How can a logical and reasonable man prove that any God of any kind cannot exist without having faith they don't exist? Is Atheism a christian construction to bully agnostics into conversion by making Atheism as indefensible as christianity?
Proof and God never go together. Its a metaphysical concept of the highest magnitude that often is beyond even human comprehension. The idea of God is so extraordinary it can not even be fully understood or explained.
Atheism though has existed long before Christianity was even an idea. Hardly a "christian construction" as the idea of God and the lack of belief in God exist outside even a Christian framework.
>>838785
What makes you think God's existence is vulnerable to mankind's logic and reason?
>>838854
God is another name for Yahweh the sky "thing" that messed with jews centuries ago.
>>838891
The idea of God existed before the middle east named one of their deities Yahweh or the Israelites were even a people.
>>838903
No God is the sky "thing" that jews worshipped. Im fucking tired of christians calling some unexplainable metaphysical force God some christians are so dumb they dont even know the real name of their deity.
>>838785
What? I don't think you know what atheism is. Atheism isn't about proving that God doesn't exist, or claiming to know for a fact that no Gods can exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in deities.
The logic behind atheism is; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Because there is no empirical evidence that proves that any God/Gods exist, then there's no reason to believe in any of them.
Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. You can't be both. The vast majority of atheists are.
>>838916
Oh you're a faggot! I'm sorry I thought you were actually interested in an answer and not just masterbating your ego disguised as pretending to be a retard.
>>838903
Yahweh worship began long before the idea of the world having one, perfect creator God
>>838923
Wrong anon, the OP is the definition used in many Catholic apologetic debates with atheists, what you're typing is this:
>I am unconvinced of the existence of particular Gods due to my retarded scope to prove the divine nature of God using only human logic and reasoning without faith
It's ignorance through and through, in this theological debate we already agreed that a God is a deity beyond human comprehension, therefore you need faith to believe its existence/non-existence, both of which require the burden of proof. So of course you know its impossible to prove this God exists with logic and reason, therefore you are being illogical and unreasonable for expecting this to happen
>>838952
I like the part where christians make up nonsense to justify their insanity.
>>838952
I don't care how the apologists define atheism, they don't get to strawman my position
>>838967
Almost as dumb as people claiming Unicorns cannot exist (Atheism) Instead of people just having doubts about its existence (Agnosticism)
>>838952
prove that a immaterial teapot isn't orbiting the sun between jupiter and mars
>>838980
Unicorns can exist with gene modification, but God doesnt exist without proof.
Render unto science what is science's, and unto God what is God's.
>>838949
I'm aware. Yahweh was originally one of many deities worshiped in Canaan and went by other names before the Israelites isolated him as their only God. Even then the Polytheism of the region can be seen in the adaptation of other deities worship being appropriated into the construction of the Temple and rituals.
But even this older concept of the divine was understood to describe events outside of human understanding or reason which is a trait seen throughout all of history.
It does not matter the time period or culture, the concept of "God" be it singular or plural has always been in reference to concepts beyond human capacity and why most great thinkers have been inclined to leave the prospect within the metaphysical and not get bogged down into the effort to "prove" empirically the existence of such ideas.
>>838991
Prove that one isn't ;))))
>>838952
>God is a deity beyond human comprehension
1. Do you have any proof of this? 2. If God is incomprehensible, then no one could know for sure he exists, and therefor wouldn't know for sure he's incomprehensible.
>you need faith to believe its existence/non-existence
No, you would need faith to believe in God. You still wouldn't need any faith to disbelieve.
>both of which require the burden of proof.
The burden of proof is on those making the claim. Believes claim God exists, I don't accept that claim. The burden of proof is on them not me.
>So of course you know its impossible to prove this God exists with logic and reason
Ok, well if that's true than why believe in that God in the first place. Or anything unproven but falsifiable for that matter? Like ghosts, unicorns, leprechauns or flying spaghetti monsters.
>>838916
Gee, maybe YHWH isn't a name, but a placeholder for a name.
