/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules

(used to delete files and postings)

Open file (18.44 KB 119x137 discount pikachu.png)
Anonymous 07/17/2021 (Sat) 02:05:42 No.1202
>If something exists, it must have a creator >Our universe exists >Our universe must have a Creator Wait, but doesn't that ALSO imply that the Creator must have a creator, and so forth for him, and so forth for eternity? Pic not related.
>>1202 >what is transcendence
>>1202 Why come to /christian/ to ask this? Surely you must have already researched this yourself, right? >Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers
Open file (1.17 MB 640x1138 actin sus.webm)
>>1206 what IS trancendence?
>>1208 >having that saved
>>1202 If something begins to exist it has a cause. God is basically the foundation of all reality. He never came into being. He has always existed.
>>1224 You'll never get across to a relativist this way, sadly. They don't believe in an coherent external reality.
>>1219 I think it's a just random zoomer visiting. but among us is a good game though
That is already assuming the qualities of "nothing", time and that universe began to exist. Seeing as we don't know what actual "nothing" would mean Empty space isn't nothing or how it would act, we assume that nothing can't meta-physically create anything but we actually don't know. It might be that nothing allows things to pop into existence, or that "nothing" can't exist. We also can't really be sure that the universe began to exist, it seems intuitive, but time is a bizarre thing and a quality of space rather than a singular line that we usually think about. Time flows differently at different points in space depending on gravitational pull and speed at which you are traveling. The first mover argument and the Kalam are not good arguments, they are mostly internally consistent, but they operate on a very rigid logic that fails to account the plethora of possibilities that exist. It is quick to deem certain things as absurd when it is simply impossible to know, and our understanding of the concepts it bases its argument on becomes more fuzzy. We have examples of things coming from seemingly next to nothing like quantum fluctuations, but it's really complicated and bizarre. In short, those arguments don't hold watter to be honest.
>>1225 Most people are perspectivists today, not relativists.
>>1254 What's the difference, aren't they just shades of the same color?
>>1255 There's an enormous difference. Relativists deny the very existence of truth as an objective possibility. They say that every single viewpoint is equal and that one can't make value judgements between them. Perspectivists merely claim that a human cannot reach the truth, whether it exists or not, because of his implicit biases and subjective distortions. All facts are subject to interpretation, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every single belief is equal to each other, merely that you cannot be certain of your beliefs 100% and that they might be subject to change or be distorted due to your biases and subjective outlook.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

no cookies?