ITT: We argue for why God probably doesn't exist and propose alternatives to the God hypothesis.
I'll start http://pastebin.com/XGfzNagT
Russell's Teapot is enough for anyone with a brain.
Muslims and Christians will argue about the color of the teapot while atheists get shit done.
>>76302077
You'd think. Then they pull some shit like "But God is magical and doesn't need to follow logic!!!"
Then you realize they've thrown logic out the window, and there is no point in trying to have a logical conversation with them. You may as well just claim 1=0
>>76302077
>while atheists get shit done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_Nobel_laureates
>According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005), a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prizes).[5] Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace,[6] 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics,[6] 62% in Medicine,[6] 54% in Economics[6] and 49.5% of all Literature awards.[6]
>The three primary divisions of Christianity are Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Between 1901 and 2000 it was revealed that among 654 Laureates 31.8% have identified Protestant in its various forms (208 prize),[7] 20.3% were Christians (no information about their denominations; 133 prize),[7] 11.6% have identified as Catholic[7] and 1.6% have identified as Eastern Orthodox.[7] Christians make up over 33.2% of the worlds population [8][9][10][11] and have earned 65.4% of Nobel prizes.[5]
SCIENTS>>reLIEgon confirmed. Get KEKED MOM
>>76302675
Cool. You fags still do the equivalent of arguing about the color of a hypothetical space teapot
What if I accept that such a teapot might exist but still accept that a god might also exist?
>>76302831
You're the one arguing about the hypothetical space teapot, le fedora man. Ironic, since you're not only doing what atheists said they don't do (debate the teapot), but you're also doing nothing valuable with your time; which is just raw hypocrisy.
>>76302831
>win majority if nobel prizes
>still have time to discuss theology
>>76302796
>tfw atheist majority in your lifetime
Feels good
>>76303026
Accepting something on faith isn't the same as evidence it is true. I could accept 1=0
Proof for the resurrection of Jesus:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=A0iDNLxmWVM
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z0tyVdnIU9A
Genesis account of creation the closest to real life out of all religious books, presented by an ex-atheist professor:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dsbj7EN1Uzs
Save these videos and watch them in your spare time. Very interesting and a pleasure to listen to.
>>76303045
I said "color".
>Christian reading comprehension
>>76303321
Numerous passages in the Bible portray Jesus clearly stating that the Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of his disciples.
>"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
— Matthew 24:34
"This generation" refers to a span of 30-40 years, thus placing the date of the second coming before the deaths of the disciples. C.S. Lewis called this "the most embarrassing verse in the Bible" in The World’s Last Night and Other Essays.
Three more verses explicitly state that some of the people listening to Jesus as he preached would not die before he returned.
>"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
— Matthew 16:28
>"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."
— Mark 9:1
>"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."
— Luke 9:27
Jesus also told people that "the time is short and they should not get married, not mourn, not be happy, not buy things, and not live "in the world". This again indicates that Jesus himself believed his return to be extremely imminent. (1 Corinthians 7:29-31, 1 Peter 4:7)
Later on, followers began to make up ad-hoc excuses for why it hasn't happened yet. Trying to interpret what Jesus said, that his return was "imminent" and "at hand", as "thousands of years from now". (2 Peter 3)
>>76301742
this shit right here is high school atheist garbage
evil is relative term that is applied to events, persons and things by individuals
atheists are cucks, god is dead, fuck your mother
>>76302602
No, there is no free will in Heaven. There is only God's will.
>>76303764
So you're saying evil doesn't exist?
That contradicts pretty much a theistic religions
>>76303764
based
>>76302602
There is free will in heaven, but everyone in heaven has a good conscience and doesn't commit evil.
>>76301742
There is evil because there is free will. God let man have free will even though it may cause evil because he has the solution of Jesus, and because its what gives us character, soul, and personality.
>>76302077
Turns out the "teapot" is actually very important and the "color" of it is important too. Atheists just say the "teapot" doesn't exist to everyone and think they're smart. They don't get much done either.
>>76303654
"The kingdom of God" means the start and spread of the Catholic Church, not the second coming of Jesus Christ.
>>76301742
>Could God have created a universe with free-will but without evil ?
Yes
>Then why did'nt he ?
For lulz , of course.
I already went through this.
By scientific method- and hence solipsism,
You are either God, or God exists.
