Verily, the all-solemn Feast of the two Apostles hath arrived, bringing us salvation. Wherefore, let us mystically exult, crying unto them: Rejoice, O ye who have become luminaries to those in darkness, two rays of the Sun! Rejoice, O Peter and Paul, adamant pillars of the divine doctrines, ye friends of Christ and two honored vessels! Be ye present among us in an invisible manner, and grant immaterial gifts to those who extol your feast with songs.
--Doxasticon of the Feast, Tone 6
"O foremost in the ranks of apostles, and teachers of the world, Peter and Paul. Intercede with the Master of all, to grant safety to the world, and to our souls the great mercy." -- Apolytikion of Ss. Peter and Paul
Readings:
2 Corinthians 11:21-12:9
Matthew 16:13-19
>>79208393
You don't believe in the tooth fairy, what makes you believe there's an all powerful man in the sky?
>>79209155
I can imagine a being greater than the tooth fairy, I can't imagine a being greater than God.
>>79209288
How about yourself? It's clear God doesn't intervene at all with Mankind, when you consider history. Meanwhile you have the power to Create, Destroy, and Shape life. You have the mental capacity to cure cancer and further world peace and invent all kinds of life changing shit. Just look in the mirror, there is the being stronger than God.
>>79209887
Reproducing and creating life are two different things. We are all made in the image of God though.
"For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10
And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.”
>>79208393
>>79209155
cause the Bible says there is a God, duh
>>79208393
Fuck off, >>>/x/ is over there.
>>79209288
>I can't imagine a being greater than God.
I can, any actual living creature is greater than God because they're actually real and not imaginary.
>>79211233
Everything that Begins to exist has a cause
the universe began to exist, so it has a cause
to avoid infinite regression, there must have been the first uncaused cause, which must have been eternal
the first cause is called God
>>79211233
Your idea of God that is only imaginary is inferior to a God who exists in both reality and imagination, so what you believe is God isn't really God.
Tell me about the God you don't believe in, because I probably don't believe in that God either.
>>79211126
miracles are not metaphors
>>79211126
>Jeremiah 8:8 is a metric shit ton of lies
This is taking sola scriptura to a whole new level, see pic related
>>79209155
Literally a shitty argument
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/42/Appeal_to_Ridicule
What is standard Catholic or Orthodox churchwear (Assuming there are people who actually regularly attend mass on /pol/)? I don't want to be under dressed or look like a tryhard.
>>79210937
Evolution is just reproducing out of the same elements over billions of years. Your god is nothing more than the natural forces of the universe.
>>79212363
It's the same exact difference and it only triggers you because you can't answer it, Christianity is just another made up fairytale, I take it you don't believe in Zeus or Apollo or Thor?
>>79212630
>god is nothing more than the natural forces of the universe
You've answered your own question my friend. We as humans cannot understand Him or His glory.
>>79212630
did zeus create the universe
>>79212630
proof that God is a made-up fairytale?
When will christfags just accept that faith is based not on fact. Its the literal definition. Its like people believing in conspiracy theoreys.
Sure they could be right or plausible based on speculation, but you look a little deeper and you see flaws and contradictions.
>>79212959
the Greek word is pistis which means trust, its not a logical beleif
>>79212556
>I don't want to be under dressed
You can never be underdressed. Who do you think you're going to worship, Gozag?
>>79212959
>you see flaws and contradictions.
>therefore it's false
Another shitty argument
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
>>79212804
The natural forces of the universe do not equate to a centralized all powerful intelligence. Therefore it is childish to call it God and not science. Religion started as a way to describe things that we couldn't understand, you're doing the exact same thing right now.
>>79212828
No, natural forces did.
>>79212934
Proof that saying "we got it right this time boys," and following Christianity is the dumbest most intellectually dishonest thing you could do. I have a respect for agnostics but believing in a 2000 year old book is just plain silly.
>>79212934
Do you have proof that Sheogorath is made-up?(and since I might not be back to reply: if you say "yes, because he's from a fictional thing" I'll say "the devs were divinely inspired by the Madgod")
>>79213357
>claims
Still waiting for some proof that it's a fairy-tale..
>>79213357
my point with polytheism is that the Gods of the greeks are not at the same level with the God of christianity,
the Gods of pagans were symbolic to the characteristics of the people that lived, they got drunk, they had immoral sex, they were not a standard of morality the same way the christian god is
>>79213547
I already believe in God m8. Belief in any other gods is mutually exclusive
>>79213260
I didnt say therefore its false. Any logical person can put two and two together and see contradictions. Its the idiots that blindly follow religions without any reason besides le bible exists!
People put FAITH into it and believe it to be true but the fact is its neither. Its like schrodongers cat. It is both dead and alive at the same time until you look in the box. Or in this case just replace the cat with god and youre never allowed to open the box.
>>79213357
How do you know they are not centralized upon something greater? Religion has always sought to understand the world around us and the Catholic Church has pushed science in an effort to understand the world and God.
I cannot comprehend what happened before the big bang; what holds the threads of our universe and existence together. I choose God as some abstract entity, as the fundamental laws of force that governs everything from strings and quarks to bulging galaxies. I believe in God because it is what I believe and have felt after seeing our world.
>>79213582
You don't fucking prove something doesn't exist. It has to be proven to exist. Holy fuck how the fuck does this argument keep getting used.
YOU DON'T DISPROVE SOMETHING DOESN'T EXIST YOU ONLY PROVE IT EXSTS.
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
>>79213646
Yeah, gods are supposed to be just larger than life people.
And how is the Christian god a standard of morality? He does fucked up shit too.
>>79213776
What I was doing was asking the question you asked but about another made up character. Guess you're too dense to have understood that.
