>god is real because my special ideas are real and my special ideas have to be real because if they weren't real then god wouldn't be real but god is real so my special ideas are real therefore god exists t. desfarts
>>832882
nice try, undergrad.
god is what puts inside you the idea of perfection, of what cannot be thought.
>>832919
So in summary:
Because the concept of god seems impossible and unlikely, is precisely what makes god true!
>>832919
So what you're saying is that you believe in a big Sky daddy who left his children and didn't save his son? Told some old dude to kill his son, only to have Said at the last second," woah, it's just a prank bro!"
>>832882
The real question is, how can god be real if humans predate all forms of Abrahamic monotheistic religion by many thousands of years?
>>832983
Silly question desu.
We can't know how God communicated to prehistoric humans, because it wasn't recorded. We can't know what religion was like for them.
>>834090
Apparently, God is a TERRIBLE communicator. He keeps telling people about himself and they keep forgetting! You would have thought an all-powerful God would find a better way to communicate, 40 foot tall letters of fire hovering over the Temple Mount, perhaps.
>>834109
I don't think it's that God's a bad communicator. I just think humans are suck at listening.
>>832973
He is the Son, and the Son came to die.
>>832983
What a batshit insane question. First off, Abraham had no religion, and started no religions.
How you can't grasp the idea that God created everything is absolutely mind boggling.
>nuh uh muh qm fluctuations in the foamy time space created me
>>834109
If that is the case, how is it that I know so much more about God, what God said, and what God is doing, than you do?
>>832882
God is greater than any God you can imagine, because God is the greatest being possible. The God you can imagine is less than the God Who is.
Does that clear it up for you, snowflake?
since existence is a feature of the being i imagine, it must exist!
>>834177
Since existence is greater than non-existence, the greatest being possible exists, yes.
This is like kindergarten logic. Maybe first grade.
>>834109
not only a terrible communicator but a stupid ass idiot who apparently finds it more fun to see if humans can believe in him based on the stories they tell eachother rather than just make his existence known undoubtedly
>>834191
>Why doesn't God overwhelm my sovereignty, free will and moral agency, the post.
>>834187
the greatest being possible WOULD exist, IF it existed, and if non-existence is somehow 'greater', yes, obviously
>>834198
i would still have all those things if god made his existence known
>>834200
Yes, God obviously exists. Glad you can finally come to see what mankind has known for thousands of years.
More time I spend on this board it becomes more painfully obvious nobody on 4chan knows shit about philosophy
>>834206
Nope. When you see Him, you are done.
>>832925
>reading comprehension
>>834214
>herp derp what is Godel's Ontological Proof of God.
>>834213
yes and so does the greatest unicorn, since the greatest unicorn must exist if he is truly the greatest :^)
>>834228
Holy crap. You can't tell the difference between God and a unicorn.
>>834217
nah i could still choose to follow satan or something baka
>>834234
Done. Fini. Curtain closed. Over.
You worship satan now; you're just too dumb to benefit from it.
why does that wordfilter to baka rofl
>>834233
and you can't understand how an imagined beings necessarily having a property (in this case 'existence') by definition, doesnt give it the quality just like an Existing Unicorn doesn't exist because it has the property of 'existence' by defintion
and sayng that a 'perfect' being means it has the property of existence doesn't change anything (Perfect Unicorn doesn't exist, or does it?? would you believe it if the jews decided it was so?)
>>834247
Your argument is so poorly worded that it is difficult to even approach it without becoming intellectually challenged in the process.
To begin with, there are many unicorns in existence; the rhino and narwhal are unicorns.
Secondly, when positing the nature of God, the creator of the universe, we are not talking about a mythological being. Nor are we talking about a being you can pretend is mythological.
Finally, when discussing proofs of God, it's helpful to have people who also know there are such logical proofs, so that at least a semi-intelligent conversation can be had.
>>834258
>Secondly, when positing the nature of God, the creator of the universe, we are not talking about a mythological being.
wrong
>>834273
>Nor are we talking about a being you can pretend is mythological.
Are you 12?
>>834282
thats wrong too. god is undoubtedly a mythological being, one you simply think is real.
i suggest you think about my argument in these posts >>834247 >>834256
for a few days and get back to me because i know for a fact the only reason you can't understand it now is your extreme bias against logic that goes against what you want to believe
dont have all day to argue with pigheaded believers on 4chan so later
>>834221
don't even bother with it
>>834314
Not bashing your head against the human likeness of a dirt hill is a good choice. No need to sugar coat it with excuses.
>>834157
>I know whatGod is doing
The arrogance is real
>>834198
Yeah, much better to burn in Hell because God couldn't be fucked giving a coherent answer when we asked
>ontological argument
>a priori
>1616 + 400
Are there really people that defend this shit?