You would know that, of course, if you had any knowledge on the subject worth knowing.
>>838967
Example?
>>838968
Your position already burned to the ground. You claim there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of an eternal God, yet an eternal God exists.
If there's a problem between you knowing God exists, and God, you're the one with the problem, not God.
>>839014
Wrong again. Holy crap are you an idiot. Read the Meshe Stele before you commit any further atrocities on knowledge.
>>839032
I find it completely unpersuasive, as God can condescend to make Himself known to His creation, and has.
>>839035
>You claim there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of an eternal God, yet an eternal God exists.
Ok then, where's the empirical evidence?
>>839014
if something doesn't have a single foothold outside the realm of metaphysics it isn't even worth discussing. I'm interested in what we can learn, not philosophical woo woo that is defined in such a way that it cannot be proven or disproven
>>839042
>as God can condescend to make Himself known to His creation, and has.
When was this?
Don't you idiots get bored discussing the same shit?
This is why I stopped going to talk.origins 20 years ago.
>>839035
>yet an eternal God exists
how do you know this? what proof do you have?
>>838854
>The idea of God is so extraordinary it can not even be fully understood or explained.
Yet somehow Christians never stop telling you about all these super cool awesome wonderful attributes God seems to have, and how you are an evil awful person if you disagree with them.
>>839054
I like pissing contests
>>839054
And here you are still chiming in.
>>839054
You know what I get fucking sick of? Anti-theist edgelords and agnostics being made fun of by conniving christians in "theological debates".
I'm fucking sick of Emmaculate Heart Radio dedicating 30 minutes every week to "Atheists and why they are Atheists" only to make who fun of layman who are really agnostic at best by hardened Catholic Apolegetics who laugh at them on air from doing 50 years of theological debates.
I hate atheism to its core and I hate Catholicism to its core, its all one big circus to make stupid people feel more stupid. I will finally disprove atheism as a strawman by christians once and for all and I will start with this board.
>>839021
For your first point the characteristics in which we often ascribe to the idea of God are what incline us to believe that if there is a God he is beyond comprehension and understanding.
For the first bit of your second point, that is correct. Which is why the majority of academia is made up of agnostic theist and agnostic atheist. It is rare to find anyone within the study of philosophy or theology that would be willing to describe themselves as a gnostic atheist or theist. At least within the circles of academics worth reading anyway.
However the second half of your second point is a fault in reason. We do not need to know if a thing exist to have a construction of what we believe it to be like. In fact humans often construct ideas of properties we believe something to have before we are aware of if it does or does not exist. Take for example the "God particle". Scientist had figured out what exactly it was they were looking for, what it would "look" like but needed an experiment to prove its existence. The "Nature" of the "God particle" was understood" before it's existence was solidified.
Your third point is an error both on the earlier comment and yourself. The jump from agnostic or gnostic theist or atheist is understood to be without any reason or logic behind it. To know with certainty the existence or lack of existence of something unprovable is fallacious. Which goes to your fourth point. Both a declaration of the certainty of existence or lack there of is making a claim about the existence of God. Both positions make a claim about something unknowable. Thus both must present evidence.
Finally, belief in God typically relates to anecdotal rational over empirical evidence. It is also what often leads the discussion into theology over philosophy. You are not going to understand the reason behind a person's belief without understanding the person themself.
>>839067
To tell you how stupid you are. I'm not a player on the field, I'm booing from the stands. If you can't see the difference than I feel sorry for you.
>>839046
You're going to find that logical positivism will only get your so far Anon. God is not the only concept that humans have resigned to the realm of metaphysics.
>>839045
The entire universe God created is empirical evidence of God, Who created the universe, and gave you a mind to explore it.
Start using it.
The Word of God is proof of God; it tells the end from the beginning.
Start reading it.
>>839038
The only idiot here is the one citing random pieces they remember from History 101 and not bothering to construct an actual argument to relate them to the topic.
