How do they know that God does not exist?

How do they know that God does not exist?

There's no evidence to suggest that God exists.

Japs are just bitter because they clung onto their false god known as the Emperor/scam cult
Then they get mad that their god always leads to disappointment

their brain is directly connected to reddit

The whole white room part of this manga was cringe af, and was just used mainly to confirm how Gantz tech reached earth, the rest was just the author trying to shoehorn some of his le edgy nihilistic views on life and people but overall it felt like reading a 16 y/o take on philosophy
This is what happens when a brainlet author with no real knowledge of philosophy tries to write a character that's super deep and knowledgeable about the universe and shit, it just comes out as very superficial bullshit
The characters asking it questions also didn't make any real good question, and was mostly retarded shit and taking the answers at face value without much rebuttal
Not like it would have been better if they did made the right questions, as the alien would have just spouted shit like "it is what it is" because the author is a retard

If a man rises from the grave in front of you, will you believe then?

Only if that man has been dead for years and he comes back with his original body.

I'm not an ironic weeb, I never complain about the way Japanese people think, and I respect the way they understand the cosmos
But EVERY time a mangaka tries to write about Western religion, I cringe so hard
They have 0 idea, they really think god is like a kami with human qualities who can be killed

How about a blind man who's been blind for years making full recovery.
Will that make you believe then?

What happened to the grave man? Too hard for your faggot god?

the white room scene was a mistake

we are le super advanced reddit aliens that gave you tech, we know everything so just trust us

then tell us why X is like that?

because thats how it is, you see? I'm super smart, also god doesn't exist and you are just dust lol kthxbye

I can't take Gantz seriously.

If he does that, will you believe then?

christfags seething over a shitpost

Go back nigger lovers, you never belonged in a Japanese medium

These entities remind me of the demiurge, or all these godlike entities that exist in Buddhism
They think they are gods, they think there's nothing beyond, but they're wrong. maybe god exists in the Gantz universe, but these aliens can't understand it
In the end, humans win for some reason. The ending is surprisingly heartwarming in a way

I already said that in my first reply, godtard.

It would be helpful, where are all the people rising from graves? fireballs? It never happens in my vicinity. All you have is fags saying Bigfoot exists. srsly. shit sucks

Osaka Expo in Oct 2025. Japan will know the one true God.

You kidding? People rising from the grave is so documented that scientists coined it as Lazarus Syndrome

Oftentimes, they carry messages about the afterlife and seeing things that they shouldn't be capable off - i.e being able to see and narrate the operation with medical accuracy and even seeing things long hidden on the roof

Iirc, around 30% of surgeries end up with the patient having an out-of-body experience

supporting literal astroturfed slop

The goys won after all

Kami-sama is real.

Cope
Luce straightened the road

Probably the same way that regular humans assert things about the afterlife or other things that can't be measured

why so many people seethe about God not existing when it literally doesn't exists

youtube.com/watch?v=W23LKD9Z1hw

We don't belive in horror scopes, so we ignore it
We don't believe in Buddha, so we ignore it

But say that you believe in Jesus and you are seething.

Is there a complete gantz anime? I want to get into it but I keep dropping the manga

Why people think the non-existence of God is cringe and edgy?

It is cringy and edgy
No god, no culture, no art

That's why atheists are all just anti-culture, anti-tradition and make the most atrocious art imaginable
Can't build their own so they just subvert what exists and become ugly as hell

No god, no culture, no art

Cavemen drew on walls. If you're going to claim that it wasn't *real* art until God came into the mix, you're working backwards from your conclusion and making a dishonest argument.

Medical error doesn't mean there's a god. Scientists tested "Out of body experiences" and it's just the body doing what it does when it's on magic mushrooms due to low oxygen in the brain and sedatives.

Cave men are faithful

Dead means DEAD

No heartbeat, no pulse, no blood circulation
Brain dies in one minute without new oxygen, let alone blood

And yet, we have cases of rising from the grave HOURS and even DAYS after, with zero complications

Chemical reaction my fucking ass
Meducal error my fucking ass

A miracle is a miracle

There is no complete adaptation, and I'm not sure there ever will be.

you're going to hell btw, christians just believe in the stuff that benefits them and ignores all the hard parts about going to heaven

Exist in this context could be just mean dead.
or something like simulation theory. e.g. Devs.
Universe in the box, if we could make our own we'd become "God"s.
God is something simply beyond understanding.
To humans; the forces of Gantz embody that.
I am not talking about Christian/heaven and hell but just something so strong and beyond our own current limitations.

did the anime ever get remastered to HD? To my knowledge it isn’t available in even 720p. Manga was fun but I dropped it w/o finishing cos the inconsistencies bothered me. Definitely a series that degrades in quality as it goes on.

Why people think the non-existence of God is cringe and edgy?

is not the argument of non-existence, its how it was delivered, it was shallow, didnt have any real debate about it and people still took it at face value just because ayyy lmao

Humans can't write it well. You either sound like an teenage atheist or you avoid the issue altogether/play agnostic. It's like how every alien culture every conceived is some mishmash of human cultures throughout time.
The closest you can get to pulling it off is "show, don't tell." The failure to stick to that rule, the attempt to explain creatures far beyond human understanding in human terms, is the ruin of so many sci-fi stories.

It's a shitpost bro

I'm talking about the content presented on the manga, not the retarded opinion of some anon

Yes you should also dress up in blackface and do mass shootings, everything in gantz is meant to be taken seriously as a commentary on real life including its endorsement of Buddhist reincarnation, it's a blackpill Manga that says you need to be cloned in order to get with the hot girl idol people jerk off to

There's also no evidence to suggest that God doesn't exist.

Idk tatsuya egawa does it pretty well in golden boy.

Isn't the whole point of Christianity that God took on human qualities, lived like a human, died like a human, and rose from the dead to show humans how it's done?

If God doesn't exist, then why does existence exist?

Does it need a reason?

Yes, everything needs a cause. So what caused the first cause? Is that thing not God?

everything needs a cause

Why?

Because logic and reason.

