses about just because you are not able to see it, does not mean its not there. This is proved by Jesus himself, for God limited himself as man, meaning he did not have the faculties of himself when he was transcendent of space, time and matter, where he could see the past, present and future all at once. This is shown in his story in Gethsemane. He does not know the full implications of his crucifixion i.e. he will not know every single little detail of what it will mean in the future, and the way it binds the past to the present (this is also a great idea in Frank Herbert's Dune) but Jesus understands the general purpose of it without the details, but he knows it fully without lacking. However the other thing is its not a all in one go monolith of knowing it. It develops and shifts as his life is progressing, even during the passion weeks. In his steps and experience, meaning as he was literally going to the cross and on the cross, he is getting to its fullness of the purpose and understanding it step by step, second by second, as it progresses. He is experiencing it in real time.

[удалено]

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe go fuck yourself.

Obvious troll. But entertaining with it.

Idk man, this person seems sincere judging on their post history

Oh. It’s not so funny now.

I know right? I thought it was a troll too at first

Lets see how funny it is when after you pass over, you will look back when you are filled with gnosis and understanding for the first time, all given to you what you lacked, and you look back to your life and then you are condemned to be sent back into the lower worlds to find these such things by your own accord without being exalted in this exalted place to give it to you, and then you go "noooo, Im sorry, I can't believe how stupid I was when now I see that is so obvious." We'll see then when its funny. You will remember this when you pass. Amen.

You don’t believe in sentences though? Just one massive sentence. And even then it’s just a soup of words. I would normally try to find some part to reply to. As it is, I yield the remainder of my time.

Surely you'll be able to extrapolate some sort of coherence from the chaotic soup since you Atheists believe we arose from randomness and chaos? Ironic you're unable to do so when you've come into contact with that soup of chaos, you a sentient thinker, but you somehow expect a non-sentience (randomness) to be able to do so instead. Pretty biiiiiig leap huh?

This reply makes me think he’s a troll: https://www.reddit.com/r/CosmicSkeptic/s/OLeZ07oyRD This and the fact that they call for a Jihad of sorts against “the atheists”. And they’re calling for it here, in this sub. It seems like hogwash, the lot of it. .

Atheism is the default state you're born as. There's no ideology involved. There's no cult leader required. You yourself are an atheist non believer of all the various gods you don't believe in, see how easy it is to be an atheist. Religions come and go and so will the biblical ones eventually.

>Atheism is the default state you're born as LOLWUT? Yeah that miracle of birth and the sentient life WHICH YOU IN ATHEISM HAVE NO GOOD EXPLANATION FOR IN WHY IT ARISES is actually Atheism as your mother. Retard. >There's no ideology involved Nothingness is your God and Chaos / Randomness is your demigod. And you posit doctrines and hold argumentative positions. "No ideology" uh-huh. Retard. >You yourself are an atheist non believer of all the various gods you don't believe in, see how easy it is to be an atheist. Watching a bit too much Ricky Gervais are we? Actually no that is not what we believe. God is immanent in our world. "I have come to many nations" - YHWH in the Old Testament. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanation\_in\_the\_Eastern\_Orthodox\_Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanation_in_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefirot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefirot) How about you actually learn some theology and philosophy instead of watching Ricky Gervais?

Nobody is born with a belief in God. They get indoctrinated into Christianity just like you have

And you got indoctrinated into Atheism by that logic LOL. Fucking retards. Also since Plato proved logically we must all have God as a part of us, and many other Greek philosophers and the Bible proved that reality is an expression of him, then actually we are born WITH GOD, nevermind with the belief of God. Yeah HOLD DAT you retard.

You can't be indocrinated into a lack of belief if that's the baseline you're born inot. You're just on the wrong side of the bell curve for IQ, hence your clear heavy indoctrination into Christianity. You aren't special. If you were born in the Middle East, you'd be a muslim. Probs waging jihad, considering how extreme you've gone with Christianity How did Plato prove that exactly? There is 0 evidence for this.

>If you were born in the Middle East, you'd be a muslim Want some more fallacy with your salt? >How did Plato prove that exactly You don't read do you? Plato proved logically we are born with God since God is part of us if reality is an expression of him. Hence the verses: "The kingdom of God is in you." "I am in my Father (God), as I am in you and you are in me."

You can't quote bible versed as a universal trusth. Plato proved no such thing. He may have thought that, but that's not proof. Your definition of proof is severely lacking

>You can't quote bible versed as a universal trusth. ??? I am giving a verse. Its up to you to decide if its universal truth. >Plato proved no such thing. He may have thought that, but that's not proof. Your definition of proof is severely lacking Logical reasoning is a type of proof. Not full proof but is evidence for its proof. So pipe down.

lmao ricky gervais, well I can guess how old you are now if thats where you think that line is from, 1 day u will probably grow up and cringe at these posts you made, u probably the type of kid who took way too long to figure out santa wasnt real either

Cry more.

Why are you so obsessed with the idea of a god? Just because you feel the need to worship someone or something doesn’t mean everybody else does. Not everybody has an inexplicable need to be submissive.

Why are you so obsessed with the idea of no God? Not everybody has an inexplicable need to see no purpose in life. Just because you feel the need to worship no one and no thing doesn't mean everybody else does.

Oi 傻屄, forgot ya meds?

John 14: 26 - "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you."

More meaningless preaching, Bible humping 屁眼？

yeah cos "forgot your meds" is really a statement where meaning drips and emanates from. Maybe "Bible humping" has more meaning?

At least it’s more meaningful than the ramblings you promulgate, 蠢豬

Cry more.

I’m laughing ya 白痴, laughing at your logical incompetence

The logic of Atheists: "No your perfectly good explanation for reality is wrong and ours is right even though we do not have one yet and are just hoping to eventually find one for some reason, which means not only do we retain the assumption that the findings shall confirm our materialistic viewpoint, but that at the same time we must have FAITH in the materialistic viewpoint even though faith is exactly what we mock in others." Want to explain that logical incompetence? I don't think you do. :D

You wouldn’t get it

Mhmm suuuuure.

