Apply raw apple cider vinegar to your face

@Hunterskull good shit then, block like the pussy u are

@Hunterskull I'm gonna corrupt this forum and there's nothing you'll do abt it except sittin ur ass down and stayin quiet like a good boy

@Elliott87 Idk bro, I type like this and a shit ton of ppl do

I dont use grok so i wouldnt know

@piss holy shit this is basic english our generation is doomed

@JayThrowaway silence goy

@aiden

@Hunterskull Nah bro he could genuinely be a test from God

What if @primalrevolution is actually God coming down again to test our patience and lead us to a new world order?

this is completely natural btw

@Rawsei Yeah so time-as-measured-motion is not the same as time-as-sequential-existence. Even withour a "clock" pre-Big bang, the universe:
a. either began
b. or didn't
Physics says it did. Like, it's universally, scientifically accepted that the universe is 13.8B years old (CMB, entropy, BGV theorem... I can go in detail if you want). "No time outside" ≠ "no beginning."

Also, you misapply rand. If were arguing from classical infinity, it means "without limitation," not "infinite quantity." But u yourself use "limitless" for the man in the void. You're employing the logic you reject. self-refutation. And idk what "spaceless existence" is about, you assume all existence must be physical/bounded. "To exist is to be particular" is ur own assertion, not proof. As a theist, I can say God is particular in nature but not in relation to space (space is created, not a container). Oh, and saying "immaterial properties need material bases" assumes physicalism (the very point at issus). That's circular

for Kantian frames, u turn "space/time are conditions of perception" into "conditions of all existence." Can u js provide justification? Or else it could be category confusion. And u misapplied "stolen concept"... we infer God as a ground of matter, not an attribute borrowed from materialism. this fallacy only works if u assume materialism first (which i dont think i did).

Basically from everything i read, ur case only holds if we assume physicalism upfront, but that's what the Kalam argument completely challenges. You didnt rly refute anything; just restated ur worldview. To refute, show either:

1. the universe didn't begin (contradicts physics)
   or 2. something can begin without a cause (contradicts reason)
   Sooo, from ur side, did the universe begin? If so, why?

@Rawsei yeah kalam is fine.

1. everything that exists has a cause

2. the universe began to exist

3. so --> the universe has a cause

that cause has to be:

• timeless (it created time)
• spaceless (it created space)
• beyond existence (it created all of existence)

so I believe the cause is God, as He is beyond time, space, and existence.

@Rawsei What evidence do you accept? if i use logic, you can say it's human convention. scripture, you can say it's man-made. experience, you can say it's subjective. what evidence do you accept and under which axioms?

@Rawsei yes it is, God's commandments are where I derive my morality from. It's not subjective

@Shaprawy calm yo ass down? obv jesus made our dicks for pussies and pussies for dicks. That's the entire point of reproduction. But I'm asking you if you think sex is only for reproduction, or if it can be used for other purposes. That's what I mean by "limited to reproduction." You're obv not gonna plant a baby in a guy's shit-hole

@Shaprawy do you believe we can use our reproductive organs in a sexual way for a purpose besides reproduction? or are we limited to our natural end goal only?

@Rawsei yea but im not judging its morality based on whether it's natural or not. i'm judging it as intrinsically disordered because God told us it is (objective morality)

@Shaprawy yea but the question is whether it's natural or not. I'm christian so I already see it as a moral abomination

@Elliott87 good i can give you all a taste of my primal raw milk

@GeoGatis I mean it never happened