Prove God doesn't exist.
go fuck yourself fagboi
There's a thread about fapping to baphomet right now.
>>2774484
Nobody can prove God doesn't exist, but here's some porn.
>>2774484
I'm still alive
>>2775750
>kills
>>2774484
You can't. God isn't a falsifiable concept. The burden of proof should be on those who make assertions.
>>2779415
Science can prove the Earth isn't flat, why can't you prove God doesn't exist?
>>2779642
Because it's conveniently crafted to be unfalsifiable. Look up Russell's teapot. You can't scientifically disprove God because there's no way to scientifically analyze God. It's an entirely faith based concept.
>>2779812
Furthermore, God's "omnipotence" can explain any single question you ask.
fred durst
>>2774484
4Chan is still alive
>you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a being or place in another metaphysical plane of existence, using only physical evidence of our own plane of existence.
Trying to will only lead to an excersie in frustration and/or foolishness.
>>2779642
>>2779812
There's always the teleological argument. It's something I personally believe in, where we look at the evidence of intelligent design.
>>2774484
niggers
>>2780680
"intelligent design" is just a fancy, science-sounding way of saying "magic man made everything".
It completely fails because "this thing makes sense, ergo god made it" is a non sequitur.
>>2779812
So anything I can't see doesn't exist?
I'd just like to point out that people have "faith" all the time. They have "faith" that electrons exist despite the fact that they're invisible, based solely on indirect evidence. Kind of like how people have faith that there must be a God based entirely on indirect evidence.
>>2774484
Look, why don't we get you a nice fedora and some ice cream and we can all call this a positive experience?
>>2780935
Kind of like the Anthropic Principle, with its conclusion in its premise: "If the universe didn't exist, the universe wouldn't exist."
It's like stumbling across a teapot orbiting the sun, asking where it came from, and saying, "Well, of course there's a teapot orbiting the sun. If there wasn't a teapot orbiting the sun, there wouldn't be a teapot orbiting the sun."
>who created god?
>>2780997
If there's no conclusive evidence it exists, than yes, more than likely.
>>2774484
Well, I actually have a reliable method of proving the existence or non-existence of a divine entity, but it requires doing a few things that are presently impossible.
>>2781090
Reproducible faith is what defines something as Science. You cannot have faith in God and have him produce the same result or any result at all in any clearly definable pattern. "Something good in your life" is too vague and encompasses all possibilities and would fail any sort of statistical confidence test. In addition, "Something good in your life" can only be solely attributed as a piece of evidence from God if the test subject is isolated as much as possible from any external phenomena interfering other than what must be the work of God. You cannot work and get a promotion and attribute it to the "work of God" if there are the factors of hard work, chance, time at job, mood of your boss, etc. which are not directly the work of God working for you towards the same goal.
I challenge an atheist to prove the universe created itself.
>>2782164
I challenge an atheist to explain why anything whatsoever has energy and order to it. Nobody can explain why electrons or any particle are created and exactly why they have energy. If you say "string theory", then what is it that drives the strings? Nobody has an answer. Force and energy are just accepted to exist but nobody can ever get to the core of why and how any of it exists, what drives any of it.
>>2775750
prove it
>>2781497
tom bombadil
>>2782244
I challenge a theist to explain how the universe started or why physics exist without making a bunch of shit up. If you're going to hold science to the same unrealistic goalpost moving expectations that religion "solves", then I'm going to hold religion to the structure and rigor of science.
"We don't know right now" is different than "we'll never know". Science will continue forward while religion sits back and jacks off.
You literally can't but science can prove the Bible is wrong just from old shit
>>2779642
No, science can prove the earth is spherical
>>2774484
India exists.
These dubs prove it
When you die or are near death, your brain produces a massive amount of DMT, giving the person a wild trip. People sometimes see white light or god, but it's just a sad illusion of death.
>>2784074
>I challenge a theist to explain how the universe started or why physics exist without making a bunch of shit up.
Well, it's pretty simple. God did it all.
If you are an atheist yourself, how is it you were assembled? How is it that DNA is a near infinitely complex code which cannot be simulated except in the most rudimentary fashion by the most complex silicon supercomputers that exist and we can only begin to hope to understand how DNA directs protein synthesis and all the interactions that direct ultimately a phenotypic outcome when quantum optical computers are developed and get to that point?
It's somehow a "random occurrence" that your body and mind are constructed of that code and you are able to debate your point in the first place when no chemical reaction in a beaker has ever gained consciousness?
Of course, God cannot be proven, but I think it's pretty stupid of people to just be blind to any possibility of an intelligent designer.
you are god , do you exist . prove to me you exist. pro tip you cant.
>>2775750
>>2785493
are you a skeleton or something?
>>2785106
>God did it all.
That would be "making a bunch of shit up". Give me some axioms and develop god from them. If you could do it, then there would be no need for faith.
>How is it that DNA is a near infinitely complex code
It isn't. It's two bits of data per base pair. A cell's total DNA data load is about 1.5GB.
>If you are an atheist yourself, how is it you were assembled?