>>76304474
>There is free will in heaven
>There is evil because there is free will
Nice contradiction, retard
>>76301742
God is all powerful, but not omnibenevolent
Checkmate atheists
>>76304337
>>76304658
Now prove he exists
>>76301742
God exists faggots. the why does ebil exist shit is retarded since man makes evil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ie9musGEqQ
>>76303654
If the world has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, then yeah I'd say that 2,000+ years is imminent.
>>76304664
kek
>>76303393
>He doesn't know I'm referencing the teapot argument as a whole
Are you just being stupid on purpose?
>>76304727
First cause can only be explained by an entity that is beyond physical laws
>>76304474
there is no free will in christian heaven. just ''gods'' will. sorry.
>>76303084
Why? Genuinely curious
>>76304951
The teapot argument ends religious debate. No evidence? GTFO
>>76303084
feelin a lil suicidal there?
>>76305037
Read the link in the OP
>>76305072
hah joke's on you. I use that lack of evidence to prove god exists.
>>76305113
>>76305064
>>76304614
Not really.
>>76304614
>he thinks you can only be good in the absence of free will
>tfw atheists accept their lack of willpower and tendency towards sin and degeneracy as axiomatic
>>76305171
Cool. All hail Zeus! And FSM
>>76305192
I'll give you a few minutes to figure out the errors in your argument
>>76305192
Evil does not exist. All that exists is by nature good as existing is better than not existing. Therefore we are living in the best of all possible worlds.
>>76305244
You're the one that said evil exists because of free will
>mfw people debate metaphysics pertaining to causation and ontology as if it has to do something with desert scrolls that tell you to cut off part of your dick and Judaic doomsday cult fanfiction
>>76305312
well at least one of them exists.
Or I am god.
money back guarantee
>>76305544
>Appeal to Ridicule
In the beginning there was nothing which exploded
>>76305641
How exactly does one prove the truth of scripture? The only substantial debate about God is in the abstract.
>>76305513
Is this bait? Do you actually take that to mean that evil must necessarily exist in the presence of free will? You do realize free will allows good and evil right? Not just create evil.
>>76306061
How does one prove the axioms by which you live and think?
>>76301742
What is "evil"? God can exist, outside of man's understanding of morality. There is no "good" or "bad". Just perceptions.
>>76306231
The difference between logical axioms and scripture is that logical axioms are necessarily true, whereas scripture makes contingent claims which need a substantial body of evidence for their validation.
>>76305192
>>76301742
God knows how we can be saved and what actions we must take to do it. But he gives us a choice to be saved or damned. We choose our outcome.
>>76306581
>logical axioms are necessarily true
Necessary for what?
>Implying that evil is a substance
>Implying that free will is not only source of evil
>Implying that All-loving God, who gave as Free Will could in all of his Love ever get free will away from us
>Implying that this cauce wasn't solved >1600 years ago
>1600 years nigga.
>1600 years
I mean, really?
>>76306581
>>76306690
How are they necessarily true?
>>76305121
I did and it did not refute anything I wrote
Sure is reddit in here.
>>76302675
Christianity happens to be the dominant religion in the Whiteosphere
Whiteness is an even better correlate for Nobel Prize winning
>>76301742
this chart proves the atheism autism correlation. there are basically infinite arrows that could be drawn from the bottom 3 boxes in the vertical column in the center, but autists can only conceive of 1 or 2.
>>76306861
The Whitosphere before Christianity was largely indistinguishable from the Niggersphere
LARP-ing snow niggers
>>76302457
existence as atheists conceive it isn't logical.
>out of nothing, something
it's not logical
>>76301742
Please tell me how you calculate probability toward the premise "God does not exist".
Enlighten us with your intelligence.
>>76305192
>Orthodox Russians
>""""""""""""Atheists""""""""""""
WE WUZ
>>76306690
>>76306825
A=A, etc.
>>76301742
Any logical concept of God results in a paradox. Paradox are real. We must accept paradox into our world view if we want to better grasp physics and reality.
>>76306858
this.
>>76307089
Indo-Europeans have always kicked ass. Ask the Dravidians, Egyptians, Romans, etc.
>>76307226
Why is this "necessarily true"?
>>76306858
http://i.imgur.com/MrZK6un.jpg
here is the answer to all of your fedora tipping arguments.
[spoiler]God
doesn't
like
you[/spoiler]
there that is why all of this shit is happening in you life and in others is because God just straight up doesn't like you. The universe makes so much sense with this why was Adam kicked out of the garden? he pissed god off and he didn't like him anymore. Why did God let a huge tsunami hit Indonesia? God doesn't like Indonesians.Why does the Syrian war continue?God doesn't like Syrians and Arabs. Just embrace the truth that God is not a hippie, is not superman, does not fix the world's problems that people could easily fix themselves.