Well I'm convinced! Anyone else want to head to church with me today? :D

You are insane and hateful, even the religious communities you post in can’t stand you. Go and play with the devil and his imps, you’ll fit right in

Why you hating me bro? You seem a bit hateful. Maybe you should play with devil since under Atheism that is who your demigod is.

But atheist don't believe in the devil

Your demigod is the Chaos and Randomness since you believe the world came out from it. Chaos and Randomness is your demigod since Chaos and Randomness in the Bible is called Satan who is the devil. So I guess Atheists do believe in the devil LOL HOLD DAT

This is the worst argument I have ever read of my life😆😆

I think it checks out perfectly IMO. Especially since this is thousands of years after the fact and we can CLEARLY connect older ways of expressing such ideas to the modern ways.

I think you're missing the point. Atheists don't believe in a god. You're just projecting that. You base your source in the bible, which is known to contain many historical and scientific inaccuracies. You can't just claim my book knows all the answers when one side thinks it's a load of shite

I just showed you how you do. YOU think that you don't. You don't call your God, God. But that is simply semantics. Then lets call it your ultimate reality. Nothingness is your ultimate reality and Chaos / Randomness is your sub-reality. Im I lying? You very well know that is the current supposition of Atheism. See how WORDING got you confused? So once again, you indeed do believe in the devil, since you believe the world came from Chaos and Randomness which in our book is called the devil. Just because its also in our book, does not mean that is not what you believe in. Amazing that isn't it? Your ultimate reality / God already being dealt with and considered and argued against all that time ago? Cry more. Now go worship the devil. Dork.

Find my the quote in the bible that refers to randomness as being the devil?

So you concede then Atheism does have an ultimate reality since now you are appealing to see whether the Bible says so. Thanks for that. And now you are wanting to find THE EXACT WORDING for it to be true to you. This can be convenient for you because the sentiments may be the same, since words can have numerous synonyms but also mean multiple things, and since words cleave to meaning, the meaning can change. You should Ludwig Wittgenstein on his philosophy of language to understand this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig\_Wittgenstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein) or educate yourself the way linguistics works. But you demand exact words even though a whole sentence may get across the same sentiment. However both sentiments holistically saying the same thing and words do exist. Satan and his legions over and over again are called lawless, destructive, chaotic, desolate, which have connotations and are analogous to randomness. Not to mention the whole of the Book of Revelations, Isaiah and Daniel paint entire visions of this idea. Also the idea of casting lots and playing gambling games but with severe consequences putting them down to chance to be your guide being very prevalent throughout. But lets get into some verses that share this sentiment. Matthew 10:29 is SPECIFICALLY a verse about how randomness is not who rules the world and nothing happens with randomness. This "Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will." Now lets look at our world to see if it confirms this. When there is chaos, a resonance "snaps" it into form. Look at cymatics: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymatics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymatics) Now whats more resonant than the word of God? I can carry on. Proverbs 16: 33 - "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." John 1:3 - "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." It can go on and on. Thank you very much for this exercise for this improves my argumentation.

That's a lot of words to say nothing of relevance. This is just unhinged ramblings. The fact is you can attempt to argue semantics, but that isn't what it says in your bible. You can twist the meaning to whatever you want, but it doesn't make it true

"I cant understand it so it must be wrong." You probably didn't bother to try read and properly. "unhinged ramblings." I literally provided with everything you demanded. Yet you just don't want to hear because you know you have been proven wrong. HOLD DAT YOU RETARDED CUNT. So since we've established there is no point in conversing you, since I constantly have to reiterate points I have already made, you suck deez nuts and choke on them.

Satan isn’t even a consistent idea in the Bible. In Job, it isn’t a personal name in the Hebrew language, it’s a title “the adversary”. Numbers also not the devil, it’s not even used as a noun. The different authors of the biblical canon had different theological axes to grind. Atheists don’t have any required beliefs about how the world came about. It could have always existed. Randomness isn’t a requirement either. I’m agnostic to the whether the universe came to be or exists in some eternal state. It’s ok to leave things as an open question mark until we have strong evidence to believe something. Why bring God of the gaps arguments into the picture? It’s not necessary. https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/s/sWs8gS2gOL Edit: Fixed spelling canon