>>839050
Many times. He walked in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve; He met with Moses at Mt. Sinai; He talked to Cain face-to-face, and with Abraham many times. He was with the three lads in the fiery furnace, and rescued Hagar and Ishmael from Sarai's death sentence. He counseled Joshua on the eve of Jericho, and stood against Balaam in the way.
He is the eternal God.
He would rather die than live without you, so He did. What greater love can there be?
>>839059
The Revelation of Jesus Christ.
>>839100
t. cultist
>>839083
Vatican is evil, dude. But who stands against them?
>>839092
Nah, you're a streaker who has left the stands and run out onto the field to show everyone your ass.
>>839101
No, the idiot is the one saying that the most evil people on the planet worshiped the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob before Abraham did.
>>839100
this type of stupid argument makes me want to put a bullet in my brain. say that we are both looking at a rock at the bottom of a hill. you claim that a person rolled it down the hill. i ask you why you think that. you reply that you have empirical evidence since the rock is indeed at bottom of the hill. how does this possibly prove the cause that you have assigned?
>>839112
Cults are closed. The offer of salvation is given to all who believe.
>>839115
#rekt
>>839120
Because the rock and the hill could not exist without God creating them in the first place.
>>839116
I have never made that claim. I said that the concept of God predates Abraham and that the Israelites worshiped a pantheon before isolating Yahweh to be the head of their gods.
>>839115
How do you figure? A streaker doesn't talk. Don't get upset because I'm upsetting the fact that you're spending all of your time on 4chan talking about the same topic over and over. Call me when you turn 20.
>>839123
Why do we assume that god exists?
It's better to assume God doesn't exist until we find evidence.
>>839097
the difference is with other things that haven't been empirically proven, like string theory, we actually have a complex mathematical explanation for how it would work and some observable phenomena that could prove it if we develop a way to detect it, not just "it's beyond human understanding"
>>839123
:^)
>>839127
Then you're not the idiot I was referring to the Meshe Stele, are you. Oh, wait, you totally are.
El is not Elohim, and YHWH was never worshiped by anyone who was not an Israelite, as the Israelites were only the Israelites after Jacob had 12 sons, the 12 tribes.
YHWH is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. All three. And Jacob's name was changed to Israel.
To say the Israelites worshiped some other gods before YHWH is by definition incorrect. If you want to say their ancestors did, feel free. Abraham's people, that he left, worshiped demons.
>>839084
Wow, that was a lot of bad and unconvincing rhetoric.
If you say something is real but can't prove it, then you can blame someone for not believing you. They're not being ignorant or close minded, they're just not gullible.
Let me address a particularly asinine statement you've made:
>the characteristics in which we often ascribe to the idea of God are what incline us to believe that if there is a God he is beyond comprehension and understanding.
So, your proof is that you believe it to be true, so therefore it must be true. No, just no.
>>839140
Because the universe exists.
God is a title.
The title belongs to the Creator of the universe.
People have different candidates for the title "God".
>>839163
No, the thought is "whoever made the universe is greater than I am".
You, in your arrogance, cannot navigate to that reality.
>>839164
What a confusing and loaded term, also that's some literal non-sequitur. The universe existing doesn't in any way support the existence of a God, unless you want to insert "If universes exist, they must be created" But then that's a whole other issue you have to show, you are in even deeper.
I don't think this strategy helps explain anything, it keeps adding even more unsupported premises.
>>839162
you can't be serious. even if you accept the bible as true you can't say that the israelites didn't worship other gods or even that only israelites worshipped yahweh. just look at judges, kings, chronicles, jeremiah, ezekiel, etc and you'll find plenty of references to israelites worshipping baal, asherah and molech. and if you didn't know, Job was an edomite and yet he supposedly worshipped yahweh. there's even an Aramean in kings who comes to worship yahweh
>>839181
It's the exact same point. If the universe exists, something must have caused it to exist. We'll call that something "God".
>>839185
>If the universe exists, something must have caused it to exist
You never explained this line of reasoning, I think.
>>839167
>Implying a sentient being made the universe
You, in your arrogance, has attributed a value to a variable who's value is unknown.