>>76307318
They were largely responsible for destroying "their" own empire by invading it
So much for the Whiteosphere
>Hail Odin, jerk off to anime
>>76307335
Identity statements are necessarily true in first order logic.
In no world is "A=A", where A means the same as A, not true.
>>76307335
Because if the opposite were true, it would be a contradiction.
>>76307266
No, it does not, an all powerful, but not omnibenevolent God does not violate any logic
>>76307335
Why is god necessarily true? There is nothing to prove so. If god exists because we do then why is that necessarily true? What if god is a human creation in the same way the letter A is, that is, a simple defined concept stuck in the abstract
>>76307621
And why is a contradiction a "necessary" indication of something false?
How does a contradiction make something "necessarily" false?
>>76301742
Define "evil".
Now define a theoretical all-knowing, all-powerful god's definition of "evil". His perspective would be in a completely different universe than that of a lowly human. You can't possibly define evil in a meaningful way, so this image is a pretty shitty argument.
Beyond that, God does not need to be all powerful, all knowing, or good. Those are not requirements for a god to exist. To an ant, we would appear as gods, but we are none of the things I listed.
Obviously, you are arguing against a christian idea of god, but that's very narrow-minded. Christians could be totally wrong and god could still exist.
>>76307167
The use of 'probably' here is an artifact of language and cognitive heuristics - the concept of God as often presented is unfalsifiable. There are reasons we don't waste our time on phlogiston and Ahura-Mazda.
>>76306858
Very good read, thank you Burgerbro
>>76307571
Yo dude. Nice discussion we've had yesterday
Let's continue then
Please define "necessary" and then prove the following:
>In no world is "A=A", where A means the same as A, not true.
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/spinoza1665.pdf
>>76307674
>omnipotent
>can't kill himself and still exist without being paradoxical.
And I agree with you, he doesn't violate it, he merely exists beyond it. He is the definition of a paradox.
All of humans are atheist towards thousands of gods. Why would the god of Abraham be any more true than Thor, Zeus or Anubis?
Likelyhood of god exsisting are just about the same as ghosts exsisting.
>>76306858
been looking for this thanks
>>76307674
This rules out Christianity and modern Judaism, of course, because the depicted nature of God changed because of the influence of Persian religion on Jews after the Exile.
>>76307763
Because it can't even exist conceivably.
You cannot even imagine a square that is also simultaneously a circle by the same measure. You cannot even conceive of an object that is 6 feet long that is simultaneously 4 feet long by the same measure. It's impossible.
It defies all reason and logic. You can reject reason and logic if you want, but if you do that nothing will remain comprehensible to you. This conversation itself would be incoherent.
If God exists it seems he's very cruel.
Existence is utterly miserable for the majority of creatures on this earth.
>>76307763
Because a contradiction is impossible.
>>76303764
Suffering is evil.
The only way you will learn that is if you are forced to suffer, terribly, for a very long time.
>>76307932
>(((Baruch Spinoza)))
>>76305072
The entire point of arguing of the universe having an intelligence behind it is futile considering the nature of a "creator". It's a paradox.
Neither does this give reason to not follow the discipline, tradition, morals, philosophy etc. of any given religion.
You base your entire argument on the assumption that religion serves no purpose beyond simple ritual and superstition.
>>76307862
I know, that's why I brought it up - it's a bad word in this conversation.
"My sensory experience corresponds to real objects" is also an unfalsifiable premise.
>>76307354
but those arguments against are also bullshit.
it says quite outright that arrangement does not exist - nothing created or destroyed, only changing in arrangement.
But that is wrong, because you can define arrangements that at one time exist and at another don't.
And even before this it argues about a continuous flow of time as opposed to discrete steps of change in state.
Yet what is continuous of quark decay?
It simply isn't.
>>76308042
I am fine with them being ruled out, I do not need them to believe in a God
>>76307740
>Why is god necessarily true?
Because without a being such as Him the very idea of truth would be as shaky and inevitably flawed as anything we could ever conceive of by ourselves
>There is nothing to prove so. If god exists because we do then why is that necessarily true? What if god is a human creation in the same way the letter A is, that is, a simple defined concept stuck in the abstract
Proving God is an absurd thing to do in my religion
But I've proved to you right above the epistemological necessity of God
>>76308191
What even is a 'real object'?