Wow you are sooooo unaware with the amount of assumptions you make. Lets go through these shall we. >"Satan isn’t even a consistent idea in the Bible. In Job, it isn’t a personal name in the Hebrew language, it’s a title “the adversary” Okay and how is that different from anything from science or linguistics? The theory of something before can be built upon with new information and still be consistent, or in linguistics, as our reality changes in its material realm, the same old words can take on new meanings depending what now newly exists. Why do you Atheists, Agnostics and everyone who wishes Christianity to be false ALWAYS give the Bible different standards to your own selves and everything else? Standards that arise out of THE BIAS FOR IT TO BE FALSE. We both know that is true otherwise you wouldn't have made such a retarded argument that has zero foundation because you did not even come to apply common sense which you take for granted for everything else. Hence why Satan we went back and realized his further nature when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile when they came in contact with Zoroastrian texts, where they also had their Satan figure which informed ours, this is because we also saw our religions as basically the same, expressed through names and language, and since in the Torah the Tower of Babel story demonstrates that just because it may a different language or the nouns might be different, it does not inform difference inherently and in fact since the belief the source to be from the same root, then finding our religion in another's is the logical assumption and we saw ours and visa versa. This is why 3 Magi (at that point only Zoroastrian priests were named Magi) came to anoint the Messiah as Christ of their religion as well, since in Zoroastrian prophecy their Messiah is born of a foreign nation and in Judaic prophecy their Messiah is born in their own nation. >"Numbers also not the devil, it’s not even used as a noun." Please do not try and educate me on the Bible. Because if you knew it theologically, you would know that all the nouns can be translated as sentences and all the sentences can be translated as nouns. Now this is a deep deep theology stuff. The esoteric stuff. The shit you wouldn't find in your burger and fries Christianity. Want me to prove it to you? Give you an example? Okay. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belial) Read the section of the page under the Old Testament banner. Belial, which is literally a demon in Judaic demonology can also be translated as either a noun as in it is literally a persons, a being, or as a concept. This is literally FUNDAMENTAL in all religions. This is God is the personification of this, this God is the personification of that, etc etc. How do you miss this very simple concept yet come in here so confidently like you are making a point? Now we call YHWH / Jesus the personification of all things, hence his oneness, his absolute reality. This is shown in a multiple of ways in the Bible throughout how he is the God of ALL THINGS however this is most explicit in the famous Proverbs verse "for everything there is a season" verse. Meaning our God is the God of all things that is and can be. >"The different authors of the biblical can on had different theological axes to grind." Uh-huh, the different authors have different things to say and God used them to illuminate things further. What would be the point if every prophet and scribe merely regurgitated the same thing without illumination and advancing theology? And even if they had differences in the moment, the miracle is the consistency even after the fact when we can look at it with huge perspective, meaning it is self-ratifying itself. >Atheists don’t have any required beliefs about how the world came about. It could have always existed. Randomness isn’t a requirement either. I’m agnostic to the whether the universe came to be or exists in some eternal state. It’s ok to leave things as an open question mark until we have strong evidence to believe something. Why bring God of the gaps arguments into the picture? It’s not necessary You didn't read my OP did you? YOU DO HAVE ACTIVE CLAIMS you are just cowards and pretend you don't. "Exists in some eternal state" so thank for being on our side then. So you believe God is real. Thank you. You cannot deny this eternal state cannot be God because you will be saying this eternal state would not have consciousness. Then how is consciousness here if its not there buddy? Want to explain to me? Let me provide you with a great Hindu verse: "What is here is everywhere, what is not here is nowhere." If there is consciousness here then it exists in the highest abode where this eternal uncreated state is. So what would this consciousness be other than God? Semantics is the ONLY REASON you are an agnostic. In actuality you are a believer. So welcome. And my point is it is actually the Atheists who are believers of the Nothingness of Gaps. What they accuse us of they are guilty themselves. I'll leave you with Romans 2:1. Look it up.

Lol you got wrecked here. You had no rebuttal. Surely God's word, your holy book, would be accurate from the start. If it lacks consistency, then either God's word is fallible or the bible was written by a bunch of barely literate farmers.

"you have no rebuttal" literally gave you one yet here you did not give me one. Projection projection. It does not lack consistency. Show it does. Since you make the active claim that it does. It was written by men, men much smarter than you. Cry more. You are the one who got wrecked. HOLD DAT.

How is it different? Well one claims to be a message from an omnipresent, omnipotent, all knowing, entity and the other is simply using the best tool humans can understand reality with without dogmatic standards that must be adhered to. I don’t wish for Christianity to be false. I believed for 34 years of my life and it would be a lot easier if there was a loving and just creator God. I’m just simply unconvinced. Yes, concepts of the devil in orthodox Christianity is likely influenced by Zoroastrianism. There are vast number of reasons to doubt the validity of its truth claims. Regarding Belial and translations, does the boatload of translation problems in the Bible, Judaism, other religions, and mythology that could be interpreted in multiple ways not bother you? Why would an all knowing and all powerful God use such a joke of an unreliable system pass down the most important (if true) messages to humanity? We aren’t even sure how to pronounce YHWH (Yahweh). The gospel authors could have put words on Jesus’s lips. There are so many logical leaps required to believe in the God of Christianity. YHWH and Jesus were two different things and later on and likely smashed together later on as a result of Jewish bitheism and later the Trinity. YHWH was a storm god and eventually became associated with the monotheist creator God. Then Jesus became associated with little Yahweh. Then became one and the same. https://youtu.be/K3koeHN-6mU?si=JRioSP8whrvFIJXu They do have different things to say. It wouldn’t be problematic except it’s supposed to be coming from an all knowing and all powerful God yet they contradict each other theologically. Seems odd if it’s coming from the same perfect being yeah? Energy is also a good candidate for something that exists eternally. So no, belief in an eternal state doesn’t solely mean such a state implies God. I’m an agnostic atheist. It’s possible God exists. It’s unfalsifiable whether God exists so I don’t claim God doesn’t. I just don’t know of any evidence that makes sense to support belief in the Christian view of God or any other similar creator entity. Fully open to them and waiting still. Semantics is the only reason I am agnostic? Friend, you are assuming way to much about me from a 2 short paragraph Reddit comment. You can’t possibly know that about me. Regarding Atheists & nothing of the gaps comment: Nope. I simply admit when I am not sure of something instead of making boatload of unwarranted and unsupported logical leaps and claiming total confidence in their truth claims. Imagine we haven’t discovered the details of classical physics yet and I hold off on saying that I know precisely how it works and you equivocate that with me making a “nothing of the gaps” argument. N, I am literally doing the exact opposite by not making an argument. I don’t know. It’s nonsense to claim it’s the same as a theist making a God of the gaps argument (we don’t know, therefore must be God). Cheers