>>832973
never said this
I've always found it odd that the Ontological proof doesn't actually specify which God's existence it's proving. Like, ignore the obvious flaws with it and just accept it's true: how does it then logically follow that this God is the same as the one who sent the Son to die on the cross?
If faith is a virtue, and evidence undermines faith, then why believe in something that makes sense, why not believe in the most ridiculous religion, since that would require the utmost faith and thus would be demonstrating the highest virtue? Don't cut your religion with "practical" idea, go whole hog. Who cares if everyone thinks you are insane.
>>834429
You asked, Jesus answered.
He's done enough.
>>834303
A bias against logic?
To say the very real God Who made the very real universe is mythological is the height of both arrogance and ignorance.
>>834403
He said what He is doing. It's in writing. Maybe read it.
>>838369
Assuming you meant to say the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Classic mistake.
>>838331
The Son said as much. In direct terms.
You don't have to believe me.
You do have to believe Him.
>>838348
Faith is not a virtue; everyone has faith, and everyone is depraved.
Faith is the human ability to believe the unseen.
>>838380
The Son of Perdition? No, I made no such mistake.
>>838376
God isn't real though, you've been tricked into believing an imaginary thing because emotions and childhood indoctrination.
>>838386
Shame that you are unable to see the clear truth when it is presented to you. Instead you cling to false doctrines.
>>838390
The very creation of the universe is an unknown event to you. You therefore speak out of your ignorance.
You play pretend that God is not real, because you're irresponsible.
>>838395
Mohammad lied about the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
He is accursed.
>>838396
So believing whatever impossible nonsense is written in some biased cultural book is responsible?
I call it gullible.
>>838401
I'm saying you have no answers at all, and that you're fine with being ignorant. You have never demonstrated anything to the contrary.
Because Jesus rose from the dead after claiming to be God, and doing the works of God, and proving that He is God, what He says, goes.
>>838396
Are Christians immune to irony?
Do they practice at it, or are they born that way? Maybe Christianity attracts these kinds of people. Not presenting points or contesting them, just asserting special case pleading over and over like a mantra, maybe to win good-boy-points with onlookers or God. Categorically not a logical chain of arguments, just saying "You are wrong, I'm right".
Is there any way to show a Christian that arguing this way is not convincing to a skeptical opponent? I'm at a loss, what is the clearest way to walk someone through the steps to realize that they are going in circles?
I dunno, I guess it's actually frustrating surprisingly. If that was your goal then you win.
>>838411
You are still just believing a story in the Bible, and using it as "proof" for events claimed in the Bible, can't you see this is a critically flawed way to derive evidence for anything, much less The Entire Universe?
That simply isn't reasonable to accept, no matter how many times you assert it.
>>838425
Because facts, and the truth, are not up for debate.
And revealed knowledge from God is vastly superior to mankind's empirical scrabblings.
Irony is not lost on us. The people who have no clue about the creation of the universe telling us that God is wrong about what He did is hilariously ironic.
>>838460
How do you even know God made the universe?
>>838460
>Because facts, and the truth, are not up for debate.
Well there you have it, literal proselytizing bad-faith demagoguery. Thanks for nailing the coffin shut.
Fuck these sociopaths, this is exactly why Christianity will never be relevant in any intellectual or philosophic field.
I'm out.
>>838466
Because the definition of God is "The being Who made the universe".
Look, it's obvious you haven't put a lot of time into this. I'll boil your choices down for you.
The universe is uncreated; eternal. Rejected theory by science, but you can believe it by faith if you want.
The universe is self-caused; the universe caused its own existence. Rejected by science, but you can believe it by faith if you want.
The universe is created by another. This is the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause, God Himself. You can believe that it has been disproven by science by faith, if you so choose.
There really isn't a fourth option.
>>838482
It's actually called logic. You and I cannot change things in the past by believing or disbelieving them.
>>838495
Again how do YOU know God made the universe?
Were you there? Did he tell you? I want actual evidence and not the bullshit your feelings of hope tell you.
>>838411
You likewise have no answers and are fine being ignorant you just pretend you have answers.
>Because Jesus rose from the dead after claiming to be God, and doing the works of God, and proving that He is God, what He says, goes.
Yeah he said that.
In books written by other men.
These books:
>Are contradictory (What were Jesus' last words? Did he ride two donkeys at once or just one donkey?)
>Are error prone (Various things wrong with Mark for instance, such as Geography or Jewish practices)
>Have no clearly identified author. Any attribution to an Apostle is entirely based on tradition and hearsay (Mark basically disqualifies itself as having been written by the person it is attributed to for the previously mentioned criticisms directed at Mark).
>Were written up to over a century after the events would have transpired (130 CE about is when the Gospels are definitely known to have already existed and dates for the earliest are estimated to be in the range of 70 CE).
>Were tailored to various prophecies. Rather obvious when very liberal interpretation is required or potentially even dual fulfillments are needed. Even more obvious when the Gospels differ because of a misunderstanding (Matthew sees an emphasis made by restating the previous word in a different way as second mentioning, hence the two donkeys).