This. The aliens thought they got everything figured out. They have proven souls exist and reincarnation exists. Yet they absolutely prove that god doesn't exist. Simply because they have superior knowledge and have not retrieved any data on god doesn't mean that there wasn't room for god in the observable Gantz universe or outside of it. The author simply lacked imagination and wisdom to see that far.

they

Who? Literally who is that. Also who the fuck are vampires

So what made God?

God doesn't need a cause because he is God. That is the definition.

actually, I did have a weird vision that I shitposted on Anon Babble once and practiced mild clairvoyance... but my beliefs are closer to animism. Sorry.

There is circumstantial evidence. In this world simulations of other worlds exist, and all of those simulations have creators known as game developers. Have you seen a simulation created in this world that can't be traced back to a conscious creator? I have not. So from the evidence we have we can only assume that our world also has a game developer. That's the only data we have

Sounds like a cop-out explanation.

Because if God existed, He would not condone Gantz.

What's Gantz

a miracle is a miracle

may I see it?
Besides, good and proper Christian theology decries all miracles as the work of charlatans.

Gantz is all the Lara Croft look-a-likes we got to bang on our journey.

Why are you ascribing the nature of "God" to something so abstract and meaningless as "the first cause". The first cause is just the first cause.
God is something more specific, unless you openly admit to heresy here.

Also, if you say that you KNOW that God exists, you are also a heretic.

I think God would be okay with that

reincarnation is real tho

what did they mean by this?

this manga was so late 2000s edge

may I see it?

Your birth. You were nothing and then you were something. That defies the laws of physics. I'm not talking about your body by the way, I know you'll pretend that you don't understand what you not existing means but we both know you do

Wasn't there something about how soul exis tor something shit like that, like when someone dies some grams of matter are missing or shit like that.

But how do you know that?
From my perspective I didn't really exist until around a year ago or so. The person I was before is long dead and buried.

Just take your 21 grams of data and fuck off.
It literally started in 2000

Because God has existed, does exist and will exist forever. That's in the Nicean Creed, if you disagree with that creed, you are the heretic.

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

The Nicean Creed is perfectly compatible with God not being the first actor.

I fucking hate atheists but gantz did everyshit what readers want, it's actionkino, nothing else, the hatred to gantz ending were too forced & manipulated
no wonder he blamed his readers in his next work I'd do literally same thing

From my perspective I didn't really exist until around a year ago or so

Well there you go. I'm not here to argue semantics. I'm just telling you, here's something out of nothing, your dumb ass, soon to be nothing out of something. Also a miracle that defies laws of physics btw

I can't tell if you guys are serious or just having a laugh and arguing about something you don't actually care about because it gives you something to do.

why does existence exist

sorry, you implied the duality of non-existence with this statement, can you show us the non-existence?
haha just kidding, i already know you cant prove existence nor non-existence.
dualism midwits really having a field day in this thread

How are the laws of physics being defied?

No, it's not.
The Creed states

by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth

Which logically means that no other thing could have acted first before him as nothing else was there but him.
God is the only thing that has existed in the beginning.

hatred to gantz ending were too forced

Nah, he set up too much and delivered too little. It was essentially just another mission and nothing was actually explained. That's not a good ending

But it's not semantics.
I am making a point about the continuity of consciousness here.
From an experiencial perspective, which is what you appealed to in the first place by talking about birth, there is a constant process of something being made out nothing.

Also a miracle that defies laws of physics

Which laws of physics? May I see these laws of physics?
Do you even know what physics is?

It the reason you can ask why?

Neither matter nor energy can appear or disappear, they can only transition from one state to another. And everything in this reality is either matter or energy. Except for your dumb miraculous ass I guess

But what about things not "in heaven or on earth"? God certainly was neither "in heaven or on earth", Genesis is quite clear on this, after all it states:

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth

Which laws of physics? May I see these laws of physics?

Yes you may
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Which matter and energy are we talking about?
Do you know what matter is?
Do you know what energy is?

And when were these being defied?

So how are these being defied here?
All the matter is there, all the energy is there.
It just changes form.

Do you know how babies are made? Here, read this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy

The matter and energy that make up YOU. If you're made out of something else, speak up
When YOU were made out of nothing and will disappear into nothing, if that's what you believe. If it's not, ignore me.

I'm not talking about your body by the way, I know you'll pretend that you don't understand what you not existing means but we both know you do

We're in that stage of the argument huh. The stage where you pretend not to understand what the YOU that disappears after death is, according to atheists.

The matter and energy that make up YOU. If you're made out of something else, speak up

The matter and energy that make up me are part of the matter and energy that my mother consumed during pregnancy.
Seriously, do you not know how babies are made?

See

Hiroya Oku works in mysterious ways
he decides the reincarnation rules, too bad the alien are ignorant of his great power lel

Can you name it?
Just say the word, so we can all stop pretending that we are making arguments based in observable reality.

Genesis is not part of the Creed. You're moving goalposts.
I can also quote John 1:1-3 to you and it says

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

this One was in the beginning with God;

all things happened through Him, and without Him not even one thing happened that has happened.

this refutes what you were saying.

So when do we get to the part where a tree moves up into the air by 100 cubits (or some say 400 cubits)?

go back faggots

Uh huh so all of you guys just collapsed into pretend you don't understand what the part of YOU that didn't exist before birth is. Nice. Can I name it? No, it has no name. Christians call it soul but that's not right because that includes emotions and the thing I'm talking about does not. I'm talking a singular point of view that ties YOU to your body. A golden orb floating behind your head, if you know what I mean. You probably don't because you never gave it a thought. So just think about it that way: it's the YOU that did not exist before you were born but exists now. You know what that YOU is, I don't need to explain.

The fuck are you going on about?

Exactly, you never thought about it so it's confusing to you. Let me put it another way. Our thoughts and feelings are created in our brain, they can be easily quantified and tracked. They create the experience of life. But you are not the experience of life. You are the entity experiencing that experience. And what the fuck that entity is, I don't know.

Genesis is not part of the Creed.

No, but it's in the bible and regardless of that, as I pointed out: "all things in heaven and on earth" does not include "all things neither in heaven nor on earth".