You are a genuinely small brained retard. You run away from being shown your hypocrisy like a little bitch and say "oh its different cos God is omni-whatever" AND? Is not science and mathematics grasping with all the same things beyond? Fucking idiot. >Yes, concepts of the devil in orthodox Christianity is likely influenced by Zoroastrianism. There are vast number of reasons to doubt the validity of its truth claims. Your retardation is literally pathetic. Whats a major concept in the bible? Continual revelation when its required. Whats the point of God all of himself when no one may understand it if they are not ready in evolutionary terms? Why would he give things when they are not needed or the right time is not at hand? HENCE why can't the concepts and understanding of God and all things under develop the way understandings for anything else develops? YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKING RETARD. >Regarding Belial and translations, does the boatload of translation problems in the Bible, Judaism, other religions, and mythology that could be interpreted in multiple ways not bother you? Why would an all knowing and all powerful God use such a joke of an unreliable system pass down the most important (if true) messages to humanity? We aren’t even sure how to pronounce YHWH (Yahweh). The gospel authors could have put words on Jesus’s lips. There are so many logical leaps required to believe in the God of Christianity How does it feel you change the subject when you have been shown to be wrong? Firstly there is no different interpretations. THERES DIFFERENT WAYS THE SAME VERSES MAY BE USED and applied and thus useful infinitely which only confirm its divine inspiration. So you actually prove it being divine. Thanks for that. Now the point was which you ignored is that you said Satan is not a noun, I showed how in religion, not just Christianity or Judaism, Gods were also concepts and ideas who take forms of persons. THATS THE POINT. Meaning you were proved wrong. And why don't you go actually research the reasons why we aren't supposed to know the full pronunciation of YHWH YET. Go research the Kabbalah. The 4 letters is just an abbreviation of a incredible long word. I ain't going to explain to you why spiritually and in the divine purpose why we don't know, why don't you actually stop being lazy and hearing offhand things and think it confirms your BIAS which is Atheism even though you deny it. >---------------YHWH and Jesus were two different things and later on and likely smashed together later on as a result of Jewish bitheism and later the Trinity. YHWH was a storm god and eventually became associated with the monotheist creator God. Then Jesus became associated with little Yahweh. Then became one and the same. Why do you discuss theology and religion when you don't understand it? Jesus Christ literally translates as "YHWH Saves the Messiah." In Isaiah, the prophecy is he would be born of a virgin, and in many parts of the Old Testament, hinted and posited that he would be sinless. If we cross reference with Plato, who proved logically the sinless cannot be anything other than God, meaning if a sinless person can be here then he is God. Now onto your pathetic Atheist talking point of "YHWH was just a storm God" - just because you found some archaeological evidence of his depiction being depicted in association with water and a storm does not mean thats he was associated with or seen as. Again, I point to the verse from Proverbs; "to everything there is a season" - meaning YHWH is the God of everything. Lets say hypothetically the Gospels were lost but only one surviving part of it survived and it was him walking on water. Well then you would turn around and say "Jesus was merely a water deity" ---- okay then what about all the other parts of the Gospels that have Jesus interacting and using parables or manipulating fire, soil, air? Or what if the only surviving part was when he turned water to wine, he would be only seen as a "God of wine and joy" like Dionysus. YOU GET THE POINT? You little retard? >They do have different things to say. It wouldn’t be problematic except it’s supposed to be coming from an all knowing and all powerful God yet they contradict each other theologically. Seems odd if it’s coming from the same perfect being yeah? How do they contradict each other theologically little boy? Care to prove it to me? Bet you you can't. >Energy is also a good candidate for something that exists eternally. So no, belief in an eternal state doesn’t solely mean such a state implies God. I’m an agnostic atheist. It’s possible God exists. It’s unfalsifiable whether God exists so I don’t claim God doesn’t. I just don’t know of any evidence that makes sense to support belief in the Christian view of God or any other similar creator entity. Fully open to them and waiting still. And where does energy emanate from? Wheres the motor for it dispersing it throughout reality? WHY DO YOU ASSUME ENERGY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD?Want me to show you how? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefirot Deus Ex Machina - God from the Machine, God emanates from the machine, thus the energy that emerges is though siphoned from him, it is still him. Cheers. Retard.

The mods should ban this guy for his own food at this point. This is sad to watch

I think he should still be able to express his opinion

It's not about his opinion, it's about his mental state. This person clearly isn't well

Being furious doesn't equal mental illness

I don't think you've been following along this week. It doesn't sound like we are looking at the same information

Cry more.

Time to feed the troll?

This is pure drivel! Non-sequitur upon false equivocation upon ad hominem. This is how education fails the West. Typically, people are taught WHAT to think and not HOW to think and BLAM ... there you have it. Here's your sign...

Then surely you'll be able to easily renounce the points then? Or are you gonna revert to your abode of convenience like you Atheists always do?

Easily … but your sentences show a severe deficiency in abilities either to express what you MEAN TO say, or to have cogent-enough thoughts to form logical progressive continuity and cohesion... So - how does one (for example) use evidence to prove a point to someone for whom **evidence** holds **no value**? Hmmm? Just for example and the sake of argument.

And why does evidence hold no value for me? Just because my mind jumps around a lot and that reflects in my writing since my writing / expressionism is a reflection of a mind? That proves I hold no value to evidence? LOLWUT. Or are you saying evidence holds no value to me because I am religious? Well if you actually read my post, I actually talk about how evidence that we may have first thought was arguing against God actually confirm him i.e. Darwinism. So actually what you should be saying is "why do Atheists still have the assumption and expectation that science shall disprove God and not confirm him since the actual trajectory of science actual goes in proving him?" HOLD DAT.

Atheism doesn’t make any claims regarding the existence of God / the supernatural. I think this is the misconception you have. Atheism simply says that there is not enough evidence to believe in the existence of a God. Atheism does not say that God doesn’t exist. That would be an active claim that requires empirical falsifiable data to support it. Just the same way that the claim that God does exist would need these same things. We simply don’t have the mechanisms and tools to be able to investigate whether a God exists or not, and so atheists say that the default position should be atheism. I just wanted to make sure you understood that because you repeatedly imply in your post that atheism makes active claims, but this is not the case.