>>76308125
You must be a real math wiz
>>76307984
there is a huge difference between not believing in an individual god and believing all of existence is just a meaningless fart out in space. and ghosts do exist cuck.
>>76308059
>Because it can't even exist conceivably.
Why should it need to exist conceivably? Why should any *true* knowledge be possible?
>>76308142
A Jew ostracized by other Jews ain't a real Jew.
>>76307918
I defined necessary yesterday, and in that post you just quoted though.
We're using logic again. You cannot conceive of a state of affairs in which A=/=A, where A means the same thing as itself. It's quite literally a nonsense proposition.
>>76308259
Your argument is terrible. Yes of course the idea of truth is shaky and inevitably flawed. Nothing wrong with that.
Hell, truth is contingent on meaning. We're only human, we couldn't know absolute truth even if we saw it.
>>76301742
Why can't you allow evil to exist if you're good? What if God is like a game coder, and evil is just the enemy AI. Since death isn't the end, how is it evil to make things interesting? Without evil, when it's game over, you'll be writing to God telling him that your life was shit because there was no challenge, and that the next patch should include poverty, and that antibiotics should be nerfed.
>>76308423
>I defined necessary yesterday, and in that post you just quoted though.
Sorry mate. Shit memory
>We're using logic again. You cannot conceive of a state of affairs in which A=/=A, where A means the same thing as itself. It's quite literally a nonsense proposition.
>conceivably
Please see >>76308416
>>76307674
why would god need malice if its all powerful.
>>76308259
>Because without a being such as Him the very idea of truth would be as shaky and inevitably flawed as anything we could ever conceive of by ourselves
Boy howdy.
>>76308301
I'll maintain the mind/body distinction, and maintain a dichotomy between physically real and mentally real. So simply reread that "real" in the last post as "materially real", in the being of matter.
>not believing in pre-destination
God knows what you're gonna do. You don't.
>>76308493
Why do you call my argument shit if you agree with me?
Are you self-hating?
>>76308416
The law of identity shows that reality has a definite nature or identity and thus it is knowable.
>>76308654
how is this wrong
>>76307936
Omnipotent in the sense he can do anything that does not violate logic
Atheists BTFO
>>76308671
go monist or go home
>>76308715
because I don't believe the imperfect nature of the human construct of 'truth' proves god
>>76308770
Did God create logic? Or did logic create God?
>>76308770
But He can do things that violate logic too, miracles etc
>>76308059
>You cannot even imagine a square that is also simultaneously a circle by the same measure. You cannot even conceive of an object that is 6 feet long that is simultaneously 4 feet long by the same measure. It's impossible.
It defies all reason and logic. You can reject reason and logic if you want, but if you do that nothing will remain comprehensible to you. This conversation itself would be incoherent.
Given the proper abstraction and information, you can imagine both as the same, as in you can perform the same operations on each and they will be indistinguishable still.
A god would necessarily not operate in just our reality.
>>76308566
Why not?
>>76308416
Because that's a stipulation in meeting logical requirements of possibility. It's why logical contradictions are considered impossible and nonsense while almost everything else isn't.
I don't know why any *should* be, but there certainly IS true knowledge already - "thoughts exist".
>>76308720
It doesn't show anything in particular and it's not a law in the sense that anyone has to follow it (unless you really, really want to remain sane that is)
It's a self-evident principle, taken for granted as the start of all reason and knowledge
>>76308423
Logic is a means to an end. Not an end. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks logic holds the key to truth. Logic is a wonderful and reliable tool but is deeply flawed and building a worldview on it is a mistake.
>>76308788
Nope. You can stick to your axioms if you'd - I've got no reason to change mine.
>>76308413
>ghosts exist
Maybe they do but the affect my life fuck all so I don't care (much like god)
>There is a huge difference between not believing in an individual god and believing all of existence is just a meaningless fart out in space
Agreed. For me the whole concept of a personal god sounds very childish/delusional.
>>76306858
does anyone here actually gargling down this disgusting perversion of philosophical reasoning?
this is to logic as the creation science museum is to evolutionary biology.
>>76308963
It is a means. Where is it implied it isn't? But it's the only means you've got for talking about anything at all coherently.
>>76308566
Assuming we are talking about a mere creator and not the Abrahamic god, it would make sense for
god to allow free-will among beings and not interfere with it. This is the same child's argument that every atheist falls for- they believe that a god should pamper all intelligent life because, as according to Abrahamic teaching, they're all his children (even then, the logic makes no sense when viewing different sects of Abrahamic religion, esp. Catholicism).