I can also quote John 1:1-3 to you

So now we have argue about bible sources and which one takes precedence.
And of course, the Gospel of John is by far the weakest of the Gospels as far as canonical sources go. And of course Genesis absolutely takes precendence in this case.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

As you surely are familiar, "the Word" is an ephitet of Jesus Christ. Surely you, then also know that the primary purpose of this section is to tie the story of Jesus Christ into the old teachings of the Israelites.

all things happened through Him, and without Him not even one thing happened that has happened

That is certainly one translation of that passage. Depending on whch version you read, it comes out in a variety of different meanings. Some lean closer towards the idea that things are made by God, which is much more in alignment with Genesis.

Stealth Anon Babble thread going unfettered

love seeing janitors doing their work

Can we just talk about Gantz instead of arguing about religion and philosophy?

So, is there a way to observe it? Prove that your magic ball exists.
And don't just pull a fucking Descartes on me, you didn't read that.

Okay, what even is your stance anymore? Are you saying you DO believe in God, or you don't, or is that not even what you're arguing about? Because I can't tell what point you're trying to make, assuming you even are trying to make one and you aren't just saying confusing shit to fuck with us.

he's not saying confusing shit, he read about a wacky philosophical concept once and misunderstood it thoroughly, because it's not as simple as pop philosophy might suggest.

I can't prove that you exist, maybe you don't. Maybe this is all a simulation and only I exist in this world. But I know that I exist. And if you exist, you know that you exist too.
What you should be asking is how can I prove that the entity experiencing the experience isn't also created by my brain, like the experience itself. Well brain can't create anything other than ideas. And ideas are just a name for recognizable patterns in matter and energy, they don't really exist, they're just a derivative of something else that exists. But I do exist you see. I can't prove it to you but I don't need to prove it to me, it's literally the only thing I know for sure.

Some lean closer towards the idea that things are made by God, which is much more in alignment with Genesis.

Jesus is God.
Even if it was the Father who made things with Jesus it doesn't change the fact that God was the only thing in the beginning.
Denying this is heresy.
We believe in one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
If you deny this you are a heretic.

the Gospel of John is by far the weakest of the Gospels as far as canonical sources go

[Citation needed]
There is nothing in Genesis that could take precedence for the lines I quoted you.
Even if we assume there is a realm that is neither Heaven nor Earth, God was there, and through him all things were made.

You have no argument left.
You keep moving goalposts.
You pick and choose your own biblical canon as you please, you deny the divinity of Jesus (heresy btw) and you failed to address the original argument.

6/10 you made me seriously respond for the last time to your weak bait

No I made it up myself. Just thought about it, that's all

Are you saying you DO believe in God

Personally I like to believe that only one being really exists in the universe and it experiences all of our experiences, we're all it. I don't have proof for it, I just like that idea.

It's a Anon Babble thread, not politically incorrect. Please don't confuse the two.

I would say that the evidence for God is much stronger than the evidence against. Much, much stronger in fact.

Okay, but whose side, if any, is he on?
I'm too lazy to go through the entire thread to try and figure out when he came in and whether he's on a completely different subject from who is similarly annoying.
You got that from that one short story I heard being read at the end of a stream VOD from a guy who later got fired for a sexting scandal, didn't you?

Besides, good and proper Christian theology decries all miracles as the work of charlatans.

Never heard this one before.
Anyways, there is ample archaeological evidence for the resurrection in the Holy Shroud alone, so there isn't even much need to go miracle hunting. Though you still can do it if it pleases you.

Just look up Lazarus Syndrome
It is well recorded and the patients and doctors are still alive

I'm too lazy to go through the entire thread

If you are too lazy to read, why should anyone bother with seriously responding to you?
Unless you're only here to shitpost.

Holy Shroud

What?

What did he mean by this?

No I made it up myself.

that explains why you are incoherent and you can't really form a good argument.
You can, of course, go full Wittgenstein and say that it doesn't matter, but rest assured that there is nothing original about anything you have said. It is well established and considered and you so far haven't offered up something new. After all, Descartes considered this problem you are describing in the 17th century.

Personally I like to believe that only one being really exists in the universe and it experiences all of our experiences

This is literally just Alan Watts' dream of life monologue, for example.

Besides, good and proper Christian theology decries all miracles as the work of charlatans.

No?
Are you retarded?
The Apostles could work miracles and their successors can too.

Jesus did promised that on his return, all the faithful will be resurrected.
So yeah, that is exactly what he intends to do

You never heard about the Shroud of Turin? You have a deep rabbit hole to dive into, anon.

may I see them?

show me examples, you pick the examples, you wouldn't want me to pick some where an obvious medical error occurred, now would you?

It does. The Greeks already went over this well over two millennia ago. Socrates even died because of that. Why wouldn't existence require a reason? You're merely abusing empiricism to justify a nonsensical point.

I'm not too lazy to read, I'm too lazy to read through stuff that I don't care about to figure out what the first post in this thread by a specific person was. There's a difference. I've been reading the posts that actually are responding to me, because I know they have something to do with me, and I've read posts that I responded to even if they didn't already involve me, and the fact that I read them is why I bothered responding to them in the first place.

There is a Wikipedia category for Christian miracles, how about you fucking use Google?

It is not. It's what the Greeks defined as an Unmoved Mover, or the first cause, the Logos. And what we currently define in modern terms as a Being with maximal proprieties and zero potential.

You mean the thing with fucked up bodily proportions and probably no actual involvement with the actual Jesus?

There is nothing in Genesis that could take precedence for the lines I quoted you.

Yes there is, Genesis describes the creation of the world in a different manner and I believe that Genesis holds precendece, given the circumstances of the writing of the Gospels, but the Gospel of John in particular, as it was the last of the canonical Gospels.

You pick and choose your own biblical canon as you please

The bible is filled with contradiction, some sources need to take precendence over others.
In some cases it is quite easy, as when God is described as kind and loving in the new testament, but as stubborn, vicious and cruel in the old testament. It is clear which takes precendence in that case. But when it comes to the creation of heaven and earth, I think Genesis holds more weight.