>>839185
>If the universe exists, something must have caused it to exist.
Well I don't know how you intend to support that claim.
>>839145
Well I had in mind Morality over theories in physics when talking about metaphysics.
I agree that the existence of God is an argument that limits itself to discussion and can't exactly argue itself into a position that everyone should be expected to then believe in.
It's why I am of the opinion that it is a personal matter and not one the demands extensive philosophical review. To which modern academia appears to share my sentiment as the topic isn't widely discussed anymore.
If God exists, there must be something that caused it to exist.
Let me remind everyone in this thread that physics requires a belief in god as the force which controls probability by normalizing wave functions. If most athiests weren't so intellectually disingenuous they would know that already. God is all that "is" and all that is is can be "good" or "bad" based on "philosophy" which translates into dummy terms as "your opinion." Personal preference means nothing in the face of actuality though.
>>839194
so you accept that it's not illogical to believe that an immaterial genderfluid necktie beyond the bounds of space and time created the universe and morals come from zer moral fiber. why is ze a necktie? it shows how zer nature is beyond human comprehension
Let me show you how it works.
1. There are some believable assumptions.
2. By following logic you reach some conclusion.
3. Conclusion can be that God doesn't exist.
Faith is here only in step one where you believe in your assumptions and in step two where you just need to believe in your logic. There is no need for your assumptions to be atheistic. For example, if you start with faith in God but conclude that such God should defeat all evil in like one second and this clearly doesn't happen then you will be able to deny existence of God starting from a clearly theistic position.
>>839163
I have never blamed anyone for their beliefs and never called anyone in my life close minded. Nor have I said anywhere in this thread what my stance on the existence of God might be or given any argument about proof of existence.
My point was to offer the standards in which academics use to discuss God. IE a being outside of human comprehension by nature of the attributes in which it is often described as having.
>>839209
>Let me remind everyone in this thread that physics requires a belief in god as the force which controls probability by normalizing wave functions.
lol wut
this I gotta hear
>>839199
God by definition is an entity without cause.
>>839183
The false claim is that the "Israelites" worshiped other gods before YHWH.
Let's take things one at a time, shall we?
Now, your new claim that the Jews strayed away from worshiping YHWH, and worshiped the gods of their neighbors, is well documented in the bible. So are the punishments they endured for doing so.
But no, YHWH is not some canaanite war god, and no, the Israelite so named were not pantheists.
>>839221
The universe by definition is an entity without cause.
>>839209
If you think about it normalizing wave functions doesn't really much differ from any other laws of physics. Are God required for gravity too then?
>>839188
There are three choices.
The universe is uncaused.
The universe is self-caused.
The universe is caused by another.
Only the last makes sense. The universe is not eternal; x ----> x is illogical, and God creating the universe is literally the opening line of the bible.
>>839199
God caused himself to exist. Checkmate.
>>839192
I cannot attach a value to God.
>>839213
I believe it is illogical to categorize the being as a necktie by virtue that a necktie given it's properties can not be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
And as I said I believe people have a wide range of reasons for their belief in a God. Some because that was how they were raised others because they claim to have witnessed a miracle. I'm not interested in insulting or chastising a person over their personal convictions or judging wether or not they are rational to begin with,
>>839199
Unless God reveals that He is an eternal being, which He has.
>>839209
>Quantum mechanics prove God exists
Said no one who actually knows anything about QM ever.
>>839231
>Only the last makes sense.
How come and what makes you presume that the universe has to make sense?
>>839227
Yes.
>>839225
I'm not exactly equipped to debate that statement but I don't see a problem in accepting that idea.
My point was to dismiss the notion that God can not exist because he must have had a cause.
>>839245
Because I look for sense and reason, and find them.
Because when I see a painting, I infer there was a painter.
When I see DNA, I assume that a much higher intelligent being, a transcendent being, coded that DNA.
Because I understand that 1 in 10^258 is not "likely".