>>76308872
Why would miracles violate logic? God can just create them, as he created the world. A violation of logic would be to ask God to create something he cannot create.
>>76308921
>Because that's a stipulation in meeting logical requirements of possibility
Possibility is not necessity though. Just because *true* knowledge is possible, doesn't mean that it is
>I don't know why any *should* be, but there certainly IS true knowledge already - "thoughts exist".
How do we get past solipsism if we'd only go by that true knowledge?
>>76308921
>It's why logical contradictions are considered impossible and nonsense while almost everything else isn't.
This is not true. Contradictions are a reality. We must accept them and further build them into our scientific foundations rather than dismiss them.
>>76308904
you only need malice and the lower emotions if you are lacking something. a being without lack has no need for that. the fact that we have free will and are allowed to real fuck things up is proof that God is the ultimate allower.
>>76306776
Well, what do you want? This is the modern atheist. They don't believe any deep thought of any kind took place before the mid 20th century. And then we have their final form, the millenial atheist.
>>76308882
You're just redefining the terms in that case. In which case, "square" as we both think of it now would need to mean "not-square" in that same sense, or else "circle" would have to mean "not-circle", or else some or all terms would have to mean something else than what they do. In which case you're not escaping the argument.
>>76308997
Dualism is degeneracy. The Enlightenment was a mistake.
"God" does exist as a sensation in existence, religions twist the 'powerful sensation' into a being that has 'power over things' and start calling god a deity.
>god exists
>fuckers over complicate it and start killing each other
>>76308788
It doesn't prove God. Pay attention
It proves the necessity of God
Read it again more carefully >>76308259
>>76309088
Except its not. Its not nearly sufficient. Pure logic lacks all critical thought among many other things
>>76308933
Well, that is the case.
>>76308770
Violating logic (known falsehood) is not the same as contradicting logic in the sense of inconsistency of logic (paradox). I'm not even atheist, I'm agnostic, sot bror.
>>76302077
You're probably a pop sci faggot.
Real scientists are eternal beggars for grant money and religion doesn't enter into the equation at any point.
Everyone in science is treated like shit and at best you get to be a hermit in a uni lab with a small shit office that you spend most of your time wrtiing out grant applications in.
Dear lord have you even worked in a science department?
I bet you like Big Bang theory and jerk off to Dawkins. BTW Dawkins hasn't published anything for 10 years and half of his shit is anti-theist in nature.
Dawkins is shit at his own field, biology.
>>76309019
that whole 'personal savoir' is a very american invention. like personal pizzas. Christianity was always about the flock but americans distorted it with their special snow flake hyper individualism.
>>76309339
I read it, 'god' is not necessarily true no matter how you define it
>>76309209
>Possibility is not necessity though. Just because *true* knowledge is possible, doesn't mean that it is
You're talking silly there. You're leaving the common ground of logic. You can do that, but I don't know what that accomplishes.
You commit to other axioms. Hard solipsism is overly ambitious in its claims anyway - "The only thing that can be known is the self" is arrogant in that it doesn't allow for the possibility that there actually *is* a way to know of something else, and that it's simply yet to be conceived or found.
>>76309199
But He is omnipotent, so He can do anything
>INB4 Rock so heavy He cannot lift it paradox
‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test
Luke 4:1-13
This thread is filled with heresy
>>76309269
Naturalism is degeneracy. Empiricism was a mistake.
>>76309234
Some evils cannot be explained by free will, for example diseases from birth.
God is not omnibenevolent obviously, but why should he? He can do whatever he wants. Why do you think you know what the character of God is and what he needs or does not need?
Ask yourself, would you care if anywhere on this world a nigger dies? So does not God.
>>76309647
But God desires that none should perish! It's in His Word.
>>76309528
how can one person be so wrong about so many things
>>76307318
>Indo-European
>Egyptian
>>76309572
Omnipotent in the sense he can do absolutely anything that is consistent with logic.
>>76309268
Im not redefining anything. All consistent logic of squares and circles is left in tact. I'm simply expanding the logic to classify shapes and performs universally consistent logic on the classification before I transform back into an instanced shape.
>>76309363
"Sufficient" for what? I use logic as a tool which I assess language propositions with. That's it. I'm going to hold you to the outputs - if your proposition is logically nonsense, I'm not going to take it seriously. If I give you a logically nonsense proposition, you shouldn't take it seriously. "I'm a turtle because my friend is an oxygen molecule" is not something you or I should ever take seriously.