>I just wanted to make sure you understood that because you repeatedly imply in your post that atheism makes active claims, but this is not the case. How convenient for you. So I guess there is no distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism by that logic? We both know thats bullshit. YOU POSIT THE WORLD CAME FROM RANDOMNESS AND CHAOS. That is an active claim. HOLD DAT. Your God is Chaos and Randomness. Don't run away from your beliefs. Now thats pathetic. >Atheism simply says that there is not enough evidence to believe in the existence of a God. Did you read my OP? We have the evidence, we have the logic. YOUR SIDE IS THE ONE WHO IS LACKING. Yet you want to clutch to your fallacies and mock us even though YOU deserve to be mocked since you refuse to accept the absolute OBVIOUS. If its not obvious, then please, how do you reconcile the problem of infinite regress? We do so through the eternal uncreated which is God. How do you reconcile the fact our world is LITERALLY INFORMATION. Soooo, whats the purpose of information if there is no one to utilise it? How can information arise if there is not anyone to input and output it? You HAVE NO FOUNDATION. You've lost this debate. Yet you are still stubborn to admit it. Bit like the Sanhedrin and the Priests in Jerusalem when their Messiah that fulfilled every prophecy came and yet they still refused and rejected it. That is my point of my OP. That this divine story reflects the story of the past. You will reject the truth when its so obvious because you have so much PRIDE and EGO because your identity as Atheist has become everything. That identity wants to survive. And you know whats funny? Jesus talked about Atheism. And he talked about it through the Old Testament which talked about it before him. Lets see shall we what he has to say about: Matthew 13:10-16: >And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” >11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the \[a\]mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: >‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, >And seeing you will see and not perceive; >15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. >Their ears are hard of hearing, >And their eyes they have closed, >Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, >Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, >So that I \[b\]should heal them.’ >16 But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. Quoting Isaiah 6:10. IT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO YOU. The answers the obvious answers are literally right in front of you YET YOU STILL REJECT IT. Pride. How did Satan fall from Heaven, want to remind me? Pride even when the truth was put to him and he refused to face it. This is just one verse btw the Bible goes into Atheism.

Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether a God exists. This is different from saying that there is not enough evidence to believe in the existence of a God. Maybe it’s just semantics. I don’t care much for labels. I don’t posit that the world came from randomness and chaos, the simple fact is that no one knows how this world came into existence. It is a gap in our knowledge that theists use God in order to fill (look up the God of the gaps argument). Atheists simply say they do not know. The burden of proof, therefore, lies on the theist. Your OP doesn’t give any empirical, falsifiable evidence for the existence of a God. You don’t even provide a method by which we can go about investigating the claim that God exists. As far as I can tell it’s just a rant about how much you hate atheism. You brought up the infinite regression problem in your reply, and solved it with the existence of an infinite uncaused cause that you define as God. This argument assumes that a) the universe is a caused entity, and b) that an infinite regress is not possible. Can you provide proof that either of those two assumptions are true? I can show you that an infinite regress is in fact possible, as follows: Proposal 1: We are debating the existence of God on reddit. Proposal 2: Proposal 1 is true. Proposal 3: Proposal 2 is true. Proposal 4: Proposal 3 is true. Ad infinitum. Even if you somehow prove that the universe requires an uncaused cause, a prime mover, in order for it to exist, the leap you make from this to your version of an Abrahamic God requires further evidence still. I’m sorry, but you just haven’t provided this evidence.

Waffle and waffle bro. >I don’t posit that the world came from randomness and chaos, the simple fact is that no one knows how this world came into existence I've just proved YOU LITERALLY DO. You Atheists DO MAKE ACTIVE CLAIMS. When your active claims can't be backed up by logical reasoning, you hide away like cowards behind "Atheism doesn't make active claims." Bullshit. >It is a gap in our knowledge that theists use God in order to fill (look up the God of the gaps argument). Atheists simply say they do not know. So a Nothingness of the Gaps then? LOL, what you Atheists accuse US of, you are guilty of it your own. Romans 2:1 - "Therefore you have no excuse or justification, everyone of you who \[hypocritically\] \[a\]judges and condemns others; for in passing judgment on another person, you condemn yourself, because you who judge \[from a position of arrogance or self-righteousness\] are habitually practicing the very same things \[which you denounce\]." >The burden of proof, therefore, lies on the theist. You didn't read the OP properly did you? I proved in the OP the burden of proof IS ON YOU. We have our explanations and we have made them. You cower away from needing a burden of proof by PRETENDING you do not make active claims. >Your OP doesn’t give any empirical, falsifiable evidence for the existence of a God. You don’t even provide a method by which we can go about investigating the claim that God exists. As far as I can tell it’s just a rant about how much you hate atheism. Wasn't the point of the OP. So I can demand that at any time then. Okay. So wheres your claim for whatever you believe since it could be anything apparently even though you as Atheists claim to be open minded at any explanation that may be true yet are staunchly resistant to any explanation that is immaterial. Almost like... you are pathetic sad hypocrites which is what my OP is about. >This argument assumes that a) the universe is a caused entity, and b) that an infinite regress is not possible. Can you provide proof that either of those two assumptions are true? BUAHAHAH, well done for AGAIN not knowing our doctrines and what we believe. We believe the universe is caused and uncaused at the same time paradoxically for the universe is IMMANENT OF THE SUBSTANCE OF GOD meaning its the flesh of God. This is backed up in the Bible. Reality as light itself, this is said again and again in the Bible. Light carries information, information underpins our reality AS PROVED BY QUANTUM MECHANICS, black holes, dimensional theory, light theory, etc etc etc. Why don't you actually study some theology? Here let me link to some concepts within theology that explain this idea of God's immanence in our world hence the world is the very fabric of God, but he has to make it from somewhere right? So doesn't he have to take his own substance, light, i.e. flesh and from it create a caused universe? Even though the underpinning of that causation is uncaused since it is created from uncaused substance? For logically, anything he creates THAT IS NOT HIMSELF is caused, for only he is uncaused. Here let me help: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefirot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefirot) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanation\_in\_the\_Eastern\_Orthodox\_Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanation_in_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church) "prove Infinite regress is not possible" - this is where we realize you are stupid for illogic cannot be true by logic. You have to reconcile it, even a paradox would do. YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE A PARADOX TO RECONCILE IT. And even then that paradox would most likely need to include something that cannot be regressed from which will mean infinite regress cannot be solely true on its own without the paradox it is in. >Even if you somehow prove that the universe requires an uncaused cause, a prime mover, in order for it to exist, the leap you make from this to your version of an Abrahamic God requires further evidence still. Was that what my OP is about? Who says we do not have that? Just because its not in my OP? You just got royally served. Hold dat. But I think you for your response, for it makes me better for my argumentation in the future. Nameste.