My words are divinely inspired by god.
As such they are clearly the truth.
The holy spirit compells me to drive out your superstitions.
There. Now I'm roughly as valid as the Gospels.
>>838504
Does God know that He made the universe?
Did God send people to tell humanity that He made the universe?
Did God come Himself and tell humanity that He made the universe?
If you think He did not, what on earth do you think Judaism and Christianity are all about?
>>838519
Post evidence or shut up.
>>838508
The books written by the eyewitnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ are very powerful.
So powerful that you cannot even read them, much less understand them.
And of course they were written after the fact; oh, wait, many of them were not. Many of them were written a thousand years before the event; many were written 600 years before the event; many of them were written 400 years before the event.
Because Jesus, the Messiah, was prophesied throughout the entire Old Testament, the tanakh, to the point where anyone believing Moses and the prophets believed in Jesus, as they were talking about Jesus.
Jesus had 7 things to say on the cross; obviously the last one Luke documents He said with His dying breath. Of course, I have already told you this, and you choose to ignore the truth. As usual.
There are no errors in Mark regarding geography or Jewish practices.
Most of the authors wrote anonymously because they were not the focus of what they were writing. Jesus is.
Written from a dozen years after the resurrection to 63 years after the resurrection.
The prophesies predicted the events, not the other way around.
If you take two donkeys, you have also taken one donkey. Nobody said Jesus was riding on two donkeys.
All of your "problems" with the scripture are bogus. Plainly bogus.
You blaspheme the Holy Spirit at peril of your soul.
>>838532
(the bible)
I'll never shut up dude. I don/t need a hugbox in which to operate.
>>838543
Not actual evidence
>>838504
>implying you can know something
>implying evidence is real
>implying there can be objectivity without a God for everything to be relative to
>>838553
Why is the bible not actual evidence, again?
>>838554
Enough bullshit evidence or shut up.
>>838554
The irony of someone saying God did not create the universe, who was not there to see the creation of the universe, has my sides in orbit.
>>832925
you are fucking stupid
>>832882
Descartes attempted to find God through intellect without relying on sense perception. God is less of the Abrahamic Deity and more of the "prime mover, infinite/immaterial being." Descartes if using the word "God" much like Aristotle did in Metaphysics.
And he didn't want to get boned by the Catholic Church, so there is that too. His writing is more about existentialism than Theology.
Everything else in this thread is just shitposts of undergrads who JUST read Descartes for the first time and didn't really get it.
>>838561
Unless there is some signature from God himself then its just a bunch of stories.
>>838566
Evidence is bullshit, you tard.
>if I can't see it! It isn't there!
>only that which I have the capability to observe is real!
>>838583
Im mentally retarded the post
>>838580
The signature is that 30% of the bible is prophecy, those prophecies come true; and only God knows the end from the beginning.
>>838590
What part of GOD HIMSELF cant you understand?
You have no evidence therefore it is not real good day.
>>838587
Prove that there is such a thing as proof.
You cannot because all """""""knowledge""""""" is based upon circular reasoning. Some degree of faith is always required to hold any beliefs at all, even scientific ones.
>>838602
Post evidence or shut up.
>>838587
"I'm"
>>838595
Yes, only GOD HIMSELF knows the end from the beginning, and only GOD HIMSELF can tell the end from the beginning, and has, through His prophets, His followers, and His Son.
>>838618
Why wont you post evidence already?
>>838615
More evidence for you to ignore:
Revelation 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”
--Jesus of Nazareth
Why is it only the leftists attempt to shut down all discussion? Why is it the leftists can only survive in safe spaces and hugboxes?
>>838622
(the bible)
There's the evidence. Go weigh it.
>>838624
>God is real
>"How do you know?"
>The Bible says it!
>"How do you know the Bible is true?"
>God told me!
m8...
This is some fine debate. Keep it up!
>>838541
If they were eyewitnesses they could get basic facts right.
And you can? The various translators hacking together your various editions of the bible can?
As said: The bible was tailored to the prophecies contained in the bible, often requiring dual fulfillment to even make the prophecies work.
No.
7 things or 7 words? Mark and Matthew both share last words but Luke and John both diverge. Also the Gospels were books written for specific audiences. They weren't meant to complete eachother.
Yes there are.
That doesn't change that the writers are completely unknown.
The events were described in such a way that they matched up with the prophecies. I wasn't implying that the prophecies were fabricated to match the bible.
Depends on the version used. The wording seems to imply the double mentioning sometimes (In direct reference to "prophecy"), in other cases it implies that he is riding both.
>>834206
Him just existing would mean you don't have those things initially.
>>838615
>being this retarded
This is some good bait, why should I assume that empiricism is true when it can't even justify itself?
Evidence. Is. A. Myth.