>>76309744
I do believe in God, but not in the bible shit
>>76309528
Also, the theory of universal expansion was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Belgium priest.
Bretty gud'
>>76309785
>who are the Hyksos
>>76309545
Your more erudite than me in this respect
Explain to me how it is necessary in logic for true knowledge to be possible?
Surely there isn't a stipulation in logic that "anything should be possible"
>>76308068
But you live after death, and life is just a game, or a learning experience. Having suffering in life, would be like having obstacles in a game. A game creator need not be cruel or evil to create a challenging game.
How to know if there is a god:
Up until now we live with the paradigm of god and the devil, we know the devil is a deceiver, and god doesn't seem to be paying attention.
Behold, I bring the idea.
Say this with your mouth: Save me Satan.
I am Satan, says the devil.
God must be kinda mute for a reason.
Could you be having the belief that god, as called by his name, is the enemy?
The people claiming Satan is evil, are famous for raping children.
>>76309886
Well then, all bets are off. Enjoy your unfalsifiable make-believe dude guy.
>>76309248
> don't believe any deep thought of any kind took place before the mid 20th century
No, there were plenty of great thinkers, they were just held down by the concept and reality of religion. The concept being, the chains that tie them to untruths -- the reality being religious practitioners in power and society not allowing them to speak freely.
What was Aristotle charged with? Impiety. Socrates? You guessed it. Impiety.
Atheists don't believe in any deep thought before the 20th century? Come on. Newton was right about a lot of things -- it's a shame he spent much of his time being autistic about Biblical numerology and alchemy.
Religious doctrine is a vice of the intelligent. The thoughtful class have always used words to relieve people of anxiety and profit from this service.
T. Atheist
>>76309819
Then you should have no problem showing me a circle with four right angles.
>>76309125
in my view God is a lot like nature. you literally could not survive without it but at the same time it will impartially fuck your shit up bc basically its doing something in your in the way. the problem is that atheists identify themselves as bodies not as immortal souls temporarily inhabiting human bodies so they view death of the physical as some cruel injustice while in fact it is the opposite. Death is a return to your 'normal' state of being for lack of a better term. god of the bible is baal tier desu.
>>76309784
Wow, you really conviced me :^)
>>76309963
>you live after death
Source pls
>>76309544
It's necessarily true for absolute truth to exist, pham
>>76309833
I meant sufficient to construct a worldview. I agree with you in that i use logic in just about everything i do, but i do not believe using logic and logic alone to tackle metaphysics and the unknown is going to work.
>>76310152
In the sense that you would need some sort of ultimate signifier, I guess so
But I never think of 'absolute truth' when I think of 'truth' because it's a chimera and a waste of time
>t. ignostic
>>76309954
It can't be, since there are already things that are impossible.
Square circles and 5 ft tall 7 ft tall objects by the same measure are impossible, so very obviously "anything should be possible" consistent with logic.
It's necessary for true knowledge to be possible because you already have true knowledge of one thing - "thoughts exist". By virtue of that one instance, true knowledge is necessarily possible.
>>76309989
>>76309647
birth diseases are not ''evil'' its just something unfortunate that happens. death is a condition of inhabiting a physical body. Would you say a tree branch falling on someone is evil? if you do im laughing at you right now.
>>76310185
Who does that? You can't get an output without an input. Logic itself gives you *no inputs*.
>>76309954
>*you're
>>76310185
>Scientist claims he's found the bottom of science, the end of it., and it is God.
>decades later we are still going.
It's no different from the ancient man who saw lightning and concluded that Zeus was throwing it at us.
>>76309992
I don't need to. The logic doesn't care about its sides when I'm God doing class operations. The only logic that cares about your distinction is the sublogic running our reality as we experience it.
>>76310315
Ive heard many in classes and on forums cite logic as their only means for forming beliefs.
>>76309974
It is more plausible than existence emerging from nothing
>>76310037
kill yourself and find out. besides that past life remembrance is pretty well documented.
>>76310266
But without the idea of absolute truth your whole world view can come crumbling apart with enough thought put into it
>>76301742
We are all gods.
>>76310455
They're utterly failing to understand their own reasonings then.
>>76310296
Suffering is what people would consider as evil and a birth defect is causing a lot of suffering
>>76309530
I agree. Even if there is some intellectual creator there is absolutely 0% chance it will know where I go, what I do or what I think at any given time. Why would the intellect that created whole universe care what kind of a porn I masturbate to?