>>79213915
>Its the idiots that blindly follow religions without any reason besides le bible exists!
I don't know how many are exactly like that anon
>People put FAITH into it and believe it to be true but the fact is its neither.
>Its like schrodongers cat. It is both dead and alive at the same time until you look in the box.
Not really. You can't "look in the box" with a scientifically unfalsifiable hypothesis. Don't be disingenuous
>Or in this case just replace the cat with god and youre never allowed to open the box.
You're allowed to look wherever you can. You'll just never reach God *directly* through science (and confirm it through replicable experiments)
Which doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It just means scientists can't reach him
>>79211504
underrated evidence.
atheists ITT are too scared to interact with it
>>79213260
It's a man made fairy tale with totally improbable claims and all kinds of flaws and contradictions, if there was a god, the bible would be the farthest thing from his word. With your logic, its ok to believe in Shrek or Bigfoot.
>>79213582
>straw-manning this hard.
You asking me to prove God is real is like asking me to prove Shrek isn't real but here are a few hints.
1. The natural forces of the universe created everything, not le man in the sky.
2. It is a man mad myth invented by the totally ignorant.
3. You have no proof whatsoever that he exists.
4. There is literally no reason for there to be one.
>>79213646
>No my God is perfect this time, all the other ones are shit. :^)
That's your argument, the fact that humans have to keep modifying what God is like is only further evidence of how intellectually dishonest it is. And no, the Christian God is far from perfect. Just read the Old Testament.
>>79214472
>ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
>ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
>ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
>ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
>ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
...is never evidence of absence
>>79214518
>Which doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It just means scientists can't reach him
Scientists cannot reach Cthulhu either. Or Unicorns or Narnia or Hogwarts or Endor.... See where this goes?
>>79214476
I understand the mischievous nature of you new atheists all too well
>>79211504
>Everything that Begins to exist has a cause
>the universe began to exist, so it has a cause
Neat head canon to how the universe was created.
Not even close to the theory though.
>>79214779
You're a fucking retard.
>>79214691
Once you believe in Christ you don't really worry about all the other gods 2bh
>>79214825
>>79214892
not an argument
>>79214902
Spouting Dogmatism?
You're hopeless.
When you accept Hogwarts you will become a wizard.
>>79214892
I only wish to be enlightened by your intelligence
>>79214941
No, it's not a fucking argument. I'm telling you, that's teaching, not arguing.
What? did you think this was a debate?
>>79215016
>When you accept Hogwarts you will become a wizard.
non sequitur much?
>>79214779
You're not replying to anything. You're just throwing out non sequiturs.
>>79215021
It's hopeless, you've already assumed you have the answers, you think God created the universe and Jesus and Science can't ever answer these questions.
You've limited what you can learn by accepting God. You've not allowed science into your heart.
>>79214902
>Once you believe in Christ you don't really worry about all the other gods 2bh.
>If you believe in le holy Zombie man, that negates the fact that other fairy-tales can exist too.
Confirmed retard, lmao. How's the mental stretch feeling today?
>>79215149
Exactly, that's dogmatism.
Go to hogwarts, you will find enlightenment as a wizard, until then you're a fucking muggle.
So, I'm an agnostic atheist, but lately I've been...I dunno, drawn to Christian lore, I guess. The more I think about God, in regards to enlightenment and making the future better, the brighter things seem to be. I feel a sense of joy. It's strange.
Maybe it was the Knights Templar songs I was listening to earlier. I have this inner desire for righteousness. I want things to be set right in my country.
I'm conflicted.
>>79214626
>It's a man made fairy tale with totally improbable claims and all kinds of flaws and contradictions, if there was a god, the bible would be the farthest thing from his word.
>The more fallacies you make the more likely a claim is false
You literally didn't understand the link here >>79213260
[1]
>>79215537
You're fucking retarded, and you're the only one that doesn't get it. Literally everyone is telling you that you're retarded and you don't believe it.
You're a fucking retard and you don't know it, wont accept it despite the fact everyone besides you knows it.
You make intellectual Christians look bad.
>>79215482
Because it has some nice morals in it, but you can find even better stuff and more accurate stuff in other works.
>>79215537
Dumbass, nobody can speak in Absolutes when it comes to disproving that fairys aren't real or in your case, God. However, the Atheists are far more likely to be correct considering that they don't have to commit 1000x logical fallacies and negate science in order to pursue it. You negate the natural laws of the universe to suit your narrative and you can't accept that there is simply no need for a god to exist.
The ONLY argument you have is
>Well, you can't PROVE fairys don't exist, they can be invisible. :^)
See, you are the child here.
>>79215169
Well pardon me from being amicable
>>79215241
>It's hopeless, you've already assumed you have the answers, you think God created the universe and Jesus and Science can't ever answer these questions.
I'm not your ideological inverse m9. I believe Science and God are both insightful, in their own domains
>You've limited what you can learn by accepting God. You've not allowed science into your heart.
I don't really divinise science so I don't really care that much
>>79215356
That's literally how my religion works m10. You do know I'm a Christian?
>>79215375
>false equivalence
>appeal to ridicule
Nope
>>79216030
I've studied more occult beliefs than you can think of. I'm just drawn to the concept of God. Even if it's just symbolically.
>>79215731
>Literally everyone is telling you that you're retarded and you don't believe it.
>argumentum ad populum
“Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”
>>79216052
>I'm not your ideological inverse m9. I believe Science and God are both insightful, in their own domains
God is only insightful if you literally have no idea what science and physics are. The only argument theist scientists have are God of the Gaps arguments which is bullshit nonsense.
>>79215731
>Intellectual
>Christian
Mate, you can't have it both ways. I agree that we can respect agnostics, but choosing to believe in any religion is objectively retarded. There are no respectable Christians.