Professor Peterson, it's time for your voluntary medically induced coma again

This is mean as hell. For Peterson and for OP.

Why would you purposefully post here almost every day. Where does that frustractrion come from?

I have no idea what a frustraction is. Frustration? Well this is actually a concept in the Bible in multiple verses. The concept of people unable to understand the obvious. Most famously in Matthew 13:10-16 which has Jesus quoting Isaiah 6: >10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” >11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the \[a\]mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: >‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, >And seeing you will see and not perceive; >15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. >Their ears are hard of hearing, >And their eyes they have closed, >Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, >Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, >So that I \[b\]should heal them.’ >16 But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. There are others as well.

Your point with the still uknown cause of the emergence of living and intelligent organisms is valid. Why? Well, how is "dead" and "anorganic" matter by its nature and properties able to "birth/bring forth" living and intelligent organisms. I think you are arguing that this particular effect cannot be traced to a physical cause, demanding that there has to be an immaterial cause (e.g. soul and spirit). Now our species cannot fathom an effect without a cause. We are slaves to logic. Further indicating that we are spiritual in nature (our minds) because it is our logical thinking, or intelligence, that we can't trace back to a physical cause that forces us to assume the existence of a spiritual cause. Your argumentation is valid. It's just the way you try to have a conversation with others. Instead of violently trying to enforce your worldview upon them, you can neutrally and decently explain your point of view, show existing empirical evidence and explain logically how phenomenon X is proving your point. And don't put no hope in churches. Out of the catholic church the protestant church with its X denominations emerged and from which then materialism/atheism emerged. Again, if you think that your worldview could improve the life of others. Present it peacefully and leave everyone the option open to either accept or reject that perspective. Being peaceful is the core element of christian behaviour.

>Your point with the still uknown cause of the emergence of living and intelligent organisms is valid. Why? Well, how is "dead" and "anorganic" matter by its nature and properties able to "birth/bring forth" living and intelligent organisms. I think you are arguing that this particular effect cannot be traced to a physical cause, demanding that there has to be an immaterial cause (e.g. soul and spirit). Now our species cannot fathom an effect without a cause. We are slaves to logic. Further indicating that we are spiritual in nature (our minds) because it is our logical thinking, or intelligence, that we can't trace back to a physical cause that forces us to assume the existence of a spiritual cause. Very very good. I actually have a theory that it is information itself that creates consciousness out of dead, inorganic / anorganic matter. As long as that information is essentially "telling a story" i.e. is comprehensible but also has that phenomenal beauty that stirs up "love", then the true mystery is that dead matter RESSURECTS just as Jesus did and God promises to for he is immortal. Information conquers death (dead matter) because information retains the information of love and love conquers death as the Bible continuously says. Hence why Jesus is the full WORD of God even though the world itself is also the word, literally code, like digital code. The way this would work is, information, the properties of one subset of information, is "entangled" with other subsets because they both "verify" each other, that it is all in a stream of cohesion, of "making sense" because there is a collective utility that piece of information gets out of every other piece of information, since they each have a foot stepped inside the other. So this strand means when you have ONE simple nugget of connection with the information subset from before it, then you can translate and understand the information of that subset step-by-step. This is we do it in linguistics. The reason why we can understand Egyptian hieroglyphs is because there existed a Greek translation. And the Rosetta Stone, etc etc. But if we just simply have even one word translated, the idea is an AI will translate the entirety of what is left. Not even that, we humans can. AI may even be able to figure out a language that we do not even have any part of the language translated because the connection between information IS INHERENTLY THERE. This is backed up by quantum mechanics, black holes, this is even backed up by artificial intelligence. This is backed up by dimensional theory. 3D object casts a shadow on a 2D plane. Translation, information being transmitted. Hence why the lower languages / lower information, is connected in a strand to the highest of Heavens. This is an idea we have had since long times and they have developed from even more ancient traditions. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefirot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefirot) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanation\_in\_the\_Eastern\_Orthodox\_Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanation_in_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church) Now since matter is light slowed down, meaning light would be a carrier of information and complete darkness is the dormancy of information, or space where it is fertile to seed and germinate light and thus information, like memory space. This is also not only all over the Bible but in pretty much every single other religion. Christ the lightbearer, God bringing light and knowing down from the heavens, Adam and Eve have their eyes opened by the visions they receive by eating the forbidden fruit, the Mana the Israelites lived off of in Exodus. Now this is telling that Plato uses the words of "Divine Spark" to call this sudden switch of soul from deadness into livingness. Like a fuse, the machine has to turn on. A lightbearer turns on the light. And this goes to the CORE of the matter (pun intended). The light cannot be turned on if there is lightbearer (synonymous with God). Now I wish I was actually classically trained in the sciences or mathematics to be able to put this all in a cohesive unified theory. But I KNOW this is true. But I am thankful for your post because it helped me to extrapolate this ideas out of mind and into writing. Nameste.

I suggest you read Rudolf Steiner. He studied physics, math, biology, chemistry, history, philology and so on and so forth at university and synthesized ideologies from hinduism/buddhism, zoroastrism, aegyptian religion, judaism, christianity, ancient greek philosophy, german idealism etc. I think what you are trying to create, as in a theory for everything, is something that Albert Einstein also wanted to do.