>>76310475
literally this. Atheists are totally irrational for actually considering this. at the end of the day atheism is based on muh feels and living a miserable life.
>>76310434
Anyone who seeks to separate natural science from metaphysics is sitting at the kiddie table of thought.
>>76310470
nice meme
>>76310475
>it is more plausible that there exists a divine being who created the universe and either came from nothing or has always existed over the universe coming from nothing or having always existed.
>>76310475
I'm not saying existence emerged from nothing. We don't have enough evidence to say one way or the other.
>>76310476
Are you for real? Memories of past lives is debunked garbage that people are vulnerable to because of muh feelings.
>>76310495
I'm a big boy, I can handle a little uncertainty in my life.
>>76310551
Could you enlighten me? I suppose i am.
>>76310454
I'm not going to argue that square circles couldn't exist if we're not bound by logic. But what significance does that point have?
>>76310037
As in the eternal soul. We are talking about religion, after all?
>>76310495
ok. that doesn't mean its not true. your argument is basically ''but im scared''.
>>76310268
I like your style mate
Sorry for being a cheeky cunt every here and there
>>76309989
> TheistAnon says atheists do not believe there were any valuable contributions or thinkers pre-20th century
> I say all the great thinkers were theists, they were great, and religion/superstition often resulted in their persecution or hampered their achievements
> you give me this image
confirmed for no reading comprehension. what a suprise, given any serious study of scripture implodes your belief systems.
>>76310742
What is a soul? How do you know it's eternal? Can you prove that you even have one?
>>76301742
>Could God have created a universe with free-will but without evil ?
>No
>Then God is not all Powerfull
This is fallacious Omipotent mean who have all potentiality, if God can't create an universe without evil it only mean it isn't a potentiality and not God potentiality is limited.
In fact if we follow your fallacious logic, the fact that God can't create an universe with evil mean he is not Omnipotent.
If you don't believe in some sort of transcendence you are irrational.
>>76310844
>serious study of scripture implodes your belief systems
You sure you replied to the right guy? He said he's an atheist.
>>76310735
1+1=2
Where do the symbols come from? Logic doesn't create meanings. Meanings are ascribed to symbols and propositions before logic is applied to them.
>>76310743
You should be scared of insanity friend
We all inherently seek and require mental stability
Some just achieve it by ignorance (eg. i-gnosticism)
>>76310631
If you do not live by the laws of nature, you will be sorted out from future existence - nature is an expression of God
If you masturbate to degenerate porn you may less likely devote yourself on finding a beautiful wife and having children.
>>76310902
Explain what 'transcendence' is and how it is rational.
>This thread
>>76301742
>>76303985
If that's what Heaven is, then I'm happy with staying right here.
>>76310600
whoa. suffering is not evil. suffering is just a condition of life on earth. evil has to do with intention and being cut off from source (ignorance). Evil is like darkness, there is no source of darkness just the absence of light. Is suffering = evil what they teach you in nordland?
>>76310971
So god has endorsed rape this entire time?
>>76311025
Why did God create evil? I thought he was good.
>>76310936
giggle
no, i mean this guy >>76310269 and his gay ass gif
thx anon
>>76310765
Bantz has never bothered me.
>>76310631
well it would know since it is all knowing it just wouldn't be a moral problem or whatever.
>>76310736
In not arguing that they don't exist. Both shapes have truths associated to them, but these truths as sets will have inconsistencies to them that can only be r resolved outside of their logic sets where such a god would exist.
>>76310941
Im aware of how logic functions and the basis of basic mathematics. Is the law of identity your only argument here? I was hoping for you to give me things to consider.
>>76310633
(((Atheism))) is pure (((communism))) and (((cultural marxism))), it corrupts society and leads to a (((hedonistic))), (((degenerate))) lifestyle, it also destroys the sacredness of marriage
>>76301742
How would we know 'good' if evil did not exist?
>>76303026
Hey I needed you
Thonx baby
>>76308141
From suffering you can learn and improve. Therefore it cannot be considered truly evil. Everything is simply "in the middle" until judged by an observer.
You've clearly never looked into nihilism or philosophy in general.
>>76310734
>Are you for real?
yep https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19SwRpJz0I
>>76310726
Existence can only be explained by an entity that is beyond the laws of physics - thus God
>>76311199
Both shapes don't necessarily have truth associated with them, they have meaning. We define that meaning, and then reason about it. That's why it's quite impossible - in utilization of logic - that you can have a square that is simultaneously a circle by the same measure ceteris paribus. The meanings of the terms render that state of affairs inconceivable and contradictory.
