Message from @Mozalbete ⳩
Discord ID: 570373552914563073
I'd say it's important to believe for the sake of believing God is truthful. Maybe it doesn't define the existence of God, but it's a statement on his nature.
Regarding those other things, of all the things that people say there is no evidence today, there is evidence tomorrow, and of some there is, but people ignore it
Start picking and choosing what to believe, you're left with a liar of a God
well belief in God can be conclusively reached through reason regardless of whether you've even heard of Christ or not
this idea that there is no proof is silly, there clearly is
perhaps not any physical or material evidence
And from there Christianity follows naturally
So long as you don't outright dismiss metaphysics <:bruh:569616839340982272>
but it's completely philosophically logical
Yes, once you acknowledge God, Christianity stands as the most rational
We wave you as example Aquinas' arguments, bruh, but you said that "why isn't da universe the uncaused cause",to which we pointed out that "da universe" is just a collection of things
this ^
what is this? An Image for ants?
as for the flood situation, whatever happened has no weight on the existence of God
if you click it and then click open original you can zoom in
I can still hardly read it
Yeah sure
are you on mobile or pc?
im on muh laptop
I am zoomed in all the wy
The image is bigger
at any rate, the existence of God is philosophically demonstrable
if the flood did happen, it's perfectly logical for God to have been able to do it, and if it didn't happen exactly literally as scripture recounts, that's also consistent with God
And those things are not that important, because the centerpiece of Christianity is the resurrection of Christ
Can you tell me what the philosophical argument is
well, the unmoved mover
so, the mere fact that there is something, as supposed to nothing needs an explanation
something either actually is, or potentially is
potential cannot make itself actual, i.e, things need causes
so if everything needs a cause, then somewhere along the line there needs to be a reality which can cause yet is uncaused, or else you end up with an infinite regress
Now from our experiences on Earth, the unmoved mover's premises and even its conclusion, seem to be true
P1) Everything that happens or exists must have a cause
P2) The universe began to exist
C) Therefore, the universe had a cause
In order to prevent infinite recession, one must assume there is a first cause, an unmoved mover. Now this argument alone can be used to justify the belief in an unmoved mover, HOWEVER it does not justify the believe that the unmoved mover is
1) sentient and omnipotent
2) Still in existence
3) Infallible
Those are infered, along things like univity and perfection
well to start at number 2
if the unmoved mover is purely actual, and not potential, it couldn't not exist since that would make it potential
as for omnipotence, if the unmoved mover is not omnipotent that would mean there are unrealised potentials. This cannot be since it is purely actual
as for sentient, to create ex nihilo/be the first cause requires an act of the will.
Not to mention that we can't create sentience from non-sentience