>>79216052
You are bait incarnated, congrats.
>>79216221
Well if you want to live in a bubble with Sarah Palin and others like her, then go ahead. Harry Potter is a cute story too, you should believe in that as well.
>>79212630
“Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’ even if
you only mean ‘In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.’ For God is by its nature a
name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he could
create one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else” - GK Chesterton
>>79216321
>using quotes alone to counter anything
>>79216030
>However, the Atheists are far more likely to be correct considering that they don't have to commit 1000x logical fallacies and negate science in order to pursue it.
That is literally a logical fallacy. It's called the fallacy fallacy. You should try to understand it
>You negate the natural laws of the universe to suit your narrative
Nope. I just believe those natural laws are from God
>and you can't accept that there is simply no need for a god to exist.
Proof?
>>The ONLY argument you have is
>>Well, you can't PROVE [God] doesn't exist, [He] can be invisible. :^)
>See, you are the child here.
I'm still right though
>>79216627
Who said anything about Palin? Try having a discourse instead of being an arrogant fuck like a typical fedora.
>>79215482
Have you actually read the stuff Jesus said? Crack open a Bible and check out the red words. It'll set you right.
>>79216783
I've also greentexted something below what you said
Google "argumentum ad populum"
>>79216786
>Nope. I just believe those natural laws are from God
God of the Gaps.
There it is folks.
>>79216786
>. I just believe those natural laws are from God
Why? Why do you feel this extra step is necessary?
>>79216900
I'm proud you attended philosophy class today.
Now go back tomorrow and learn what these logical fallacies actually mean.
>>79216891
I find some honorable and others deplorable.
>pluck your fucking eye out if it offends thee, cut your hand off if it sins
>>79216518
>The only argument theist scientists have are God of the Gaps arguments which is bullshit nonsense.
That's assuming science can explain literally everything (which is like so unprovable)
And that's also assuming God doesn't work in tandem with the physical world, through the very physical processes science is explaining
>>79217056
But I do know what they mean. You've just tried to "appeal to the masses" (ad populum) here >>79215731
>>79216960
>God of the Gaps.
>There it is folks.
Why do atheists think that because they can identify the argument, that is a refutation of the argument? Just because I make an argument and you identify it as Pascal's Wager, that does not mean the argument is fallacious or illogical. You still have to explain why it's wrong.
>>79217169
You're assuming science couldn't ever answer those questions and just filling the hole with "Oh, must be god, i found him!" It's nonsense and it's a lack of understanding of quantum physics.
Discussion about God should have more intellectual honest attached to it.
Do you have any idea how much fucking money was wasted on an amateur Chemist to run C-14 tests on diamonds so he could prove the Earth was 6000 years old? (You don't fucking run C-14 tests on diamonds because the C-14 is fucking gone already)
You fuckers are idiots and you're a determent to mankind.
>>79217312
I'm not appealing to the masses, I'm telling you what they think, take from that what you want.
>>79211961
>Disregard that the book is a fucking mess that openly confesses to be a bunch of lies, believe it regardless and follow what we command you.
I only listen to the words of vagabonds who strangely enough, seem to have some kind of supernatural power that we call miracles and that can only be attained from an omnipotent source, meaning they have to be fuckhuge miracles.
>j-jews demand miracles
And they are smarter than you, ruling the world, you wont catch me being dumber.
>>79217456
It is refutation of an argument, God of the Gaps has been done son. google.com that shit we don't need to go over it again you fucking homo erectus.
>>79217479
Tell me something. Why do you care so much about science?
>>79215482
"When the Spirit of God descends on a man, and envelops him in the fullness of his presence, the soul overflows with unspeakable joy, for the Holy Spirit fills everything he touches with joy.... This is that joy of which the Lord speaks in His Gospel: ‘A woman when she is in travail has sorrow, because her hour has come; but when she is delivered of the child, she remembers no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. In the world you will be sorrowful; but when I see you again, your heart will rejoice, and your joy no one will take from you’ (Jn. 16:21-22). If the first-fruits of future joy have already filled your soul with such sweetness, with such happiness, what shall we say of the joy in the Kingdom of Heaven, which awaits all those who weep here on earth?... Then this transitory and partial joy which we now feel will be revealed in all its fullness, overwhelming our being with ineffable delights which no one will be able to take from us." - St. Seraphim
>>79217086
And on top of saying the kind of shit he did he lived the way he did. He was a shiftless monk-errant. He didn't do honest work, he never married or fathered a son, he never took up shield and spear. He traveled about being a street preacher living off of others before getting executed for being a rabble rouser. Does that sound like a man of worth? Like someone you'd like dedicate your life to?
>>79214476
By what standard would you say what he did is wrong
>>79217663
It's my life, it's my degree, it's where the fucking answers are. It's what makes you money.
Pick one. If you can find a job as a fucking Godly man you're already doing it wrong you're supposed to work for free or go to hell.
>>79217694
That's...strangely fitting.
>>79217825
Not everything in life is about jobs and money
>it's where the fucking answers are
Why do you think this?
>>79214626
no what was saying is that zeus and thor cannot be held to the same standard as the christian God,
neither zeus or thor created the universe, so they cant be the creator God
they cant be the standard of morality
>>79217694
>Dogmatism spouting
You fuckers are hopeless.
Why do we do this every day?
Your dogmatism comes across as intellectually superior and higher in morality but the difference between you and an Atheist is space magic and reality.
>>79214825
explain the problems with both premises
>>79217624
"God of the Gaps" is not a logical fallacy. You don't get to just spam that phrase and dub yourself the winner. Really it is just the opposite, because to be on your side of the equation is to imply that modern science will someday be able to obtain all knowledge, including the existence of God. There is really nothing to support this claim, other than listing off modern achievements such as space travel, as if that has somehow gotten us closer.