>>76305192
>Catholics
>"Christians"
topkek
>>76310855
I'm talking about how God can be good, but allow evil to exist. Now you're asking me to prove souls exists. That's not the conversation I'm having.
FYI, I'm an atheist.
There is no logical requirement foe a God to be good. An evil, capricious, or uncaring God solves the "Problem of Evil" without requiring Atheism
>>76302077
Pic related renders this teapot argument completely obsolete
>https://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/against_the_gods.html
>>76310971
Laws of nature are much like evolution. They are not a matter of faith or belief, they are a matter of fact. I don't consider my porn choices being THAT degenerate.
>>76311189
Checked your album btw. Pretty cool stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P41kPfi8uME
Pretty sad stuff though as well. You aight?
Now that I think about it, we should really agree upon a concrete definition of what "God" is before trying to argue anything regarding its existence.
What is God? Someone give me a concrete definition of it that we can all agree upon, and then we can debate.
>>76310734
Yes we have, because nothing can emerge from nothing, thus there must have been something - and this something must be beyond the law of physics, thus God
this is the perfect example of a jewish thread
something that's been argued to absolute satisfaction, with a clear conclusion that can't be refuted, requiring a personal decision by the listener
but the next day the jew starts a new conversation about the same subject
>>76310946
my mind has been through the ringer. not gonna say im totally sane but im pretty functional. stability through ignorance is not sustainable or desirable.
>>76311230
You said
>Ive heard many in classes and on forums cite logic as their only means for forming beliefs
to which I replied
>They're utterly failing to understand their own reasonings then.
to which you further replied
>Could you enlighten me?
Which I took to mean you wanted me to demonstrate why that was the case.
Which
>Logic doesn't create meanings. Meanings are ascribed to symbols and propositions before logic is applied to them
does demonstrate, since *anything* you assess via logic you pull from outside logic. Meaning one can't even *conceivably*
>(use) logic as (one's) only means for forming beliefs
>>76309790
I do not want to argue NorwayBro, but I bet logic does not apply to God, because our logic is merely a glimpse of reflection of His logic, thus he can do everything
>Infinite Bacon in Heaven
like that shit
God is Love and Love is a River
>>76311451
Explain.
>>76311086
Yes, God favors those who are stronger, one of the main principles of nature
>>76311628
The album is sad? I just think it sounds good.
>>76311806
>you always feel a kind of calm it always in that where feel emanation touches you place you calm
...what
>>76311451
Using that principle, god's existence must also be explained ad infinitum.
>>76311127
again humans create 'evil' through ignorance. there would be no evil without human greed, hate etc.
>>76311932
No, you just say "nothing preceded God" and function on that assumption.
>>76311001
The primary issue here is the philosophy of materialism, which is a view the vast majority of atheists hold.
A materialist believe that everything is merely a result of natural reactions and that all matter came into being through the same process.
This view negates the possibility of free will and it attempts to claim that everything was created from nothing, something that we know is impossible according to scientific law.
Therefore there must either exist, or have existed, a force which acts outside of the laws of nature. This force would be transcendent.
Whether this is the God of Abraham, the Dao, the Pagan Gods, Brahman, something humans have never recognized, or it is no longer in existence is up to debate and can never be rationally understood.
>>76311806
So river = god?
You cannot know the existence of a deity or lack off so no point in trying to debate it.
>>76311602
> linking Against The Gods
holy shit, top-tier, a++, would marry u
>>76311716
To me, but that's a personal choice, sanity is much more important than any other non-theistic philosophy
Once you start finding out your axioms, you need to have a very cool mind, otherwise you risk loosing yourself immediately. Stay safe bruv
>>76311613
God, nature and evolution are all facts together. If you believe in it or not does not make it a less fact.
>>76312061
Since the proposition has truth value or it doesn't as a necessary fact, insofar as one values truth there's a point in talking about it.
>>76311878
It sounds pretty good, don't get me wrong
It's just too damn depressing
>>76301742
What a dumb argument. The world exists in opposites. Without "evil" there is no "good." That's why "evil" exists. Nice to know that the universe is still beyond supposed "intellectual" atheist's comprehension.
>>76312039
>something that we know is impossible according to scientific law
Please cite this "scientific law"
>>76312022
If that assumption is feasible, then apply it to the creation itself and get rid of a self-contradictory entity via occham's 657 iLvL epic 1hand dagger