I'm going to put this entire rant in the "if we can't understand it now, we'll never understand it!" pile. We don't have all the answers yet, but that doesn't mean we should just stop working and accept that a wizard might have done it.
>It's somehow a "random occurrence" that your body and mind are constructed of that code and you are able to debate your point in the first place when no chemical reaction in a beaker has ever gained consciousness?
That's a pretty big jump. I'd think the beaker would need to be about earth sized, and it would probably take a few hundred billion years.
>Of course, God cannot be proven
It's even worse than that. Not only can god not be proven, but there is no evidence supporting god at all.
Let go of your faith in an unprovable model, and exchange it for faith in a model that's anchored to reality.
>I think it's pretty stupid of people to just be blind to any possibility of an intelligent designer.
I think it's pretty stupid to sit on your hands and have faith in some unprovable concept in lieu of doing actual work. Religion has been a stagnant anchor on us for a long time, while scientific progress has been paying dividends hand over fist.
>>2786308
>>How is it that DNA is a near infinitely complex code
>It isn't. It's two bits of data per base pair. A cell's total DNA data load is about 1.5GB.
DNA doesn't work like your silly little computer code, anon. It is near infinitely complex in its manifestation if you take some time to read about its complexities in how it codes and how that code is manifested up all the way to the organismal level. It isn't linear like a block of computer code, it is massively parallel in self-referencing, cross-referencing, redundancy, regulation, like a program which makes use of every letter you type in 50 different ways.
>arguing religon on an anonymous forum
>ever
>>2786577
>DNA doesn't work like your silly little computer code
So you have no idea what a universal turing machine is, got it.
It occupies 1.5GB of data. This gives 2^1.5x10^9 potential states. It's a fuckload, don't get me wrong, but it isn't infinite. It's also pretty crap as an encoding mechanism, and the transactional system running on it is shit too. Doesn't even get FEC right, or cancer would be some seriously rare shit. Doesn't even have a basic authentication scheme, or retroviral contamination wouldn't be possible. We run on cobbled together /trash/ that's only functional because it's had literal billions of years to randomly be barely good enough to work. If is were intelligently designed, then the designer needs to take some lessons on system building.
>>2786926
M-Muh Fall...
>>2786969
Well meme'd, my friend.
>>2774484
Prove that he does
Prove that my dick isn't big
>>2786926
>Still treating DNA like a computer code
You still don't seem to get it. Also, it has plenty of 'authentication' and repair mechanisms. They simply don't work 100% of the time and it's unfathomable that they even work at all. It's pretty damn amazing to me how it somehow has all of the components to repair, maintain and replicate it out of just thin air, thin randomness of the Universe, apparently.
Back to the basic question for you and anyone else. How is it everything just magically ordered itself randomly? How can anyone possibly think that there isn't some sort of force, perhaps not "God", perhaps not something we are able to comprehend, that "orders" nature, life, DNA, physics, any aspect or branch of Science whatsoever that could represent what "God" or an "intelligent designer" is?
If you are a creator, yourself, let's say you create a sandwich. You order the pieces of it to make it into a sandwich. It required a creator. Yet somehow, atheists incessantly insist that "we just haven't found the answer yet" as if random nature is somehow the most basal core, but yet, those same thinkers cannot explain what the random nature comes from or what feeds it. Why is it even random? Why can we even consider any thoughts along these lines in a somewhat quantifiable manner?
>>2788842
>requires a creator
Who created le god xD??
Metaphors aren't gonna teach you the secrets of the universe anon. Neither is idly standing by arrogantly convinced you already know them. Also, that "representation" of God you're talking may very well be the universe. Ever look at the universe holistically? Didn't think so. Maybe it's sentient? Who knows? It ridiculous for you to expect science to explain everything when we can't even observe close to everything. So what do you do? You latch on to a convenient, all in one go solution, because you're afraid of uncertainty. You can't accept that you don't know and never will.
>>2791355
>ridiculous for you to expect science to explain everything when we can't even observe close to everything
As it also ridiculous for you to reject the idea that there IS a creator, an intelligent designer, a God, whatever you prefer to refer to it as to not trigger your emotional abhorrence around the concept.
I'm not convinced that I "already know" the answers, I am inviting you to not reject the idea outright as if you imply that you "already know" in the same manner you claim that I do.
>>2791970
I'm agnostic, but prefer the side that actually brings evidence. So, what now?
>>2786308
The Abrahamic deity in particular is enormously vulnerable to critical scrutiny by a suitably-educated person conducting exegesis, without the need for obfuscating the base theology with scientific debate.
To me, examining God as a logic problem is not nearly as fun as getting into pre-YHWH Hebrew polytheism, the documentary hypothesis, or the problem of plagiarisms that the old priests indulged in while composing the Tanach (read: pretty much right after attaining literacy).
>>2792031
Well I am agnostic as well. I assumed you were atheist. Makes us even, then.
>>2792167
I just wanted to take the counterpoint jej. Not the guy you were arguing with by the way. I'm just saying we should focus on the possibilities that produce results and further our understanding of the world, not the possibilities that just explain everything but have no reasonable grounds. Of course God's a possibility, this whole thread is about how that can't be disproved.
>>2785710
Totally not