The original argument is about whether it is appropriate to treat God as an impersonal, disembodied and abstract force, rather than as an entity with agency. And you have not really addressed that.

Reika is hot.

Why are you ascribing the nature of "God" to something so abstract and meaningless as "the first cause". The first cause is just the first cause.

God being the first movement is just a matter of fact. It doesn't wholly define God but points to a property that is God's alone.

God is something more specific, unless you openly admit to heresy here.

I think you're playing games here. That isn't in good faith.

the Logos

Translation note: Logos means "word" in Greek, see >In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

this One was in the beginning with God;

all things happened through Him, and without Him not even one thing happened that has happened.

The Logos is literally just Jesus Christ.

There's no evidence of God not existing either. Yeah, chances are it won't be a bearded man wearing white robes living on a heavenly afterlife dimension resembling Earth's sky, but only brainlets unironically believe in that. If there's something greater than humanity we will never be able to understand what it is, what it wants or what motivations does it have.

I don't know. I don't understand why people get so heated on this when there's no definitive answer on either side. At least Christcucks have some self-awareness and admit they only have faith to go on about their claims. Atheist operate in the same mental framework and use faith and intuition to claim there's nothing above us, but without actually answering the most important questions (i.e. how the Universe came to be, why it appeared out of nothing, who created it, is there an afterlife or only eternal nothingness, etc.) because they only take for granted scientific knowledge... Which is absurd in the first place, since science isn't something you can't "believe" in, that's why it's so powerful in the first place.

Brother, actually learn about the Shroud. And try to exercise humility in the process. If you do it in good faith, you will understand what the Shroud is and what it ultimately means.

a bearded man wearing white robes living on a heavenly afterlife dimension resembling Earth's sky, but only brainlets unironically believe in that

If you believe God to be anything else, that's heresy.

A big issue with Christian arguments is that most people argue in ahistoric ways that do not consider the ways in which Christianity developed or functioned, especially in the early days, which is critical to understanding why things are the way they are. They are too invested in presupposing divine truth, when more mundane explanations are often far more compelling.

I'll be a bit surprised that's no doubt. But, neither of those are evidence for God either.
They are, anecdotally, evidence for phenomenon that would otherwise seem exceptionally rare. To the extent that they agree with some formulations of some Gods, is no particular evidence for those Gods. Let me get to something about that, and perhaps you can answer my question on that.

There are, by some accounts, over 18,000 distinctly identifiable "God" stories in human history. How many of those Gods do you believe in? What evidence do you think they would need to show to convince you that they exist?

The way I see it, there are things that may well be true but cannot be proven to be true - like your conception of a God. That, along with so many other more-or-less equally compelling conceptions of God that humans have conveyed over our history but, none of them appear to exist to me.

And I would wager, that you disbelieve in more of them than you believe in. Is it tough for you to understand how someone might extend that level of disbelief about the vast majority of those Gods to just one more (at a time) until it encompasses all unprovable fantasy characters?

While Logos is indeed used as a synonym for the Lord Christ, it was a term already in use centuries prior. Particularly by the Greeks who had stumbled upon a fundamental flaw with their theological system via philosophy. Something that, as a Christian, I believe was only truly solved once St. John wrote his Gospel to the Greeks and employed their own language in a very successful and analytic manner.

At least Christcucks have some self-awareness and admit they only have faith to go on about their claims.

You were going so well until you had to post this nonsense. What a fundamentally unserious thing to say.

Guess I'm going to Hell now. Or maybe I'll pick another branch of Christianity that doesn't say that. Weird how scumbags can go to Heaven and good people can go to Hell for petty shit like this. How do you know you picked the good interpretation or religion in the first place?

This is ahistorical.
The use of Logos to refer to Jesus Christ was deliberate to invoke certain ideas, but also to ease covert communication, consider a phrase like "Have you heard the word?". It is coded enough that you can ask non-Christians about it and they will not understand, but Christians will immediately know what means. Again, the Gospel of John was the last one to be written.
Historical context is critical, especially for those idiosyncracies that were then incorporated into the church's beliefs.

I did.
youtube.com/watch?v=GPPhcyt_kyo
I'm not saying I explicitly don't believe in Jesus, I'm just saying I don't think that he has anything to do with the old piece of cloth that some people say he was wrapped in.

Anon Babble? You mean the board that seethes so consistently about Christianity, you could set your clock to it? That Anon Babble?

You have them in this same thread, anon.

You can't actually go to hell in Christianity and to assert otherwise is heresy.

Weird how scumbags can go to Heaven and good people can go to Hell for petty shit like this.

That's not how heaven and hell works, at all.
Evil is rebellion against God, and those who rebel against God don't go to his kingdom.
Jesus explicitly says that the road to heaven is narrow and few can walk it.
You should probably ignore the troll who spouts nonsense.

Jesus explicitly says that the road to heaven is narrow and few can walk it.

Depends on the Jesus you pick, there's four of them, after all.

This is ahistorical.

What.

The use of Logos to refer to Jesus Christ was deliberate to invoke certain ideas, but also to ease covert communication, consider a phrase like "Have you heard the word?". It is coded enough that you can ask non-Christians about it and they will not understand, but Christians will immediately know what means. Again, the Gospel of John was the last one to be written.

What.
What are you even trying to say? That the Evangelists used word? Foreign words? What is even your point?

Maybe this is my fault and I wasn't clear in what I was trying to say, so I present you my apologies and beg your patience to allow me to rephrase it: "Logos" was used by the philosophers in Ancient Greece, and particularly was used to point to a fundamental problem with their theological system, something that led to the death of Socrates. Centuries after, St. John deliberately employed this language of the philosophers to explain Christ, as Logos is indeed a fundamental property of God.

Was the concept further developed by Christian scholasticism? It most certainly was. But never to the point where it became fundamentally irreconcilable with the original meaning. The Greeks simply had not the benefit of God's public revelation, unlike people like St. Thomas Aquinas. This is why Dr. E. Michael Jones explains this in terms of "the Greeks had philosophy but no history while the Jews had history but no philosophy". Christianity became the perfect marriage between the two.