>>838624
Not a single signature from God himself was found so not evidence.
>>838643
So its a myth that me stabbing you would cause blood to leak out?
Are you fucking retarded?
>>838650
>muh experiences are objectively true
There is no evidence that reality is true. I may not even be stabbing you, as you could be a figment of my mind.
As I said, ALL knowledge is based upon circular reasoning. You must assume something to believe in anything, and that includes science and empiricism.
>>838643
>Evidence. Is. A. Myth.
wtfamireading.tif
>>838658
>as you could be a figment of my mind.
What a load of crap reality is objective, what you see is nothing more than the result of complex neural impulses.
If reality isnt real do explain why isnt LIGHT CAN BE CODED FOR THE VISION SENSE OR SOUNDWAVES CAN BE CODED FOR HEARING YOU FUCKING RETARD.
>>838660
If it is possible to prove something, then we should be able to prove that there is proof; however, we cannot do this without proof. It is circular reasoning, it goes like this:
1) Reality is objective
2) I know this because my observations of reality tell me it is objective
3) I know that my observations are correct because reality is objective
You start with the assumption of truth.
>>838661
calling someone a retard does not prove your point.
>>838663
Stop this bullshit I hate it when you christian nutjobs change the subject to avoid posting evidence.
>>838644
Only God sees the end from the beginning.
Only the Word of God tells the end from the beginning.
That you want literal fingerprints, on a history board, is ponderous.
>>838661
See my picture above: You have faith that those neural impulses will tell you that they are neural impulses.
There are complex hallucinations that are real within the mind. And, if it is true that our mind is entirely material, then all of our experiences are entirely within our minds, and thus we all live in our own reality. While it may be true that there is an objective reality that we can base our experiences off of, we cannot really prove it is true, or whether we can observe all that exists.
>>838629
God is real.
Start there. You're not even at the starting blocks of life yet.
>>838669
So no evidence, meaning God is not real.
>>838635
They did get the facts right.
One says Jesus said 2, 3 and 5 on the cross.
Another says Jesus said 1, 4, 6 and 7 on the cross.
Both are right.
>>838635
The OT was translated into Greek a century and a half before Jesus was born, and we have copies of those records.
So no, they did not re-write the prophecies to fit the life of Jesus.
Jesus fulfilled the prophecies written of the Messiah.
>>838667
I think there is no such thing as objective evidence, so shouldn't you prove to me that there is such a thing for me to search for something that I won't find? Isn't that the point of science? You want me to do something, so prove to me that it can be done.
>>838667
You have the same evidence we do. You have the heavens declaring the glory of God, and the earth showing His handiwork. You have the words of the prophets, and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as we do.
>>838678
The universe God made, demonstrating God is real.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ, demonstrating that He is God.
>>838672
The brain is a organ developed to allowed animated matter to be aware of reality, not the other way around. You seem to forget the fact that our brains can decode light and sound into sensory inforrmation means that reality is objective as light rays would not produce vision if they had no information in them before hand, radio waves also debunk your ITS ALL IN MUH HEAD argument.
>>838696
And it can be easily deceived. And it can be easily incorrect. And it can be completely biased.
You're not some truth seeker looking for evidence to believe in God.
You're in open rebellion against God.
>>838663
>1) Reality is objective
I'm gonna need evidence and/or proof.
>>838696
>You seem to forget the fact that our brains can decode light and sound into sensory inforrmation means that reality is objective as light rays would not produce vision if they had no information in them before hand
How do you know this?
>>838684
>Isn't that the point of science? You want me to do something, so prove to me that it can be done.
No wonder you believe in fairy tales.
>>838701
That is my point. To be an empiricist, you have to first assume your entire position.
>>838667
I'm not a Christian but what he's saying makes sense, naive positivist desu.
Of course material evidence is not the end-all for all factual knowledge, the question is whether given this limitation of knowledge we should believe anything at all outside of the material we can consistently perceive. I can have sincere faith in anything at all. In fact, faith in God isn't really innate but the result of interaction with the environment from which we get the abstract concept of God. Why is faith outside of perception even reasonable, when perception is really the only really defensible way we have of interacting with reality?
>>838699
Yes our brains dont see or observe everything in reality because our primate brains are not that complex, we cant see the information caused by light rays below or above the visual spectrum, nor hear sounds below our threshold, and our smell cannot detect faint scents or odors in the air.
However it is objective still. The only way to deceive the brain to be insane or be on drugs.
>>838704
The brain doesnt make any picture, the picture ALREADY FUCKING EXIST ITS IN THE LIGHT RAYS.
>>838707
Sure.
Everything's unique.
>>838724
>the picture already exists in the light rays
How can you prove that without already assuming that there is an objective existence?
>>838727
Most of science is true, we dont have the tech to prove the more advanced theories yet.