>>79217987
>Not everything in life is about jobs and money
Sure thing bud!
>Why do you think this?
Science is the art of finding answers.
That's literally its fucking purpose as a construct.
>>79215016
are you comparing the NT to harry potter
i dont see JK Rowling being martyred for her beliefs
>>79218103
Google.com
I don't have time to teach you, people get paid TONS O' MONI to do this research and theres a fucking search engine you can use for free, but you wont use it, so why should i waste my time trying to educate you on physics and shit you probably can't understand anyway?
Your ignorance isn't an excuse.
>>79218180
>Science is the art of finding answers.
And how do you know those answers are always right?
>Christian general guis
>Am I cool now?
>>79218142
>"God of the Gaps" is not a logical fallacy.
It's a logically invalid argument, if that makes you feel better *shrug*
Free shrugs from me. If you wanna fill those gaps with god they will eventually get filled and squeeze him out, then you will jump to some other bullshit argument like Christians have for the last 30 years.
>>79218283
OOOOO
i see you liek memes
>>79218302
no its a logical arguemnt
lets take this one at a time, does everything that begins to exist have a cause?
Y or N
>>79218395
>And how do you know those answers are always right?
They are repeatable, that's why.
Scientific method motherfucker. Do you speak it?
>>79218395
>How do you know fairies aren't actually real? :^)
>How do you know trees are trees? :^)
Pick a better argument to justify your backwards belief please, for fucksake. You embarrass agnostics everywhere.
>>79218497
some of them
>>79218546
Logical argument=/= valid
lots of lies are logically valid. Don't be a sperglord.
>>79218441
Explain why it is logically invalid.
>>79218565
>They are repeatable
Have you ever heard of this.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
>>79218705
>>79218754
rekt
>>79218708
Because the premises of the argument assumes God exists in the first place, which is a logical fallacy. You could just as well fill those Gaps with lovecraft.
>>79218565
The scientific method is a great philosophical methd for what it is used for. which is to make predictive models of natural reality.
but it has no way to test supernatural events, because they are by definition, untestable
>>79218708
You have no evidence whatsoever.
Your belief can only survive on logical fallacies, it is The God of the Gaps.
>>79218706
which part is a lie?
>>79218647
>How do you know fairies aren't actually real? :^)
That's a valid question unless you want to Appeal to Ridicule
>How do you know trees are trees? :^)
This is called a logical tautology and its absolutely true in all interpretations
>Pick a better argument to justify your backwards belief please, for fucksake. You embarrass agnostics everywhere.
I'm an agnostic theist tbchwy
>>79218904
you assume logic exists,
>>79218754
You clearly don't understand the problem of induction. You're literally just posting straw men at this point.
>>79218917
>test supernatural events
There is no such thing as supernatural events.
You can't test magic either because it's not real.
Bending the rules to fit your nonsense is nonsense.
>>79219144
It's not that clear to me. Help me understand
>>79219006
Your intellectual honesty on understanding any credible origin theory of the universe.
>>79218904
There are many logical arguments for the existence of God. The "God of the Gaps" is not one of them it is a counter to the assertion that God doesn't exist because science makes new discoveries, and it that respect it succeeds. Nice try though.
>>79219250
>There is no such thing as supernatural events.
>no proof
What a stupid thing to believe
>>79219131
Yea, let's fucking define everything, now the normal and axiom are strange and unknowable.
Do you exist? How do you know? Let's shoehorn in god now where literally any deity fits.
>>79218904
>Because the premises of the argument assumes God exists in the first place
wrong.
it may be implicit, but that's the nature of a deductive argument, it's not begging the question.
example:
p1: all men are mortal
p2: socrates is a man
c: therefore, socrates is mortal
modus ponens
>>79219271
>It's not that clear to me.
i know
>Help me understand
No. Go to school.
>>79219250
thats your presupposition
you presupose that the natural world is all there is, and you take this claim on the same faith i take on God
>>79219345
It's not a try, there is no evidence for God, so saying he can fill a gap is nonsensical because it's using something you don't know to answer another thing you don't know.
Complete trash.
>>79219469
Pwetty pwease???
>>79219401
I know i exist the same way you do, revelation from God, but you suppress this truth, and i profess it
>>79219368
There is no evidence of supernatural events bub.
Don't post some blogspot.com "OOHH WE FOUND A PICTURE OF JESUS ON A TREE" bullshit and say it's scientific evidence either.
>>79219449
It's not begging a question, you don't use something that doesn't exist to answer these questions, it's a priori superseding all of this in the first place.
>>79219700
There is no evidence a supernatural world doesn't exist either m7
>>79219484
I presuppose the natural world is all there is until you can find evidence otherwise. Your faith in God is as valid as no faith in God, but faith in God readily closes doors to science answering certain questions and going "Nope, god did it" So it's the worst option.
>>79219000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU8TlQ-4DY
>>79219649
You don't know the truth, you can't even prove it reliably, you're full of shit just like every other dogma spouter.
>>79219700
how many feet are in a gallon, your using a tool that is made to test natural phenomenon, to disprove the supernatural
>>79219033
>That's a valid question unless you want to Appeal to Ridicule.
>Fairies CAN be real, ur just being a meanie and can't accept that instead of ridiculing me. >:^(
LOLLL I wouldn't be able to ridicule you so effectively if you weren't Intellectually Dishonest about the universe and childish at heart. Ridicule is the best method of showing how terrible one's logic or argument is.
>agnostic theist.