That isn't a serious video, anon, especially given the counterarguments that they present. I don't even know what to tell you. Again, I would urge you seek more information in humility and good faith.

Only Jesus is the one true God
Everyone else is just a demon in disguise

This is evidenced by the fact that every other god demands human sacrifices, ritualistic suicide, and holy prostitutes

Acts of perversion against God's greatest gift - the Gift of Life

God saving a person's life despite being from a false god is not a testimony against him but an act of his selfless love

Did you actually watch the whole thing?
I started rewatching it before I made that post, and I'm not even halfway through.

The bible was written in Greek, as you surely know. It was a deliberate decision to leave "Logos" untranslated as you pointed out, but that decision was made much later. People were referring to Christ as "the Word", for a long time prior to such high minded philosophical ideas.
It was a practical consideration in a world of prosecution, because it is deliberatly ambiguous and coded language. It was not originally related in any way to Greek theology, this is exactly what I mean when I call this kind of analysis ahistorical.

good faith

Not him, but anon... You're debating religion, there's NEVER good faith when debating beliefs (or lack of) on the Internet.

Truly a shame.

I did not, brother. I heard only a couple of minutes. But even in the beginning he mentions carbon dating, which should be immediately controversial to anyone even remotely knowledgeable of the '88 study for a great number of reasons.

I have no reason to suspect you're in bad faith, brother, so at least try to seek other sources on this. It's an incredibly vast topic.

I don't share that belief, personally. I think people don't need to be specifically Christian or Muslim or atheists or what have you to be capable of virtue, however imperfectly. Unless you are a JEW.

Joking aside, I'm also scientifically-minded and I do believe that my religion can (should) be rigorously tested. Even St. Thomas had to probe Christ's wounds.

He's reading a script he hasn't read before, he's not going to get everything right before he reads the parts where it actually goes into detail about what kinds of tests were performed. Either watch the whole thing so you can actually make an informed argument about it, or ignore it and be on your merry way.
Also, I'm not your brother.

Oh, I don't deny that, what I'm saying is that the Internet is the worst place possible to have good faith conversations about religion (much less a vietnamese goat-fucking forum)

My apologies, but this is my first time hearing that hypothesis and it just doesn't make any sense to me. The first instance of Logos is in St. John's Gospel, and given the audience the Gospel was meant to, I see no reason why he would be unaware of the meaning of the word (no pun intended). No other prior Gospel uses the term.

Also, why use coded language at all when all the Gospels are quite explicit about everything? There's no coded or hidden knowledge in them. And if you were correct in your hypothesis, what would "word" even mean and why use such roundabout language? I just don't get it at all.

I'm not trying to shit on you, brother. It's genuinely the first time I hear that thesis and maybe I'm just not grasping what you're trying to say.

I've spent time reading academic literature on the Shroud, not just YouTube videos. I don't mean to sound haughty here, but I'm sufficiently versed on the topic that I'm immediately scared by the usual red flags you see when discussing the issue. I can promise you I'll watch the rest of the video at a latter date, but I can't imagine it will convince me in any way given how supremely unimpressed I was by the first couple of minutes.

Also, I'm not your brother.

This is a rather silly thing to be bothered by.

Not even him, but really, man? You are not impressed by the Shroud which no man could ever replicate?

They are offering 1 million dollars to anyone who could replicate it. It doesn't even have to be perfect
The only condition is that it should be made using 13th century tools.

Forgo the miracles.
And yet, not a single one could ever replicate it

To start with, it isn't made with chemicals and no one could find a single brush stroke
The fabric is 200 microfiber thick but the image does not penetrate past 2 microfibers. Which is impossible even by modern tech

Not impressed my ass. It is an absolute fuck you to chemistry.

Again, you are aruging in an ahistorical fashion.

The key assertion I am making is that Christians were persecuted early on. There was a need to hide the fact that that they were Christian. The famous symbol of the fish dates to these times (if later) as well.
What I am talking about precedes the writing of the Gospels by several decades. It would be no surprise that this was simply part of the coded language the early Christians used to communicate with one another.

No other prior Gospel uses the term.

Precisely, it is likely terminology that was originally local to the regions around Ephesus.

You must be unfamiliar with the early history.

silly thing to be bothered by

Well it comes across as condescending when some random person calls me their brother. I know you probably aren't meaning it that way, but that doesn't change how I feel.
And besides, I'm a weird guy. I get annoyed by people using certain words to mean things that they don't actually mean, but I also acknowledge that language and the definitions of words are subject to change over time. And I've seen people get upset about sillier things.
Did you mean to respond to me?

so why was the shroud woven in a fashion that was not known in the first century?
why is it the only herringbone object from that supposed time period?

Anon, why use Logos as coded language when all of the sufficiently instructed Greeks knew full well what it meant? Also, why use this kind of coded language at all in the Gospel? What does it accomplish? Isn't the Gospel according to John not already sufficiently clear? And how would you even read John 1 if not as a cosmological statement?

why was the shroud woven in a fashion that was not known in the first century?

It was

why is it the only herringbone object from that supposed time period?

What? There are a lot of relics from that period
We have like 50 writings from the first 150 years of Christianity talking about Jesus. 9 of which are from pagan sources

The core of the Shroud is weaved in accordance to known weaving techniques of the 1st century. The extremities of the Shroud seem to have been mended a posteriori. Regardless, I think that is an incredibly miniscule contention given just how absolutely unique the Shroud is.

Anon, again, it's not "Logos", it is "Word".
The point is that ambiguous language was used during times of persecution to avoid persecution.

Why use this kind of coded language at all in the Gospel? What does it accomplish?

To draw a connection between "the word" the people have been hearing about, greek philosophy and this newfangled religion, "Christianity".

how would you even read John 1 if not as a cosmological statement?

The purpose of John 1 is to establish what "the word" IS and how it fits in the history and beliefs of the pre-existing israelites.

How are you struggling with this?
Please read the Bible like the literary text it is.

they don't
authoritative statements about unverifiable metaphysics is nothing strange though, humans can relate

The point is that ambiguous language was used during times of persecution to avoid persecution.

There is no ambiguity whatsoever in John.