>>838707
>Alll this philosophical nonsense is nothing more than an obstacle in the way of science
Why don't you go home Sam Harris?
>>838724
So human beings can see all frequencies now? Since when?
>>838735
>Most of science is true
Can you prove this without using itself as proof (i.e. without using circular logic)?
>>838740
>there is objective existence
>said in response to asking for proof of objective existence
You, quite literally, just said that existence is objective because existence is objective. How is that any different from saying that God exists because God exists?
>>838741
I am done with this stupid philosophical crap POST EVIDENCE OR SHUT UP.
>>838682
>Jesus fulfilled some of the prophecies written of the Messiah
Fix'd
>>838735
All science is wrong. We just don't have the tech to prove it yet. But we will.
>>838740
Again, by definition, God created the universe. You don't seem to grasp that.
God is a title, not a name.
You can posit whatever or whoever you want to be your God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is mine.
You can have "science", "reason", or more accurately, "Ba'al" as your nominee for God.
>>838750
>Gravity is wrong
>Electromagnetism is wrong
>Boiling water causes steam is wrong
This is how stupid you sound.
>>838748
Jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies about the Messiah that were ripe.
Jesus will fulfill the rest when they become ripe, as He was rejected by Israel, and not embraced.
>>838752
Evidence post it or shut up.
I'm >>838715 so not the Christian
>>838745
But you are a moron, you ask for scientific evidence where he points out that there are epistemiological limits to the scientific method like, the existence of something metaphysical like God. You're just incapable of grasping it and try to arrive to your conclusion just like all the pop meme scientists (Read: Dawkins) without being able to get out of the bubble of the scientific method.
>>838763
What is gravity?
What is electromagnetism?
Is boiling water considered science now?
>>838767
Evidence of evidence or quit asking for nonexistent abstract concepts.
>>838767
You've finished reading the entire bible? Wow, that was quick!
>>838758
God is another word for deity
>Ba'al
>Your idol worshippers of satanic science hurr durr
You christians are so stupid, honestly we should kill every white christian to increase the genetic critical thinking skills of the white race.
>>838780
Not him, but if we use Thomasine logic, then God is just the first cause.
>>838784
Oh christians they make up so much bullshit and cant even be consistent with what their book tells them their deity is.
>>838787
Prove that time is real.
This is my point, you have to assume that reality is objective to even have evidence, but you cannot prove that reality is objective because you have to assume reality is objective to have proof.
>>838796
Time dilation
>>838780
The people who worshiped Ba'al did so because they valued science/reason/knowledge above all else.
That you didn't know you were one of them demonstrates how out in the dark you are.
>>838787
The Word of God is evidence of, and for, God, YHWH.
Do you realize how batshit insane you are, to throw out all the evidence you don't agree with, and then claim that there is no evidence at all?
>>838784
The problem I see with Thomasine logic is that it points out something that isn't false, which is that human cause-effect analysis breaks down if there is an absolute beginning to existence, but then proposes some sort of "meta-existence" which God must inhabit and doesn't need to abide by this, where there are much less abstracted explanations.
>>838787
>You have no proof that God is even metaphysical.
What kind of retarded answer is that? God is a metaphysical concept, if a God exists and it isn't some really powerful physical entity which is precisely what Christianity is completely about, then it must be a metaphysical entity. Metaphysical IS the definition of the Christian God. Your parroting of "proof!" really employs no thinking.
>>838805
The fact you think me an atheist worships a LE PAGAN BAD GUY BECAUSE THATS THEY ONLY WAY HE CAN BE A NONBELIEVER! shows how fucking stupid you are.
God I fucking hate debating with christians its like you are talking to special needs people.
>>838802
Time is a perceptual hallucination.
>>838802
>not getting the point
How do you prove that that is real?
>>838805
>People in ancient Levant
>Worshipped a renaissance method of having knowledge
>And through it they worshipped a deity which defies said renaissance method of having knowledge
I'm coming to the conclusion both sides of this discussion are morons.
>>838814
That you worship Ba'al, like the muslims do, just shows how lost you are.
You say you know there is no God.
Please detail your research into the multiverse, and your exploration therein, to establish your bona fides.
To begin with, have you ever left the planet?
>>838796
We can measure time, among a myriad of things to be learned from it, all coming with consistent results.
Can I have an extract of God to examine, pls :3?
>>838822
There was reason and knowledge prior to the Renaissance, if that's what you're suggesting. I can't believe that's what you're suggesting, but then there are a number of fools in this thread, and it's kind of difficult to track all of you.
>>838829
How do we know we can measure?
>>838826
So do it.
>>838829
>What is gravitational time dilation and special relativity, the post.
>>838834
How can we trust our observations and instruments when our minds may tell us things that are false?
>>838837
Post evidence.
>>838834
al-lah is Ba'al. The Arabs have always worshiped Ba'al. aka the Ba'al of the Moabites, in Hebrew HaBa'al, morphing into Hubal, the god of Mohammad's father.