>>839224
read the song of moses in deuteronomy. your bible probably has the line that El Elyon numbered the nations according to the sons of israel. and then says that Yahweh's portion is israel. this nonsensical line is actually an edit of "sons of el" which is found in older manuscripts. with this taken into consideration Yahweh is one of the sons of el who recieved israel as his nation by his father el. this, along with that their name is israel and not israyahu, proves that ancient israelites didn't originally worship yahweh specifically
>>839227
What people regard as god is a lie. The truth of the matter is that the scope of the situation is wide as fuck, and that god is the amalgamation of all information that exists in the universe.
>>839225
It is not, and that is not even the common scientific consensus, as we are not in heat death.
>>839235
You attributed an attribute to that which the universe comes from, without any empirical evidence to support why it would have that attribute.
>>839255
When I see a humongous dildo I think it would be a great fit right up your ass, is this reasonable/justified though?
>>839224
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[a] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
No, he's totally talking to himself in the plural form here guys. Totally not a pantheist culture at all. Nope.
>>839255
>When I see DNA, I assume that a much higher intelligent being, a transcendent being, coded that DNA.
>I assume that a much higher intelligent being
>I assume that
>I assume
>assume
There's your problem.
>>839236
an immaterial necktie beyond the bounds of space and time however can be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, just like how God is a disembodied, immaterial mind when material minds bound in space and time such as ourselves cannot hold those properties
>>839231
> Only the last makes sense.
But what caused the God? You can't answer this question without reducing into:
1. The God is uncaused.
2. The God is self-caused.
That is why third answer is most shitty one. It is one of two other superior options in disguise. The only real third option is an infinity chains about how universe caused by another universe which is cause by another, etc. Or the same shit about the God who are created by even mightiest God that created by like uber-God, etc.
>>839273
Atleast he's trying to hypothesize you fuckin clown
>>839257
What nonsense you believe.
Sons of God are angels. There are spiritual rulers over temporal rulers.
>>839261
What is your sentience worth to you?
>>839284
A hypothesize is an educated guess. What he's doing is called a "shot in the dark".
>>839238
The universe is an eternal being then too.
This is fun, let's play Special Case Wackamole.
>>839288
Ur mom.
>>839285
sons of el are what the canaanite gods are called, as they are all the sons of el
>>839258
Is that from a videogame?
>>839258
I king of agree with it. Just instead of all information in the universe it should be all of possible reality or something. It is most coherent option here.
>>839269
Correct.
Keep reading.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Elohim is a plural word; the -im makes it plural. But it is used in the singular sense.
Trinity. One God, three persons; plural, yet singular.
The Jews didn't know they were writing this; they just thought that God inspired the writing to indicate that God cannot be contained by a word, a tense, or a number. And yet, there is God's nature, shining through.
Unity in Diversity.
>>839291
While you have a point, you yourself are quite ungenuine in a similar regard.
>>839273
DNA is so far above our understanding that to think it happened at random is the act of a fool. Mapping the human genome didn't get us any closer to understanding the workings of DNA; it showed us how much we didn't know already.
>>839259
So you are saying there is some way to empirically determine information and use evidence to support or dismiss a claim about the universe?
Shame there isn't a similar way we can support the idea of God.
>>839282
Nothing.
He is an eternal being. He always was, and always will be.
>>839302
wrong. it's actually showing that the israelites worshipped the canaanite pantheon. the trinity wasn't made up until the 3rd or 4th century AD
>>839292
The universe is material, and subject to entropy, and not in heat death. So no, it has not been around for an infinite time. It hasn't been around very long at all.
>>839305
Says you.
>>839297
Angels are called the sons of God.
Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
These are fallen angels.
El, the canaanite god, had three children. Ba'al, Molech, and Asheroth.
El is not YHWH.
READ THE STELE.
>>839315
Ok, true. But what has that got to do with me? I haven't made any claims about DNA.
>>839315
actually since mapping it our understanding of junk dna has greatly improved. complexity doesn't by itself prove god
>>839301
Naw, god is essentially the Akashic Record. It has to fuck with probability to build a coherent continuum, otherwise everything would just be pseudo-random strings of information.
https://libraryofbabel.info/
>>839320
Jesus rose from the dead.