I have respect for agnostics, Theists are complete children on the other hand. Seriously, you embarrass agnostics everywhere by claiming that there is some centralized intelligence responsible for everything. That by itself ignores the laws of quantum physics.
>>79219811
Evidence of Absence argument? Again?
>>79219884
>I presuppose the natural world is all there is until you can find evidence otherwise
Lol what?
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument_from_Ignorance
>but faith in God readily closes doors to science answering certain questions and going "Nope, god did it" So it's the worst option.
Science is your god
>>79219795
i fucked up and responded thinking you were talking about the cosmological argument instead of the god of the gaps thing, disregard
>>79209155
The current leading scientific theory states that all matter was once compressed into an infinitesimally small singularity which, for whatever reason, after who-knows how long of just existing in a hyper-energized (but stable) state exploded into the universe as we now know it after eons of cooling, mixing, elements being fused into heavier ones etc etc
Now, that singularity was not expanding at some point, and then a moment later it was. According to Newton's first law of physics the object at rest should have remained at rest until acted upon. For the object to move there must be mover, so the missing piece is the prime mover of that singularity. Something happened that made it go from not expanding to expanding.
For an object at rest to transition into being in motion it must be acted upon and since the entire universe was bundled up in that singularity, something outside of the universe had to act on it.
That's God.
You can only argue against the prime mover argument by arguing that God should also have had a prime mover. However, the counter argument to that is that god always existed (much as that singularity did - so you can't argue that either)
The other point is that since we have already stated that God exists outside the universe, therefore the laws that govern the universe do not apply to god. So, he wouldn't need a prime mover to begin with since Newtonian physics would not apply.
>>79219957
There is no such thing as supernatural phenomenon anymore than there is proof there is a Hogwarts you god damn hippie.
>>79220015
Still valid as fuck m8
>>79220135
are the laws of logic material or are they conceptual
>>79220072
>Lol what?
You have to prove something exists first. Before ANYTHING else. Do you understand me? This is how it works in the whole fucking world.
>Science is your god
No, science gives me answers, that simple. It's not a dogmatic system.
>>79220097
There is no proof of a god, so using him to fill the gaps or answer any question in science is illogical. Period. It's not a debate, that's how it works.
>>79220327
proof only exists in mathematics
>>79220165
No, it's not valid, it's asking for evidence that something doesn't exist when there is no evidence for it's existence.
Can you disprove goblins on Uranus?
>>79220259
They are conceptual, don't play the "everything is subjective" shit, anything is valid then, not just your christian God.
>>79220327
>You have to prove something exists first. Before ANYTHING else. Do you understand me? This is how it works in the whole fucking world.
It's not how it works in logic you stupid cunt
>No, science gives me answers, that simple. It's not a dogmatic system.
Your belief in its absolute and universal applicability is dogmatic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
>>79220428
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_WfPWJrsPY
>>79220611
so you would say they are of the mind?
>>79220520
Doesn't do anything for your argument, Evidence then.
Nitpicking shows the desperate nature go ahead and point out minor flaws without addressing anything.
>>79220656
>It's not how it works in logic you stupid cunt
Yes it fucking does. LMAO
>Your belief in its absolute and universal applicability is dogmatic
Science is not a dogmatic system you twit.
>>79211126
>A true scholar
A true X.
There's the smug asshole that decides to speak for all of X.
Sometimes I wish I was this arrogant so as to think that I had the say for an entire group.
Wouldn't it be nice to not be humble, to just be that much of a self important dick.
>>79220726
That's a YouTube video. You can' hypothesis that God exists all day erryday, that's not scientific evidence that's a postulate.
>>79220522
It doesn't matter. The "burden of proof" convention does not cancel in any way the lack validity of the Appeal to Ignorance
It's just a way for people to sort out debates (and scientific questions) in an orderly manner
And you can't really apply it to a potentially unfalsifiable hypothesis
>>79220798
what evidence could convince you that God exists
>>79220788
Everything is in the mind, therefore nothing is real, go ahead and question reality and SHOEHORN in Christianity ignoring that you're about to make a hole so big in reality it's bigger than god himself.
Axioms are the foundation for any belief even in the "supernatural"
>>79220887
>Science is not a dogmatic system you twit.
Didn't say it was you moron. Read it again >>79220656
>>79221019
So, according to your bullshit understanding of logic, things have to be disproven if presented with no evidence? No matter how absurd because of burden of proof?
Yea, that's not how it works bud, good attempt at twisting it though. Hypothesis are not fact, you can hypothesis literally anything, doesn't mean it's real.
>>79221113
So logic is of the mind.
are the laws of logic universal? is it the same in the united states as it is in Germany
>>79220975
>says God of the Gaps is illogical
>says video proving otherwise is not scientific evidence
not an argument, moving the goal posts
>>79221075
There is no fucking evidence for a god of any kind anywhere in the universe.
>>79221298
You have shown persistent inability to understand what people say to you.
>>79221298
The scientific method is a philosophy of testing natural phenomenon
>>79221377
It's not shifting Goal posts, it's the fact that you have to assume God exists which is priority.
We dance and the children sing.
Prove god exists and then we can go down the trail to saying anything about god of the gaps.
>>79221382
evidence presupposes knowledge, knowledge pressuposes truth, and truth presupposes God
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
>>79221348
>So, according to your bullshit understanding of logic, things have to be disproven if presented with no evidence? No matter how absurd because of burden of proof?
Holy shit are you that dumb?
ALL claims have to be proven. This is an axiom of logic
Saying God doesn't exist is a claim
>Hypothesis are not fact, you can hypothesis literally anything, doesn't mean it's real.
Doesn't mean it's false either
>>79221684
There are only theories to his existence. There are postulated hypothesis and various other attempts to gather evidence to prove he exists.