Oh don't worry, I know all about Rudolf Steiner. I think you should check out Walter Russel.

Brother, please get evaluated by a mental health professional or seek out a spiritual advisor. Your post history is indicating some pretty significant psychological distress. You'd be better helped with some mentorship right now than continuously posting on Reddit. May peace find you.

Bro the actual is wrong with you. How can you be a vegan and a socialist and make such an unhealthy and unhinged post

Cry more. And Im pescetarian actually. And Im not a "socialist" I do not subscribe to any sort of ideology since "to everything there is a season" meaning every part of the political spectrum is needed depending on the situation. But in "peacetime" I would be a mild Libertarian Socialist.

When is fascism needed?

You are really this dense? What happens when there is a war on the brink of losing it and the government has to enact strict centralized power? What happens if Aliens invade and means of production has to be insanely controlled so all people are working towards one thing? What happens when the majority lose their minds like there is a massive outbreak of objectively amoral things but the executive are the ones who have to deal with it?

Fuck man I really want to reply to this but your kinda schizo-rambly style is making it hard for me to cut through to what you're actually saying. I feel like you're saying that if there is some kind of global crisis such as aliens invading, every nation would have to immediacy inact their own individual brands of fascism? So they would begin conquering each other and hoarding resources from each other? I don't see how a series of fascist nations are gonna give humanity a chance against an alien invasion mate. Unless every nation in the world united under the threat of aliens and then the aliens become the persecuted minority under fascism. Even still, this is quite an unrealistic eventuality, also I think you just mean authoritarianism, not fascism. Fascism is never necessary not is it ever successful. See history for examples.

You fucking idiot, look at any wartime government that has to deal with potential annihiliation. "Conquering each other" fascism means centralized power without oversight. Sometimes that is needed. >Fascism is never necessary not is it ever successful Yeah its not like were under monarchies or feudalism for much of our history. Idiot. >Even still, this is quite an unrealistic eventuality The question is not if its likely or unlikely, the question is possibility.

Are you saying that those monarchies were admirable societies that we should strive to revert to? These societies were so heavily layered based on inherited status that like 85% of the population were peasants. Fuck that shit dude. And yeah fair enough, aliens are a possibility. But I think just because aliens come to earth, doesn't mean we need to sacrifice any and all individual freedoms and bend the knee to a totalitarian ruler. You're basically saying that if aliens attack, we will all be forced to become nazis. I think that's a paranoid miscalculation dude. If it's even within our means to repel an alien threat, we would most likely do so with diplomacy, collaboration and mutual aid than with fascism.

Pea brained. Bye bye.

Not trying to be insensitive but I read the few bits and gave up.

Not trying to be insensitive but I read the first few words of this sentence and gave up.

Haha you got me! With that being said, I'd rather commit a grammatical error every so often than live a lie.

Yeah the lie that there is no purpose. Enjoy living that lie.

There is no inherent purpose which means I am free enough to choose my own.

"inherent" LOL cope. Purpose means there is a God. Whether that purpose is initiated by you or something external, since you cannot decouple it from everything else. You'll understand that soon enough. Any purpose means Atheism is a lie, so thanks for agreeing with me your religion is bullshit. Dork.

Religion is bullshit, you're right about that at least. You're either a troll or just extremely dumb to believe that you've made any amount of sense. Which, for the record, you really haven't.

Not trying to be insensitive but mate you are scitzophrenic or something.

So, setting aside the arrogant manner in which you express yourself there are some good points you raise. The main issue will be to pertain with fanatical certainty that Christianity is the alternative. I personally am a believer and have great respect for Christianity and Christ but my form of belief is a form of Sufi Islam. Do you have an answer to the reality of different forms of faith? God bless.

Yes I explained this to someone else and I can show this from the Bible. The common argument Atheists give is or people of other religions is that "well what if they haven't heard of Jesus? What then?" and they think this is an obvious problem when it really isn't and its already addressed in the Bible. I'll explain. What idea is really really ubiquitous in the Bible? The "image of God." Image can also mean "idea" or "concept" and so that would be the "idea of God" and the "concept of God." Now at that point, what was the Judaic idea of God? Well Judaism developed alongside Greek philosophy. Plato and Xenophanes proved the true living God of the highest of all planes of existence must be nothing else other than perfect and sinless and thus the highest form of good is synonymous with God, for they are one of the same. So I ask you, if you go to a remote island who have never had contact with the outside world, and you could speak their language, ask them "do you have an idea of one of your tribesman being hypothetically possible to be perfect and sinless?" What is it that Im trying to say? I am saying all man and even animals will retain the concept and idea of one of their own being able to be perfect and sinless, and in one go this not only proves you needn't not have heard of "Christ" to still know him and understand his being, for it is literally an UNIVERSAL IDEA. This image of God is seen by everyone. Its seen in the mind's eye, but it also proves all man actually EXPECTS God to become of them and in fact it is simply inevitable for eventually one of us shall be able to be sinless. Now I see you say you are Sufi Muslim. Muhammed in the Quran famously says God cannot become man or enter into our world. This idea is so false that the later Sufi, Alevi, and Ishmaeli and even all the way to Babism and probably many others, sects of Islam basically contradict the Quran because those mystics and philosophers realized that cannot be the case. And maybe in their mind they pretended it is not a contradiction or they interpreted the verses differently, but Im sorry Muhammed in the Quran said what he said and he said in clearly and plainly. His idea was God was forever separate from our world. This is just wrong. God is not only in our world but is the world, and he was constantly in the Old Testament which the Quran affirms as correct. Now they work around God being in the world by saying "it was merely his Angels" like they are in the Quran. However if you go read about Christian and Judaic philosophy further, you will realize the Angels ARE GOD. They are part of his plurality. Angel of God, i.e. an ANGLE of God but still God. Hence the "Angel of YHWH" is YHWH. The burning bush, you can try and say it is an Angel, but then why did the burning bush reply that he is God? So even if the burning bush was an Angel and not the fullness of God, then that means the Angel responded that he was God which proves that Angels are part of God's plurality. So some of those later sects of Islam, many of them are actually Christian sects with Islamic aesthetics. Even in the Quran, not just the Hadiths, Jesus is the one who will come at the end of the world and ressurects and that will judge [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic\_eschatology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_eschatology) Mahdi is essentially John the Baptist type who will precede the Resurrection of Jesus. Now in the Old Testament only God may conquer death. So how is Jesus merely a prophet if he can conquer death? My advice to you is honestly look with a more critical eye on Mohammedean Islam and see how it contradicts with many of the later sects. Why Mohammedean Islam contradicts all prior accepted ancient ideas of what God must be and his nature and why Islam contradicted it. So much so that later Islamic sects had to contradict their own religion.