>>839327
> subject to entropy
You know that entropy couldn't really destroy universe? Like if there is nothing except black holes it is still universe. Heat death just aren't enough to destroy universe. You need collapse on much bigger scale like Big Crunch.
>>839326
Now Adam and Eve are "the Israelites"? How much medication are you on right now?
>>839277
If it is immaterial then it can not be a necktie as a necktie is a material object. I reject this idea because the properties in which you associate with this being are contradictory.
I get what you are doing, trying to make a rather uninspired parody of Russell's teapot but the refutation of Russell's idea still stands as we reject his notion of a tea-pot because it requires explanation of existence by definition of its properties. IE a tea-pot does not materialize out of nothing therefor we have no reason to suppose it was ever placed within Jupiter's rings.
This does not work within the argument over the conception of God because God's properties are immaterial.
Now as I have said before I do not find the lack of belief of a God to be irrational as the acceptance of such a large and unknowable concept is a rather large pill to swallow. But at the same time the refutation of this concept is not one that can be made over a discussion by nitpicking proprietress of an unknowable and unfathomable being.
Which is ultimately the point I made at the very start of this thread. "The idea of God is so extraordinary it can not even be fully understood or explained."
Where people take that is entirely their own personal motivation but not one they will ever find reason and logic to compliment and approve of.
>>839333
That by seeing things that exist, we can infer things about how they came to be.
Intelligent code was made by an intelligent coder.
>>839334
Not yours. There is no such thing as junk DNA.
>>839341
Entropy is essentially the progress of the universe's pieces coming back around to form the larger whole.
>>839341
Of course it would. Everything would eventually assume the same temperature. Heat death.
>>839332
i've read the Meshe stele and that isn't on it. what the fuck are you reading?
>>839338
lol
>>839350
>That by seeing things that exist, we can infer things about how they came to be.
Why not just use the scientific method to figure it out? Why make guesses?
>DNA is intelligent code
Proof?
>>839346
Let me fix a statement for you
>"The idea of god is so extraordinary that it cannot be explained or understood by anything other than a wizard."
>>839361
*Mesha Stele
Not enough to spell it right apparently.
>>839361
That Chemosh isn't YHWH.
>>839376
No I think it's fine as is since wizards do not exist.
>>839365
What makes you think the scientific method is an adequate tool to investigate the divine?
>>839346
russell's teapot is easy to explain: an alien race that happened to make teapots launched one into space where to wandered until finally reaching the sun where it had enough velocity to orbit the sun between mars and jupiter. also my teapot can be immaterial because that's how i've defined it. if god is a mind and we only know minds to exist from material bodies then he is equally absurd
>>839346
You are pleading a special idea.
This cannot ever produce any truth or knowledge or practical purpose, here is an example: In addition to God, There is a God2, who is incomprehensible (lets give him the extra illogical trait that he is the same as and also completly different from God1). Then lets also make God3, who is extraordinary and incomprehensible, also God4 who is... and so on.
Actually let's make infinite sets of these gods, {Godx | -infinity < x < infinity}. And so on.
We haven't learned or achieved any knowledge of anything, no matter how many mysterious Gods we posit. We certainly should never assume that these things actually exist, for heaven sake.
These special ideas are worthless, but at the very least I will give you credit that you are a step up from the YEC guy in these threads, at least your god is the nice bubble outside the universe kind, instead of literal jew myth.
>>839357
Presence of temperature directly proves that something exists. Universe wasn't destroyed. There will be no temperature not even the same one in scenario with real universal destruction.
>>839397
God specifically stated that He has searched everything and there are none like Him.
Seriously.
He anticipated your argument.
>>839384
Because it's been proven to be the best method of investigation.
Let me guess, you think God is special exception to real evidence and actual investigation because [insert pointless rhetoric here].
>>839381
Shows what you know. I bet you think wizards and sorcerors are the same thing.