To draw a connection between "the word" the people have been hearing about, greek philosophy and this newfangled religion, "Christianity".

So is the term philosophical or not? Was it meant to convey higher ideas or was it not? I have no idea what we're discussing here. This entire discussion started because you insisted that "logos" simply means "word" and nothing else.

The purpose of John 1 is to establish what "the word" IS and how it fits in the history and beliefs of the pre-existing israelites.

OK, very well. You're right on this. But then John literally states that the Word is Jesus Christ. So what exactly is it obfuscating here? If it wasn't meant as Logos, what does it even mean at all? Just "word"? Why?

I've consumed plenty of commentary on John 1 and have absolutely no idea where you're coming from.

Are you trying to provoke me into calling you retarded or are you actually this stupid?

There is no ambiguity whatsoever in John.

Nobody said that. You are illiterate.

This entire discussion started because you insisted that "logos" simply means "word" and nothing else.

The gospel was originally written in Greek. Then, as it was translated, this part was deliberately left untranslated. And only in the process of translation, the meaning shifted. Because in some translations from the Greek, it was left as "Logos", I assume this only started happening in later retranslations.
The Latin uses "Verbum", the literal "word". Luther, translated from Latin, similarly uses "Wort".

Just "word"? Why?

"Have you heard the Word?", remember that gospel was once a normal word as well. Have you heard the "good news"?
It is ambiguous language to evade persecution.

God needs God to save me from God and things God made because of freewill when Adam and Eve can make choices to make choices or tricked

I don't really get the purpose of some of these kinds of philisophical arguments for God, they feel more semantic than anything else. If we define "God" as "The First Cause" then the fact that there must be a first cause does indeed mean God exists. But since "God" here essentially just means some kind of first cause it doesn't really say much about any of the things people typically associate with the word, let alone make a case for any particular religion on Earth. It at most means "there may be some kind of entity we could define as "god" but fucked if we know more than that".

RIKU!

Is christ schizo known on Anon Babble or does it only bait here

Are you trying to provoke me into calling you retarded or are you actually this stupid?

You've made sufficient insinuation. I've ignored them for the sake of civility and trying to engage you since you're arguing points I have never heard about in my entire life. But now you're just being rude. Needlessly, I have to say.

The gospel was originally written in Greek. Then, as it was translated, this part was deliberately left untranslated. And only in the process of translation, the meaning shifted. Because in some translations from the Greek, it was left as "Logos", I assume this only started happening in later retranslations.

Because there was the awareness of the term having a higher meaning. Whence why Jerome they translated to Verbum, and whence why this specifically was then used by Christians in neologisms like "Universe", precisely because they knew of its higher meaning.

"Have you heard the Word?", remember that gospel was once a normal word as well. Have you heard the "good news"?

You're playing rather bizarre word games here. So I will cut to the chase: was John aware of how Logos was used by the philosophers or what he not?

I don't see how it can possibly be semantic because the entire point of the argument is defining things in terms of subordination. If God is subject to a movement, then by definition this couldn't possibly be God. By necessity, God needs to be the first cause, otherwise that would mean that God has potential when logically He does not. He already expresses all maximal properties, there isn't a point where God isn't then is.

Gantz is a shitpost manga most of the time and even in this very scene, the nihilistic aliens confirmed that souls and reincarnation exist, and hinted that the people you are close to in one life will be close in the next. If you dig even a little bit that seems to encourage people to take their relationships with others a bit seriously, not an endorsement of nihilism.

Why the fuck are there so much anger about this? If you get so insecure over different viewpoints in a shock and gore manga (which Gantz is), this medium isn't for you, and Anon Babble is not the board for you.

was John aware of how Logos was used by the philosophers or what he not?

Who knows. We don't even who John is. He's some guy from Ephesus. Maybe he knew, maybe he didn't. It's impossible to say, since we don't know his identity, beyond his pseudonym and location.

Very well. I understand your point now, even if I don't find your argument compelling and know that it's contradicted by centuries of Christian theology. I appreciate the time you took to explain it to me.

It's a historical argument. The problem is that looking at things in the proper historical context often robs them of luster and theology can rely on making arguments that are ahistorical. But such explanations I find unsatisfying and uninteresting. I am far more interested in picking apart a text and finding out why it is the way it is, rather than the specific content.

Based.

Hamsters faking death and getting buried alive is common

Reincarnation is inherently nihilistic. Because there is only reset and nothing more. The entire point of nihilism is that there is no such thing as objective value. God being real and God willing the salvation of all souls would mean that there is such a thing as objective value. So reincarnation cycles existing in Gantz doesn't exactly mean anything, it just means that we're all condemned to reroll existence for eternity(?), it makes no statement on objective morality or even objective truth. Even in Oku's more spiritual works like Inuyashiki, morality is only presented in a dualistic tug-of-war that can never be properly resolved. Oku is an unserious and extremely shallow mangaka when it comes to spiritual matters. But even outside of Okuslop, there is a very strong case for the fact that the vast majority of Japanese media is inherently nihilistic, even in the case of unironic Catholic mangaka like Nightow who have to dumb down their spirituality for the sake of commercial success.

Humans can't fake death given the tools of today. No pulse is dead. Period

can you provide one convincing example of so-called lazarus syndrome?

You will never be convinced if you don't like the consequences of the truth

I have a real face
checkmate

Can you provide any example, then?

All I'm hearing about is that you didn't really care about the characters in Gantz at all. Kurono clone and Reika having another chance at life means nothing to you? None of the characters meant anything to you, yet you tortured yourself reading hundreds of chapters about such characters. Why don't you take that admission that the entire medium is not for you, and go away forever? It's not up to you to tell other readers what has value or not.

No pulse is dead. Period

This is not how death is defined by modern medicine. Death is determined by a lack of brain activity.

I'm going to absolutely straight with you, Oku just makes me seethe. I've been seething impotently for almost 20 years now and I'm always trying to figure out new ways to cry about how Oku is an awful author. But my point about nihilism was genuinely neutral, it's just an observation and a correction on what the term even means. Most things nowadays are nihilistic in nature, anon, this wasn't exactly a value judgment.