But there is nothing that has survived the scientific method which is the type of evidence we are talking about today.
>>79221480
It can be dogmatised as well
See (positivism, verificationalism and what I already linked here >>79220656 Scientism)
>>79221602
Scientific evidence and logic are two different things. A lack of scientific evidence does not imply a lack of logic. The logic in that video does not have to also be scientific evidence for the logic to be valid. I don't think I've ever had to explain this to anyone before, so congratulations on being the first.
>>79221738
>ALL claims have to be proven
unless illogical
>Saying God doesn't exist is a claim
You don't disprove something that doesn't exist, because it's impossible. Do you understand?
>Doesn't mean it's false either
It does from secondary evidence. Just like i know for a fact Mary wasn't miraculously impregnated. That's not how it works.
>>79221927
>It can be dogmatised as well
How do I start believing in God again? ;~;
>>79221738
It really is this simple, you choose to believe in something you will never have evidence for, we choose to believe in something we probably will at some-point in the future, like it was with evolution. You are the child here, religion was invented by sandy mongrels in the dessert to have hope in a world without science, philosophy, ethics, Control etc. They would have gladly traded fairy tales for all of that given the improvement it's had on mankind on individual lives.
You claim to feel better when taking that leap of faith but the atheists are the ones who can truly see the beauty of the world and of themselves. They live in a beautiful realm of reality and fulfillment and knowing based on clear logic and science, you live in one of constant doubt and war with both theists, atheists, reality, morals, the list goes on. You have subconsciously and artificially limited your ability to See, and you wonder why we ridicule you.
>>79221853
the scientific method is only able to make predictable models of natural phenomenon, it cant find truth or test super natural phenomenon
its like using a ruler to measure a gallon of water, your using the wrong kind of tool
>>79221935
Scientific evidence is gathered using logic, they are not entirely mutually exclusive. You need them both to generate anything reliable.
You can have logically valid points that are all lies, it needs to survive scientific analysis for it to have any merit whatsoever.
Congratulations to yourself for actually saying that science and logic are mutually exclusive as any kind of way to shoehorn a point.
>>79222126
3/10
>>79222113
Read Romans 1
and get back to me
>>79222126
There is already evidence lending itself towards the existence of souls, anon.
>>79222266
>test super natural phenomenon
HMMM i wonder why science can't test for that?
Probably because it doesn't exist and you had to literally invent a psuedo-science to study your nonsense.
>>79222113
Take LSD and realize you are God
>>79222024
>unless illogical
You have to prove they're illogical you stupid child
What you don't (and cannot) logically prove are alogical things (outside logic)
>You don't disprove something that doesn't exist, because it's impossible. Do you understand?
You do understand that just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist right?
It may just be beyond your limited monkey brain
>It does from secondary evidence. Just like i know for a fact Mary wasn't miraculously impregnated. That's not how it works.
Anecdotes are not evidence m8
And they're certainly not scientific evidence
>>79222405
No there is not. There is intellectually dishonest garbage only.
Christians run entirely on Faith alone, there is no "answer" to any of your shit.
>>79222301
Well in that case we can not reliably state that we exist, since the only proofs we have are logical and philosophical, not scientific.
In that case atheism has no merit either, since it cannot be scientifically proven that the existence of God is impossible.
So congrats again, at best you're just as crazy as I am.
p1: whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence (PSR, ex nihilo nihil fit)
p2: the universe began to exist (incoherence of infinite regression of events)
c1: therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
p3: the cause is either personal or impersonal (law of excluded middle)
p4: the cause of the universe is not impersonal (impersonal causes cannot alone elect to change one state of affairs to a different state of affairs)
c2: therefore the cause of the universe is personal.
characteristics of cause:
>personal (p3 p4 c2)
>timeless (existed causally 'before' time)
>spaceless (existed causally 'before' space)
>all-powerful (created all)
here's your evidence, prove me wrong
>>79222343
>le anyone who actually reads wears fedoras.
kys
>>79222405
>There is already proof that fairies can be real. :^)
Do you want to back up what you said at some point or just keep being retarded?
>>79222649
>all-powerful (created all)
>personal (p3 p4 c2)
Right, me knocking over a cup of water by accident is personal and all-powerful. Try again.
>>79222595
>not realizing you have faith that the universe is rationally intelligible, which is a required premise for science to even work
>>79222554
>You have to prove they're illogical you stupid child
We did that.
>You do understand that just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist right?
We can infer through secondary evidence, beyond that you might have an incredibly flimsy argument, hardly a ace in the hole, more like a technicality. I can't disprove your not an alien for instance so therefore there is like a .00000000000000000000000000000001% chance you are i guess no matter how obviously bullshit that claim is that is what you're running on all the way. Wouldn't even hold up in a court of law yet it holds up for you.
>Anecdotes are not evidence m8
All of recorded human history is an anecdote now anon?
All science behind sexual reproduction anecdotal huh?
God damn you are retarded.
>>79222719
>le i watch amazing atheist videos so I'm now euphoric
kys
>>79222649
God exists outside of our 3D space - "and the Spirit of God hovered upon the face of the waters" - which is anyway not "spaceless".
Once you will understand, which waters it was, and where is "above" or "upon the face".
>>79222637
>Well in that case we can not reliably state that we exist, since the only proofs we have are logical and philosophical.
Please define Well
Please define in
Please define that
Please define case
Please define we
Please define can
Please define not
Please define reliably
Please define state
Please define that
Please define we
Please define exist,
Please define since
Please define the
Please define only
Please define proofs
Please define we
Please define have
Please define are
Please define logical
Please define and
Please define philosophical,
Please define not
Please define scientific.