Next you'll tell me money doesn't grow on trees.
>>839403
Heat death is universal destruction. However, the universe will not last much longer.
>>839404
Helpfully enough God2, 3, 4, etc has the property that they are incomprehensible, so obviously God1 couldn't understand God2. Gotcha.
>>839405
Best for the supernatural? Best for the paranormal? Best for the divine? Best for the demonic? Best for the past?
No, it isn't even good for the present. You just trust that it is, on faith.
>>839412
You have what you started with; nothing. I have failed you in that measure.
>>839397
> Let's check idea for like five seconds
> We haven't learned nothing
What a surprise. Any idea would be worthless if you don't want to study its deep conclusions seriously.
>>839415
>Science is based on faith just like my shitty belief system.
>>839397
The only problem with that formation is like the immaterial necktie you are now associating numerals to a metaphysical entity. This is not special pleading, its just a misunderstanding on your part about the agreed upon standards within academia of God.
It is akin to labeling "Good" as Good1, Good2, Good3 etc. These ideas are worthless because they are gibberish and not an actual reflection to better conceptualize what the metaphysical abstract is.
All you've done is demonstrate the complexity of metaphysics and why it remains a topic that is so easily misunderstood.
>>839397
>instead of literal jew myth.
He is not a myth, and He does not live in our universe.
You can't even compliment someone without committing error.
>>839415
Faith was failed miserably too. That is why only occult practices and alchemy is reliable.
>>839427
Science is, or used to be, observations, experiments, verifiable and repeatable tests, etc.
Now it's "the universe exists because the law of gravity exists".
>>839435
Science has nothing to do with any of those things.
Stop loving lies.
>>839429
> these ideas are worthless
There actually some interesting conclusion that you can draw from parallels between God and mathematical concept on infinity if you know both mathematics and theology on reliable level.
>>839431
Pal, I gotta tell ya, your favorite story isn't the only box God can be put in. God is pretty much the core of ambiguity that lies at the heart of all meaning. It goes much farther than any single image you can imagine for it. Artful symbolism is infinite, man.
>>839446
I'll leave that to Newton and other more educated men.
>>839452
If you have a box to hold God, worship the box.
>>839446
As a child of satan, you cannot understand anything of God. It is foreign to you. You can only understand your father, the father of lies.
>>839466
>66
Speaking of Child of Satan...
>>839460
Alright, think of it this way. God is irrational emotion and rational logic at the same time.
>>839475
Most people are children of satan; few are adopted into the Family of God. Everyone who asks, but few.
>>839482
le sigh
>>839482
Are you implying that God is whatever you can imagine him to be? But that would mean that it's up to the individual to build a stronger process of abstract thought to delve deeper and deeper into a mystery that never ends!
>>839492
That pretty Metal.
>>839505
Bingo.
There's always more God to know, and love, and that knowledge, and that love, grow infinitely deeper, without ever running out of room to grow more, and grow deeper.
>>839466
Jokes on you. I am direct manifestation of God in the form of mortal being. Can you say the same in your position of being who can't even speak from the name of any real God by himself?
>guise how do I proved a negative?????
Thread like this should result in a ban.
>>839526
Because I know God, I know you to be a liar, and the child of the father of lies.
>>839564
I speak from the God and can guarantee that you doesn't know him.
>>839595
but i am God and you sure don't speak for me, you actively deny me
>>839162
Literally none of these people existed.
>>839751
Good for you, champ. Only you exist. Fight the power!
>>839781
That's all you have? Kill yourself.
>>839808
Do I exist though? After all, aren't you the one who says who exists, and who doesn't?
>>839868
I'm going off of scholarly consensus. You're just saying stupid stuff.
>>839877
Maybe you're just posting with yourself. Maybe you're a brain in a vat.
>>839898
At least I have a brain to put in a vat.
>>839907
rekt
>>839907
Are you sure it's not there now?
>>839934
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
>>839438
>Now it's "the universe exists because the law of gravity exists".
No one said that.