Oku never made me seethe because I looked at the page where a naked man was trying to fuck a literal giant moving mass of naked boobies and set my expectations accordingly.

My point is more that even if an argument from first cause proves the existence of "God", we have no other information beyond the fact such a being exists. It at most shifts the situation from aethist to some flavor of agnostic rather than making any particular case for say, christianity, in the way I often see it try to be applied.

God needs to be the first cause

But does the first cause need to be God? From my understanding we've demonstrated the neccesity of the former and are using that to argue the neccesity of the latter rather than the reverse. Could there be a first cause that does not demonstrate all these other properties of God?

That's fine. I have a complicated love/hate relationship with Oku for a great number of reasons. But I think Inuyashiki is a very mature work at least, even if he was still being mindraped by Gantz's critical reception, which is funny because he at least was capable of some comedic self-awareness.

vast majority of Japanese media is inherently nihilistic

Gaijins just will never understand Buddhism culture, especially the schizos

Nta but it's common enough to make morgue lockers to be openable from inside

My point is more that even if an argument from first cause proves the existence of "God", we have no other information beyond the fact such a being exists.

Oh yeah, I 100% agree with you on that. It's positively shitty proof because you simply logically deduced that something like God has to exist. Now what? What else do we know? Is there even a religion that correctly knows Him? These are very tough questions. I'm personally convinced of the legitimacy of Christianity, but I know from personal experience how long that road is, never mind figuring out the correct denomination.

Could there be a first cause that does not demonstrate all these other properties of God?

I apologise if I'm not understanding your argument correctly, but God is defined as maximal being whose properties are always maximally expressed. God can't become more or less powerful, God has zero potential. Now of course there is the question of what properties God possesses, and I'm partial to Absolute Divine Simplicity myself, but I'm very open to being wrong on this, but this is a bit beside the point. What matters is like, for example, God exists within time, there logically exists a moments where God is and isn't, so this would mean that God has potential, and this of course would be illogical. If God was "activated", then question then is what activates God, and what/who is responsible for this movement.

Buddhism is less in agreement with itself than extreme ends of Christian denominations are with one another. Even if I have great respect for Buddhism, it simply lacks coherence or even a sound moral structure outside of the broad moral intuitions that you find in any world religion, and this is amply evidenced by how Buddhism syncretised its way throughout Asia in numerous different traditions.

By necessity, God needs to be the first cause, otherwise that would mean that God has potential when logically He does not.

This is already fallacious. You defined God=First Cause. Now you're defining God=That Which Expresses All Maximal Properties. God=Maximal implies God=First Cause but God=First Cause doesn't imply God=Expresses All Maximal Properties exists or even that such a thing exists.

That has nothing to do with nihilism or your understanding of a culture historically brought up with Buddhist ideals and morals instead of western stuff schizo san

You seem to discard the preterist understanding of Christian eschatology, which is freely professed in plenty of Christian traditions. You're arguing, conveniently but unconvincingly, for an extreme millennialist position which doesn't even make sense and would indeed refute Christianity completely. But this is a very poor showing on your part.

Yes, Greek thought was married to Christianity, this is true. And the Greek tradition being sanctified by Christian scholasticism is also something that happen, it didn't remain static in anyway. So your perceived incompatibility only exists within the presumption of intellectual stagnancy. Which, again, is very poor form on your part.

As for miracles having stopped, I genuinely don't understand where you get that idea from. Because several Christian traditions will expressly contradict you on this, despite warning you that the point of the religion isn't to be hunting for miracles. A small example being the Eucharistic miracles being reported, studied and officially verified to this day: youtube.com/watch?v=hJ1apYsc7RI

It's positively shitty proof because you simply logically deduced that something like God has to exist.

That was what I figured, but I wasn't sure if there was something else I was missing. The topic of how to answer those questions and the different approaches to doing so is a pretty interesting one, though I'm not religious myself.

I apologise if I'm not understanding your argument correctly, but God is defined as maximal being whose properties are always maximally expressed. God can't become more or less powerful, God has zero potential.

More of a tangent than a real argument really. As far as I follow God as defined here is a being without potential that is always maximally expressed, and so is invariant/unchangable with regards to time or cause and effect. And that if such a maximal being exists it would have to be the first cause, because any prior cause wouldn't make sense with that definition.
The part I don't follow is where the reverse case comes from, If God Exists>God is First Cause makes sense as it's somewhat by definition here, if First Cause Exists>God is First Cause confuses me. It seems kind of like you need to take the premise of God existing for it to work, which feels a bit circular when it's being used as an argument for God existing.

Shit meant for

It was a concept already borrowed by post-Exilic Jews from the Zoroastrians of Persia.

Why "borrowed" exactly? Couldn't it have not been the case that these were shared concepts or even independently received revelations? Why "borrowed"? The Jews also spoke about their own diluvian mythos, so did many other traditions antagonistic to the Jews, so was this "borrowed" history? Or could've it have simply been a commonality?

I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to insinuate here. But I suspect that it's more of the same boring argument of religion just being cynical social technology or what have you.

Fallacious means a mistake in one step of the argument. probably this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

wouldn't a maximal being thus necessarily be a first cause

Sure, let's say M->F. But from that you can't deduce F->M or F. The fallacy is that maximal being does imply first cause, but first cause doesn't imply maximal being.

Ah Golden Boy, a manga where the male main character cross-dresses to replace an absentee girl in her high school class, a rich girl hypnotizes people with her pee, and the motivations of the major character all stem from the fact that the main character was convinced his girlfriend cheated on him with a chad back when he was a student who had no strong convictions in any of his beliefs, often being convinced something was the truth of love an society just because someone told him so.

It seems kind of like you need to take the premise of God existing for it to work, which feels a bit circular when it's being used as an argument for God existing.

Okay, I see where you're getting at. A first cause doesn't necessarily need be defined as God, you're proposing that it can simply be some unintelligent thing that happened accidentally or what have you. I think the idea here is that we observe properties in the universe, namely intelligence, that wouldn't make much sense as a mere accident. In Christianity, we understand this namely via the Imago Dei, in which your intellect is capable of accessing God. Also, what we observe in our surroundings would lead you to assume that the movement that creatio ex nihilo would express in some form this orderliness in order to action it. It couldn't possibly be just a, say, piston just mindlessly hammering ignition for eternity.