>>79222649
study physics if you want to understand the origins of the universe not philosophy.
>>79222483
There is historical evidence to evaluate the validity of scripture.
to get you started off on that, Youtube Cold case Christianity by J Warner Wallace
logical Proofs
Kalam Cosmological Arguement
and Transcendental Argument for God (TAG)
moral arguement
this should get you started, get back to me if you have a problem or if you get stuck somewhere
>>79222363
I think I'm too sexually immoral to ever lend myself to the faith. Rip me forever
>>79222902
Atheists need to go beyond proving God doesn't exist(which they can't), atheists need to prove it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to exist. Unless you are claiming God's existence is impossible you are really just an agnostic who is placing his bets. And agnosticism is more illogical than both atheism and religion.
>>79223155
not an argument
>>79222897
>not realizing you have faith that the universe is rationally intelligible, which is a required premise for science to even work
try again. Einstein spouting 9/10 times proves you don't understand Einstein.
I've read Einstein, i understand him well. Don't presume to think he thought God was real like you would like to think he did.
>>79222893
so you concede from the arguments there exists a timeless spaceless personal creator of the universe? just not an all-powerful one?
>>79223249
not a refutation
>>79218052
this argument seems to be troubling to you
ill pray that you find peace
>>79223318
God has already revealed himself to you, all you need to do is stop suppressing this truth
If you wish to have your sins forgiven, you need to repent and put your trust in Christ
Read John 3
>>79223383
are fucking stupid? read my post again and see if I'm arguing for God you fucking autist.
>>79223075
>le I believe in a holy zombie and that a bunch of sandy mongrels actually heard god.
>le I believe in something based on no evidence whatsoever to feel good about myself.
>>79223316
>There is historical evidence to evaluate the validity of scripture that speaks of a zombie jesus that could part the sea on his own and turn water to blood. :^)
>>79223335
>atheists need to prove it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to exist
No, that's a meme spread by your church. We have to do absolutely no such thing, anymore than i do that dragons don't exist
>not an argument
Very astute, if you don't define everything in that post then you're backpedaling.
>>79222902
>We did that.
Who the fuck is "We". You're not one of those atheists who thinks he's a scientist right?
>I can't disprove your not an alien for instance so therefore there is like chance you are i guess no matter how obviously bullshit that claim is that is what you're running on all the way. Wouldn't even hold up in a court of law yet it holds up for you.
Like I said, stop trying to apply the burden of (scientific) proof to something which can't be scientifically proven one way OR another
Me being an alien you could disprove
>All of recorded human history is an anecdote now anon?
Believing that things we see exclusively happening now (non-virgin births) have applied and will absolutely always apply in the future is anecdotal and attempting to induce something that is impossible to induce. See >>79218754
>All science is anectodal
Sorry to blaspheme, but yes. It essentially is from a logical point of view. It's called abductive reasoning
>>79223446
I don't care to refute your "logic" there is a very definite answer in physics (for not) but it requires some very high level understanding of multiple disciplines to appreciate.
>>79223454
Thanks bud.
>>79223249
not an argument, also appeal to authority
>>79223554
If you don't have to do anything, then fuck off and go waste someone else's time
>>79223537
thats called a presupposition, an omnipotent God can do those things, if you deny God, then i understand all that stuff would be rediculus
>>79223529
Study axioms then, you don't understand them.
>>79223656
>i can't refute it but someone who majored in physics could
cool story bro, you should invite them here
>>79223803
can you verify these axioms
>>79223446
Cause, by your definitions, can be timeless, space-less because it originates from the mind, you cannot however say that cause is always personal and all powerful. Physics is not those thing. Just because something happened, does not mean le man in the sky did it. You have to keep expanding your definition of God in order to justify the stupidity that is religion.
>>79222649
This is the line of thinking that actually led to me believing in God. It took me a long time afterwards to discover in my heart my faith in Jesus Christ but I'm glad I accepted him as my Lord and Savior.
Anyone who's an atheist, please don't stick with your way of thinking. Engage in research, let your mind search through meanings you encounter in the world. It takes time and patience to discover spirituality but when you do it is the ultimate gift in life.
Jesus is my Lord and through his compassion I try to change myself for the better, to do good in this world and to do right by God.
God Bless everyone in this thread. These Christianity threads helped me come to many conclusions in my search for spirituality and my acceptance of Jesus as my Lord and Savior.
>>79223803
pretty sure this is bait now, you can't be this stupid.
my post was about how faith is required for any method of knowledge, this includes science. This has nothing to do with the existence of god, fedorafag.
>>79223643
>Who the fuck is "We". You're not one of those atheists who thinks he's a scientist right?
Deflection
>Like I said, stop trying to apply the burden of (scientific) proof to something which can't be scientifically proven one way OR another
You can't prove God exists, so you ask me to diprove it. You made a logical fallacy, you don't disprove something that doesn't exist, that's not how it works, once again for the 1921083901283 time. I know you don't get it, but it wont stop me from repeating the facts again.
>Me being an alien you could disprove
I cannot.
>Believing that things we see exclusively happening now (non-virgin births) have applied and will absolutely always apply in the future is anecdotal and attempting to induce something that is impossible to induce.
It's not impossible to induce, it's repeatable and scientifically sound how babies are made, it's not an anecdote or problematic, just with you it is.
>Sorry to blaspheme, but yes. It essentially is from a logical point of view. It's called abductive reasoning
welp, if you feel that way, you are alone. Don't expect to be taken seriously.
>>79224076
Romans 1:18-22
there is no such thing as an atheist
Jesus christ please guide me and help out of my bad habits and miserable situation in life that I have now. amen.
