Jesus

(Waiting for comments to start a war)

😌🙏

The Holy Trinity, Mathematically Debunked

This relies on acknowledging the precept of "things that are identical are indiscernible" is indisputable, which it isn't.

see: every instance of natural mimicry

I hate it when religious people start to participate though - they flush logic and reason down the toilet the moment it's convenient and just deflect to "faith" or "the bible" (or their holy book of choice - which of course, is just an extension of "faith")

Even if they start to make the semblance of a rational argument, it's better to just ignore them - literally a waste of time, proven time and time and time and time again.

If they were intelligent enough to actually participate in the discussion (and I mean the general discussion about whether supernatural shit exists), they already wouldn't believe whatever bullshit they believe.

Whoever (inevitably) decides to try anyways: do you really think that you're SUCH a good teacher, that in the course of one discussion you can elevate someone's intelligence by 2000 years?

Quite egotistical of you to think you can shatter years of brainwashing and circular reasoning.

Maybe you see it as practice - something to hone your "logic" and "reasoning" abilities? You have to realize that it's cruel though, right? I do, when I do it. It's like torturing severely autistic children with Calculus...

Revel in the cruelty then. Just know what bitter fruits your labor will yield.

If breaking the satanic spell that holds the greater consciousness hostage is considered "evil" then call me Adolf Hitler.

It sounds as though you hold the dogma of science high without considering the basis of all reality; that before any actualization can occur, there must first be a desire for the object/outcome, and the will to complete the task that will provide your desired outcome. Based on that one precept, God must exist before anything else can, as anything that exists had to have a prerequisite desire and willpower for it to actualize within reality. Without accounting for those universal prerequisites, there can be nothing more than supposition on the nature of reality.

Absolute nonsense. Like I said - torturing autistic children with Calculus.

I guess this sort of philosophy is too high IQ for the layman. I recommend reading the Kybalion and Mind Power: Secrets of Mental Magic to better understand the concepts at play here.

But to simplify the concept even further; before *anything* can happen, there must *first* be a desire *for that thing* to exist, before it can *actually* exist.

So before the whole of reality was created, something or *someone* needed to have desired it.

And that *someone* is the Lord God.

Ergo the whole of reality and everything you understand is underpinned by God's desire.

This isn't debatable, it's the logical beginning to any sort of argument that could ever be made. Without acknowledging this basic fact, you will never, *ever* be able to form a coherent argument for anything.

GG @Fuskand, you just advanced to level 1!

Why does existence require desire?

Because before you do anything you need to desire it to happen. It's the process of actualization.

the universe doesn't operate under the same limits of human will and body. There's a quasar right now shooting hundreds of trillions of gallons of water from a collision with another celestial body, and nothing more causes that than the trajectory both were following.

Except for the fact that desire isn't an exclusive quality of living matter.

Take, for example, the existence of molecules.

yes it is, more specifically sentience and will. Only human traits.

Atoms themselves demonstrate likes and dislikes. Atoms have preferences for which other atoms they will pair up with or reject.

Desire isn't a human quality, it exists within *everything*.

you're anthropomorphizing basic physics, and I don't see why.

Then explain *why* atoms have preferences and how molecules are formed without an arbitrary standard.

I'll wait.

the essential laws that dictate the material universe. No why, no what if, just how.

And the essential laws are based off of a desire for *those specific laws* to be the effect.

So it all comes back around to who or what desired these laws and their intended effects.

Otherwise you have no basis to go off of and any argument you make is completely arbitrary and cannot stand on its own.

Again, you're baselessly shoehorning the concept of desire to inanimate objects.

A rock can travel hundreds of miles a desert due to wind. "What" desired that?

I'm not though. There is a base, and I've already demonstrated that. Atoms have their preferences, their likes or dislikes, concerning what other atoms they join up with to form molecules.

You cannot explain that phenomenon without the basis of desire