>>838836
Your form of question is suspicious. Are you a presupp?
>>838842
Fool people into thinking you know your ass from a hole in the ground.
>>838841
Our minds cant tell us anything without outside sensory information you fucking retard thats why the neural impulses for senses start from outside the body and go to the brain and not vice versa.
Also stop just fucking stop POST EVIDENCE ALREADY FUCK!
>>838853
It's a pretty common base trolling technique. Write for the people reading, not for the troll.
>>838826
>Yh so no actual proof its metaphysical then. Good
You're clearly not participating in this argument to get any insight, you're just parroting your position and ignoring every other position. I'm done responding to you.
>>838833
>The people who worshiped Ba'al did so because they valued science/reason/knowledge above all else.
Science is a modern secular method of acquiring knowledge through material evidence. You can't believe that every epistemiological inquiry falls within the scope of science (like the moron i replied to right on the top of my post) and at the same time believe in a supernatural pagan God. Please think before you come to these crazy conclusions, or at least parrot them in /x/ where there are plenty other crazy people to believe and corroborate whatever narrative you're making up.
>>838860
Exactly. To the muslims, God is an evil being, while they worship the devil.
The God of the Arabs is not the God of the Jews.
>>832882
"Give her the dick."
-René Descartes
Truly he was a great philosopher.
>>838853
Not him, but I'm sure he's one of the presuppositionalists shitposting in this thread.
They don't deal in evidences. They deal in world games and I know you are but what am I. A system meticulously refined to troll secularists without really saying anything of substance.
I'd advise you move on.
>>838864
Do you not get it? I DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE I JUST WANT EVIDENCE OF YOUR DEITY ALREADY FUCKING FUCK I WANT TO SHOOT YOU RIGHT NOW.
You religious nuts have to realise we atheist dont care about your elementary school logic for the origin of the universe, we know the big bang could be wrong but we just dont care because we know in the future an actual factual theory will be formed.
>>838868
How the hell is Allah the devil? Have you christians completely lost your mind? Oh wait.
>>838886
Why cant you just post evidence already? Why is it so hard for you christians to post evidence? Every fucking board I do this on you all do the same shit.
>>838886
>150 posts in
>still hasn't presented a single piece of evidence
Keep thinking you can talk God into existence, buddy.
>>838900
Perhaps because faith in God isn't dependent on material evidence and the scope of your question is wrong and you're too stupid to realize an idea that a high school student should be able to.
>>838900
>implying this is a Christian position
I'm a Christian, and don't even agree with what I am saying, but the argument I am making is actually really heretical, I am just trying to make a point about assumptions.
So, I say again, prove that reality is objective without already assuming that that is the case.
>>838885
By denying that Jesus came down from heaven in the flesh; by denying that Jesus was crucified; by denying that Jesus died; by denying that Jesus rose from the dead; all of those are done in the power of the antichrist, the power of the devil.
>>838904
>180 posts in
>still hasn't proven the existence of a reality outside of my own mind that I should subject myself to
>>838913
Reality is defined by literally being Reality.
Is their an objective existence? Can non-existence exist?
>>838919
Did you create yourself? Did you create your parents all the way back to the origin of the species? Did you create the earth? Did you code DNA?
Well, if not you, someone did.
>>838917
This is completely ridiculous.
>>838921
>POST FUCKING EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!
>I can't understand your response so I go on many imageboards crusading with my fedora and throwing insults while I repeat my argument over and over and wonder why people both in an outside of Christianity think I'm stupid!!!!
>>838927
There is nothing in the bible about evolution, DNA or the big bang. STOP FUCKING STOP MAKING UP BULLSHIT AND BE CONSISTENT FOR ONCE YOU CHRISTIAN IDIOTS.
>>838927
This is precisely why I have come to accept Thomasine logic.
>>838933
>implying sola scriptura
Found the heretic
>>838930
Hey dude post evidence stop being a stubborn fuck just post evidence already.
>>838930
>circular =/= tautology
>retarded for believing that God's existence is self-evidential
Well you certainly are, considering a 3 year could see that as a half-assed excuse for your lack of actual evidence.
>>838937
Yes and that someone isnt God obviously.
>>838931
YA SEE CHILLREN!
GOD DOESN'T BEGIN IN THE MIND, HE BEGINS IN THE HEART!
PRAAAISE THA LAWD!
>>838928
The Quran denies all of those things that the bible attests to.
Mohammad literally listened to an angel tell him things about Jesus that were lies.
Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
Jibrail is Shaitan, and Mohammad is accursed.
>>838941
Okay. But because I am doing this, I think you should go ahead and post evidence of objective reality.
Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
Therefore nothing can move itself.
Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
a first cause must be aware and willful, as otherwise its actions in creating or causing the universe would remain uncaused by anything (and we cannot say that the actions are a first cause, because, as identified earlier, there must be an actor for there to be an action; that is to say, for God to act, there must be a God to act), because the being from which the action came about would have no input upon the action. To demonstrate and clarify, when an object is not in motion, we understand that it will not come into motion unless acted upon, which is confirmed by Newton (Encyclopedia Britannica); thus, there must be a cause of the action, even if the action is that of an abstract force. Therefore, we would not be unfounded in thinking that God’s actions should have a cause, which can only be determined to be the will of that God.
The last part is copy and pasted from a Philosophy paper I just turned in.
>>838933
Correct. Evolution is a lie. There are no lies in the bible. Every single observation mankind has ever made says that kind begets kind.
Jesus said He wrote His Law in your heart. It's there. You just can't read it yet, because nobody has figured out how to turn DNA into thoughts yet.
The truth is consistent. Your lies change from post to post.
>>838937
Gnostics? Is he a gnostic? They too are in the spirit of antichrist, denying that Jesus came down from heaven in the flesh.
>>838972
Reread the bible and search for any of the nonsense you are saying right now, you christians literally make up crap thats not even in your jew book about your own deity.
Also evidence or shut the fuck up. Every fucking time we atheist ask for evidence you idiots either change the subject or PROVE GOD ISNT REAL crap.
>>838972
>the () is an in-text citation I forgot to take out for this post.
This thread is fucking shameful.
What a tragic board.
>>838972
>a first cause must be aware and willful
He is, but I'm not sure this is true. Let me restate that. It is true, but I am not sure it has to be true.
>>838985
>sola scriptura
Christians don't believe everything is in the Bible, this is protestant nonsense.
I just proved that there must be an unmoved mover, and that this mover must be sentient, what more do you want?
I always figured god spread all those stories as a big joke. I'm laughing at least
>>838992
>This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion...
Maybe you should go.
>>838994
Well informed Christians do believe everything in the bible, but such a thing is not necessary for salvation.
Sola scriptura over prima scriptura merely warns people not to mix the holy with the unholy, as in the unholy traditions of the Vatican.
>>838972
Not that guy, but I'll bite
>The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
Implications of finite time not demonstrable
> and this everyone understands to be God.
I don't think it follows to conclude that there is a conscious entity lying outside of reality, just, as I said on an earlier post, that our causal interpretation of events, which is in itself a human way of constructing reality, falls apart at some level. To phrase it maybe more clearly, there must be something outside of the causal analysis we try to arrive to a first event through. But that doesn't mean it's supernatural.
>>838994
You havent proven jackshit in this entire thread all of you have done is change the subject constantly to avoid POSTING FUCKIN EVIDENCE.
>>838993
Well, my argument for this is that, if He were not so, then the actions of that uncaused cause would be uncaused, but the actions themselves are not the unmoved mover, because actions must have an actor (I elaborate on this earlier in the paper a bit).
>>832882
Just show me where the priest touched you, okay anon?
>>839007
>Well informed Christians do believe everything in the bible
How? You have to be a dialetheist to be a "well informed Christian?"
atei.st/src/1326784181948557.gif
>>839007
I mean that we don't think everything is IN, the Bible, not that we don't believe what IS in it. Sorry for the confusion.
>>839010
Isn't time a characteristic of matter though?
I do agree that the conclusion needs more premises, and that is largely what I spend much of that paper doing is proving that this cause must not be physical in the way we understand it and must be sentient.
>>839016
If you're not going to accept inductive or deductive arguments as evidence, then how do you justify a belief in science?
>>839036
Post evidence Im not falling for your bullshit again by changing the subject .
POST THE FUCKING EVIDENCE
>post evidence in a thread based in faith
Philosophy has become the cancer of this board.
>>839041
I did, you're just being a special snowflake and changing the definition of evidence so that it rules out anything that doesn't fit your empiricist hugbox.
>>839017
I see where you're going; I just wonder if the random acts of God, if God ever did anything at random, would also create a cohesive universe.
I don't know who or what God is exactly, all I know is He's a force more powerful than Mom and Dad put together
>>839034
Not at all; some of the things you think are contradictions are not contradictions at all; that is to say, they are not A and Not A in the same way, at the same time, in the same manner.
>>839036
>Isn't time a characteristic of matter though?
It is, but we need to demonstrate that matter has a start. Using scientific inquiry we can go as far back as the Big Bang. But in the Big Bang matter already existed in that super-condensed state or whatever (hint: I'm not a physicist) but we can't really make any non speculative guesses at what was before that super condensed ball of matter or how that super condensed ball of matter got there. It could have been the result of some sort of "big crunch" or some crazy change in entropy we've yet to understand, both of which could preclude matter (and therefore time) existing infinitely.
I suggest you ignore the guy who keeps crying about proofs. That there are 63 instances of the word evidence and 20 something of the word proof in this thread should tell you he's not willing to go outside the same line of reasoning and has just been repeating the same all morning.