![il_570xN.731287226_9nuv[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/UiE3EXq.jpg "il_570xN.731287226_9nuv[1].jpg")
Gentle reminder from God here,
God decided to play hide and seek, there is nothing outside of God so he has only himself to play it with
He hides as both faith and reason,
He hides as Good and Evil
He hides as male and female
He hides as gay and straight
He hides as particles and waves
He hides as believers and non believers
the more faithful and fanatical the believer, the better hidden he is, the further from finding himself he is
the more logical and devoted for reason, the more demanding for evidence and finding it lacking the closer the non-believer is to God, he is seeking himself
both have missed the point
everyone posting in this thread is God, pretending that they are not Him, that is why the name of God is "I AM"
>>79223735
>not an argument, also appeal to authority
It's not an argument, I'm teaching you. I'm not arguing with you so there was no appeal made.
>If you don't have to do anything, then fuck off and go waste someone else's time
I'm not wasting your time, you were trying to argue that there are no truths, so i need you to specifically define everything now like the little dishonest bitch you are. Don't preach shit you don't understand or can't follow through with.
>>79223842
Pretty sure they could, i'm not intellectually dishonest, i'm a Chemist, not a physicist but there is something called Google.com
>>79223910
No i can't but i believe one day "eventually" we will be able to.
>>79224118
you need to study axioms, i know you don't get it, that's why i told you to do it.
>>79223960
>you cannot however say that cause is always personal and all powerful.
so you're saying the cause could've been those things at one point, but then stopped being those things?
that's fine, are you now a deist?
>Just because something happened, does not mean le man in the sky did it.
whoa where the hell is this coming from.
>>79224218
What miserable situation is in your life?
>>79224288
You rejected two arguments for the existence of God by saying "study physics". You're not teaching anybody anything other than that you're a daft cunt.
>>79224392
how can you verify logic, if it requires logic to verify your logic?
thats Just like saying the Bible is true because the Bible says it is
So much heresy in this thread i don't know where to begin.
>>79224518
Clearly if you're saying there is a god you haven't studied physics enough.
I'm not off the kilter here, don't be an assclown.
>>79224447
yes, you have faith in those axioms. You claim they are self evident with no reasoning for it.
inb4 y-you don u-understand them, s-study them
>>79224572
Define everything in your post and tell me how you know you're even speaking English.
>>79224629
begin with listing out the heresy
>>79224683
No i don't i just don't say "cause God"
That's it.
>>79224684
are the laws of logic an axiom?
>>79224640
>implying
>>79223524
I'll read this and get back to you after the movies
>>79224772
They are for the purposes of argumentation.
>>79224797
How did you study physics and come to the conclusions there is a God then?
I wanna hear it.
>>79224799
be careful, do it as soon as you can
>>79224132
>You can't prove God exists, so you ask me to diprove it. You made a logical fallacy, you don't disprove something that doesn't exist, that's not how it works, once again for the 1921083901283 time. I know you don't get it, but it wont stop me from repeating the facts again.
You can't prove it one way... OR... another. Regardless of what you say
It's the way logic works
>>Me being an alien you could disprove
>I cannot.
You kind of could if you actually tested my DNA 'n shit
>It's not impossible to induce, it's repeatable and scientifically sound how babies are made, it's not an anecdote or problematic, just with you it is.
Repeatable =! inducible (perfect generalisation, i.e. a Scientific """"Law"""")
>welp, if you feel that way, you are alone. Don't expect to be taken seriously.
I would be taken seriously by pretty much any entry-level academician tbqh
Most people wouldn't know what the fuck I'm talking about though (Which is cool by me)
>>79224742
wtf man? why the fuck are you bringing god into this. This is about epistemology not fucking god. Any method to knowledge requires faith. Presupposing an axiom requires faith also.
None of this proves the existence of the Jewish god tho.
>>79224218
Amen Swede m8
>>79224810
how can you use logic to verify logic
>>79221684
No philosopher takes shit like this seriously. Calvinism should eat shit and die
>>79224912
>You can't prove it one way... OR... another. Regardless of what you say
Same can be said for Gandalf
>You kind of could if you actually tested my DNA 'n shit
How do i know alien DNA isn't identical?
>Repeatable =! inducible (perfect generalisation, i.e. a Scientific """"Law"""")
Study everything you just said again and try again.
>I would be taken seriously by pretty much any entry-level academician tbqh
Probably, lots of art and English majors at that level.
PRAY THE ROSARY
>>79223318
Remember, according to that anon, God made you this way
>>79224934
Dude, take him slow. Not a lot of people can understand this stuff
>>79225093
im praying for you anon :)
>>79225063
you can't, he's a dishonest cunt and doesn't even try to respond to the other anon's argument with the collapse of the wavefunction, and just said "go study physics". He doesn't know what he's talking about.
>>79224934
No, you can totally say you don't know and look for an answer or you can say "because ___"
>>79225063
You actually literally use logic to verify logic.
How do I into the Rosary?
Is there like a common rosary everyone gets?
Is pic related really the proper way to pray it?
>>79225207
logic is one of the greatest tools God has given us
>>79224850
ask this physicist.
old quote but it's not like any new information that rules out the existence of God has come to light since then.
>>79225207
You use logic to verify logic. It's literally what you do kids.
Lmao. Also, go study physics, you clearly missed a course or two.
There has been a real increase of heretics on /pol/ as of late.
It really is summer, isn't it?
Fucking fedoras are too weak
Slaves obey your masters.
>>79225213
ok bro, are you aware of the premises required for science to work? If so, please name them.
also, btw go study physics.
>>79225392
I've studied advanced physics, i understand quantum physics. If you want to have a debate about how 90% of the theist arguments in physics are bullshit well then....lettuce begin.
tell me where you squeeze in God please.