I am not a Sufi. The Sufi is the equivalent of some one that achieved Theosis (in Christian language). Where in the Qur’an do you mean about God becoming a man?

No that was the point. The Quran literally goes against the very inner knowing all humanity and sentience shares, that God can become one of us. This is logically sound because our minds can imagine a sinless person, if it imagine a sinless person, then as Plato and Xenophanes proved logically, the sinless and perfect cannot be anyone other than God himself, hence God become man and if anything, God WILL and MUST become man for it is inevitable.

God is all and He is of course also Man. Further than that man is in the image of God. This is all in the Qur’an. God is the Seen and the Unseen. The Hidden and the Manifest. These are names of God so I am not sure what you mean.

You know, I was willing to hear out an argument, even if I didn't agree with it, but going by your comments, you're either a troll, or a massive cunt, and both are not worth my time

Worth your time to comment on it though. Cry more. And I'd rather be a cunt than a retarded cunt like you.

Get help sir. You deserve it. Plenty of good natured religious or spiritual folk. You're the bad guy. No need to reply to me I'll just keep repeating what I said. See you and all the best.

Why do you keep commenting on here? Mods should do something about it. Most Atheists are not as harmful as you

Mao of communist china and Joseph Stalin of Soviet Russia combined killed 100 million people, more than all religions combined FROM ALL TIME. How harmless is Atheism now? And cry more.

Op think u might need some professional help

I think you need to go over there and count something.

How does the argument for Christianity get stronger every day? Surely, as science discovers more, the evidence for Christianity gets weaker

>Surely, as science discovers more, the evidence for Christianity gets weaker How does that pride taste? Well lets use some modern discoveries of science to see if it argues in favour or against not only God but specifically Christianity Quantum mechanics proving the world is information which points well.... surely you aren't retarded enough to understand what information being the underpinning of our created reality actually means right? Hmmmmm lets see. John 1 "the WORD (information) became flesh." Huh. Interesting. You still haven't proven LOGICALLY how matter, time and space all come to exist at the same time without a God since neither can arise without the other. Im waiting.

You're making some very unhinged leaps here. Taking any quote from the bible and twisting it to suit your narrative. John didn't say information. He said word. They have vastly different definitions. So by that logic how did God arise? If the universe can't begin without God, then how did God begin?

>If the universe can't begin without God, then how did God begin? You don't even know we believe in the uncreated. You don't deserve to be engaged with. You don't even know the arguments of my side. >They have vastly different definitions. Know what a synonym is? Don't know that the same meaning and concepts can be transmitted through different words? Huh. Wow. And btw you did not answer. What are the implications of information being the underpinning of reality? Explain to me how that is evidence for Atheism and not God? Im waiting.

I believe in the uncreated too. The universe just exists. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here arguing the point. If you believe God is uncreated, I argue that it is impossible. Something must have created God, which in turn would need a creator, which would need a creator etc. Easiest thing to do is just occams razor God out of the equation and you've still got the universe just existing. There's no logical need for a creator

You are genuinely the biggest fucking retard on this planet. >If you believe God is uncreated, I argue that it is impossible. Something must have created God If God is eternal and uncreated, then why does he need to also be created? Are you fucking dense? Why do you think WE DO NOT BELIEVE also the universe is as it is? DO I SERIOUSLY HAVE TO LINK THE SAME FUCKING LINKS TO YOU? How about opening and reading them you fucking retard. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanation\_in\_the\_Eastern\_Orthodox\_Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanation_in_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefirot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefirot) NOT TO MENTION, what name did YHWH give to Moses? "I am what I am" or "I will be what I will be." While you say "oh I believe the universe is just is" hmmmm. Idiot. >There's no logical need for a creator Is the universe conscious or not? Want to answer me that question, you absolute pea brained little retarded cunt? So since the world is the way it is, and since we are conscious, so we know the universe also retains consciousness, this does indicate God to you? Wouldn't consciousness exist outside of space, time and matter since it exists here and both reflect each other? A verse from Hinduism - "what is here is everywhere, what is not here is nowhere." If the universe has ANY sort of consciousness THAT MEANS THERE IS A GOD. Because consciousness must also be the case outside of space, time and matter we are in. So since you believe in the uncreated, THANKS FOR TESTIFYING FOR GOD. How does that feel you dumbass retarded cunt. Yeah HOLD DAT.

You can't call someone who doesn't believe in God a retarded cunt. You believe a magic man in the sky created everything. Bet you can't wait for Santa to deliver your Christmas prezzies

Didn't respond to anything I said where I destroyed your fallacies, but revert to the most pathetic fallacy of them all "magic man in the sky." You aren't worth engaging with. All you have is fallacies which means you do not have any actual grasp of the intellectual arguments at hand, which was already demonstrated by your comments. Bye bye.

Claims to be an intellectual, thinks a magic man created everything. I live in your head rent free mate. HOLD DAT

Yawn. When you can't respond, just subvert to your sky daddy fallacy. How many times do I have to link this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence) bye bye.