>>839056
My argument against that is that, because all actions are caused, no action can be truly random.
And, of course, that that would mean God would create a cohesive universe of His own volition (and, also, that God defines the rules of existence and thus any universe He would create would be cohesive).
>>839057
Simpsons did it!
>>839055
Bible is not evidence unless there is any sign of God actually writing it. I asked for any signature from God himself in the bible there is none thus its not evidence.
>>839068
I'm wondering if God could do things at random now. I'm leaning towards "no". But then again, He is a person, and He does what He wills. So, "yes".
Wow.
I cannot get a handle on this.
>>839057
O, Lord, thou art a big God
"According to thine conceptions."
>>839063
They made it very small so that people could imagine that something very small just popped into existence.
And yet by necessity it had to hold everything that now exists in the universe.
True story.
>>838973
>here comes the "___is a lie" train
>>839071
And there is. It's the only prophetic book on the planet. It's the only inerrant book on the planet. 40 men wrote 66 books over 1500 years that all harmonize with the truth.
You would literally have to be blind to miss it.
>>839057
But could God beat up my Dad? I don't think so.
>>839081
Everything from the devil is a lie. It's all he can do.
>>839088
Could your Dad stand in the presence of a holy God?
Hmmmmm..... not looking good for Dad.
>>839071
Not that goy.
>>839077
Yes, these are the mysteries of a being not bound by our conceptions.
>>839063
Yeah, I am pretty much going to ignore him from now on.
As far as my argument about time goes, I use the Big Bang as a starting point just because, as you said, it is the furthest back we can prove now; however, I would still say that, even if this Big Crunch took place, it would still have to have a cause, and that this would just continue the regress ad infinitum.
>multiple solution capcha
>forwhatpurpose.jpg
>>839088
I will fuck your dad up, boy.
>>839080
Well, again I am no physicist but it seems consistent with their current understanding of the universe (i.e. verifiable) that this existed. But "popped into existence" is probably not what they'd call it, it's really hard to reduce all this quantum theory and string theory etc etc that requires different levels of reasoning to our causal conceptions of time. And of course these weren't built around the big bang themselves as to make the idea of the big bang work, they were built to explain other natural phenomena and largely happen to be consistent with available instrumental evidence and with a big bang.
>>839087
Post evidence from the deity itself or shut up.
>>839098
>and that this would just continue the regress ad infinitum.
Exactly, but that is a possibility as well. Infinite time is not impossible or inconceptualizable
>>839091
I feel your usage of "lies" or "truth" is inappropriate (unless you're just taking the piss).
Evolution, like most of science isn't about "truth", it's about a collection of facts demonstrated to be correct and consistent.
If new evidence came in which discredited the Theory, it would be throw away overnight, and those that discovered that evidence celebrated.
Can you say the same of your theology?
>>839102
Yeah, it's all bullshit. Also, current models show that such a "big bang" is not necessary, or even viable.
>>839103
(the bible)
>>839111
I don't really see how it would be possible, tbf. Might just be an inability to conceptualize for me.
Anyway, about to have to go to my history class, so if I stop replying, I'm not ignoring you.
>>839118
Correct. When you're dealing with men, you're usually dealing with "best guesses".
When you're dealing with God, God deals only in the truth.
When you're dealing with the devil, the devil deals only in lies.
>>839118
>Can you say the same of your theology?
The truth stands eternal; modern science is always "self-correcting", which is a nice way of saying that it's always wrong.
I'll take always right over always wrong, all day, every day.
>>839138
You mean that modern science starts from a viewpoint that humans are fallible, and can't know absolute truth, so we search for the best approximation of truth that we can.
>>839138
It's actually the other way around, self correcting is an advantage in a model, rather than dogmatically holding premises without (or in spite of) evidence.
>>839129
I would like a /rel/ board
>>839126
You have no proof that God wrote the bible. Now post evidence of your deity or shut up.
>>839147
Yes. Best guesses of mankind.
Revealed knowledge from God > best guesses of mankind.
>>839153
It's only an advantage in a model that's wrong.
God is never wrong.
>>839168
I have proof God inspired the bible, which is my actual claim.
The proof comes in studying the prophecies of the bible, and watching them come true. A negative proof is also there, watching thousands of attacks on the bible all fail.
>>839051
>christcucks who put faith above all posting on a discussion board with others who have dissenting viewpoints
What the fuck is even the point? You leave no room for any actual discussion, it's like arguing with a wall. Do you think yourself to be some kind of e-missionary or something?
>>839170
But it's revealed to mankind, and thus goes through mankind's fallible brain. So that revealed knowledge is at best the "truth" in the same way any science is, since it comes from subjective viewing of the world, and at worst, the lies of a crackpot.
>>839178
No prophecy in the bible has come to truth at all, also post evidence.