Do you see where you're commenting?
The vast majority of japanese authors are culturally buddhist/shintoist (meaning they don't actually care for it outside of holidays) or not religious at all.
This is most obvious with mamoru oshii and tenshi no tamago, which is a rather clear demonstration of losing faith while walking you through a myriad of christian symbolism (carrying cross & movie ending with an extremely obvious reference).
Lotgh portrays religion to an almost comically evil extent and let's not even start with texhnolyze.
Outside of that, there's more artists and philosophers denouncing religion than you can count.
Picasso was a christian turned atheist(founder of cubism), Nietzsche said God is dead and we need to find new meaning and max ernst said that religion is the result of neurosis.
Sartre and Camus both rejected religion, with the former being a large contributor to existentialist philosophy and camus founding absurdism, along with claiming that religion is philosophical suicide.
Kafka was an atheist, so were Isaac Asimov, Kurt Vonnegut, George Orwell (1984), Karl Marx (founder of Marxism & most prominent communist figure) and Schopenhauer.
I don't know how the comical idea of religion being necessary to breed art spawned in your mind, but it's obviously not the case and I'm saying this as a huge enthusiast of religious symbolism/art (klimt, bosch, raphael).
Religion was and still is a pillar of artistic inspiration, just that it's not essential.
I do agree that non-religious places strongly suffer from lack of cultural cohesion and degeneracy though.

I don't think that region is necessary for social cohesion. Japan clearly proves that this isn't the case. But I suspect that some kind of religiosity is necessary in order to produce true art. Art is the real sense, and not simply emotional evocation.

Having said that, I don't have such a pessimistic outlook on Japanese media even though, as a Christian, it is very clear how spiritually shallow it is. There isn't a single nation on this planet whose people doesn't possess some kind of moral intuition, and sometimes that is just good enough.

How is their four Jesuses?

Individual atheists are no problem. The are still pushed to live like Christians by the pressure of Christians

Religion is the vaccine against madness. All art and culture are the result of glorifying the divine and living according to his will.

Get rid of religion and everything is just an opinion. Have too many atheists in a single place and the madness that religion way driving away results swiftly. And you got people saying that men can be women

Chesterton's Fence

I'm a convicted Catholic and I would urge caution against this sort of argument. Because it doesn't explain Japan at all. I know most of us have a very overromanticised ideal of what the weeb holy land is, but regardless, it is an orderly place that enjoys great social cohesion. It doesn't need a religious glue in order to provide beneficial social effects. And this isn't to say that Japan wouldn't be a better nation if properly Christianised.

You kidding? Japan is a dystopia precisely because of their dying spirituality

Japan, Korea, China, are all dystopian hellholes precisely because atheism is mainstream
Abandon God andyou start worshipping something else. Be it social cohession, the government, or your social rank. All are just golden calfs

Religion was made for a reason

You kidding? Japan is a dystopia precisely because of their dying spirituality

I'm not going to feign ignorance and pretend I don't know what you're talking about. I completely agree with what you're saying. But the heathens do not see what we do. They identify, correctly in many ways, that Japan is peaceful, orderly, clean, polite. And that they wished their nations expressed these characteristics that Japan so abundantly has. This is a fundamentally materialistic argument, brother, and it reduces religion to a kind of "social technology" that has to be implemented as some weird software antivirus. And this is why I don't think this is a good argument, for the double reasons of you going down the road of mere pragmatism, which is repulsive for anyone of sincere faith and misjudges what you're saying, and because them heathen simply do not see the world like you or I see. Japan for them is a triumph of atheism.

A first cause doesn't necessarily need be defined as God, you're proposing that it can simply be some unintelligent thing that happened accidentally or what have you.

Essentailly yeah. The first cause argument only really seems to make a case for the existence of a first cause, it doesn't say anything more about what that first cause is. Any other properties we'd attribute to that first cause would have to stem from other arguments such as arguments for a intelligent creator, in which case those may as well be argued directly and the argument from first cause becomes kind of pointless.

I think the idea here is that we observe properties in the universe, namely intelligence, that wouldn't make much sense as a mere accident

I think this part comes down to as much a difference in worldviews as anything else. In my eyes there's nothing particularly unexpected about intelligence arising on it's own within the bounds of the way the universe is set up. Of course there's always the broader question of why the universe is set up in such a way that it enables intelligent life to begin with, but that's something that can be argued in a few different ways regarding things like the anthropic principle. An intelligent creator is certainly one possible explanation, but not neccesarily the only one, so barring any further evidence it seems difficult to make any particular claims about one explanation versus another.

Ironically, it is a weird software antivirus
Mankind is designed to seek out God because we are made in his image. Rejecting your design results into much suffering

Animals are designed to live on land
Fishes are designed to live in the water
Humans are designed to live with God

I'm afraid that I've already strained my philosophical muscle and can't exactly argue with what you're saying, such is my inadequacy. But I was delighted to converse with you for this little while. I think you're a polite and intellectually curious person, and I respect you for having dialogued in good faith with me. I'm sure your own spiritual journey will be fruitful, whenever you're ready to walk that path, and I pray for your success. I hope you one day decide to learn more about the Christian faith and come to accept the Lord Christ. It is a way more sophisticated and interesting religion than I'm capable of expressing ITT. If you would permit me one last suggestion, try to learn Christianity from ancient sources like any orthodox tradition, be it (Roman) Catholic or Orthodox Christian. You can learn about supernatural phenomena like Eucharistic miracles or unexplainable relics like the Shroud, the Painting of Our Lady of Guadalupe, etc., and once cognitive dissonance has been established, you can then go into stuff like the catechism and live the sacraments. This was more or less my own journey, I first had to discover that the world wasn't simply biochemical falling dominoes, that there are strange interruptions to the natural processes which we call miracles, and then learn the faith. It is well worth your time and effort, brother.