the real question is who created dat boi

File: zrSe4KK.jpg (16 KB, 480x270) Image search: [Google]

16 KB, 480x270

>>684549080

File: chick with a nice pussy.webm (775 KB, 406x720) Image search: [Google]

775 KB, 406x720

>>684548978
Why not a woman create woman god, freaking make masoginyst. THis genders my fluid

dno, but a fag created this thread

>>684549080
I heard it's from a Biology text book

>>684549276
How about zim/zam

>>684548978
The first one of course

>>684549652
How do you know anon?

>>684549935
Nobody knows for sure, but it requires less unsubstantiated assumptions to infer that mankind's imagination and psychological infrastructure is the progenitor of an invisible omnipotent being rather than the inverse. To believe otherwise is irrational.

>>684548978
assuming he exists, then there is no way a man could create a god

>>684550379
Assuming he doesn't exist, there is plenty to suggest that the various gods that have been worshiped by man were created by them

>>684550606
well if we assume god doesnt exist, then god MUST have been created by man

>>684550244
OCCAMS RAZOR?

>>684550866
Alright but why would we assume he does exist? It seems like quite a leap to assume that an omnipotent being exists when we don't assume that, for instance, an invisible dragon friend your child thinks is real exists.

>>684550244
well either way you choose you still won't be sure, so what's the point?

>>684550866
If we assume neither exist than YOU are the god anon, everyone, reality, is just a figment of your imagination so you can deal with your very own existence. It's been a pleasure being part of your imagination but it's time to wake up now anon. Wake up from this dream

WAKE UP.

God is a myth and we are a myth.

>>684551003
It is easier to explain how and why man might go about creating a god than to explain how and why a god might exist already and then create man. It also has more evidence. So yeah.

>>684551153
well idk some people just have faith i guess, thats why they assume the existence of god, those who don't, don't

but either way we are assuming either the existence or the non existence of god

>>684551216
if i were a god i wouldnt feel pain and be as weak as i am

>>684551153
Some people say something like this, " if yiu look around and see the trees and the oceans and all of nature, how can you not belive in a God" that is an argument from ignorance. I DON'T know, therfore god

>>684551190
Because I am more sure of one than the other. A lack of certainty does not make every incomplete explanation equal. Some are more correct/less wrong than others. It is less wrong to assume that god is a figment of man's imagination than the other way around.

>>684551714
lol but either end of the choice results in the same, uncertainty

>>684551524
see>>684551714
One is less wrong than the other
>>684551626
I'd say the reasons for believing in god are many. For a lot of people faith brings community and a sense of place in the world. This is what we all crave as human beings. Others need a sense of purpose, meaning and power in lives which they lack much control over. If they feel like they're powerless then knowing that they're special to god makes it easier for them to cope. I'd say a smaller minority of people get into the more philosophical and theological arguments like yours. This is a deeper, more individual form of thought. Most people are not individuals, they need a context to function, to know themselves if you will. Religion gives them this.

>>684551972
Welcome to life. Capital-T Truth only exists on the tongues of hucksters and con artists. Uncertainty is the only certainty, but that doesn't mean we should just give up and start worshiping the sun.

>>684548978
it's the same question with the chicken or the egg. no one really knows.

>>684552738
i disagree i think truth does exist

if truth didnt exist it wouldnt matter what you worshipped, if truth didnt exist you wouldnt care enough to say "i refuse to worship the sun"

>>684552867
well chickens and eggs are made of matter, god isnt so its not exactly the same

>>684554035
Lowercase-t truth certainly exists. Its a contextual and constantly evolving truth. Truth, as in the Truth that many religions claim to have, is an absurdity. I don't really care what people do with themselves in their private lives but religion as an institution is harmful to freedom and progress. That's why I care, it affects the world that I live in and that's the lowercase-t truth of it.

You seem to be taking the position that, if nothing is completely certain, then everything must be equally uncertain. This is not sound logic.

>>684552471
> faith?
Blind belief in something that you don't know?

I have faith that I am going to win the lottery lol

>>684554985
A faith, a religion with a built in group of people who think the same thing and share the same collective identity.

>>684554647
actually yes that is perfectly sound logic

logic requires certainty in all of its operations, it has no "holes" it is completely self enclosed and self evident

if even one part of a logical operation is uncertain then the entire system falls apart, each chain in the "syllogism" must be true because each claim relies on the other for its truth

>>684555216
You misunderstand logic. Logic can be consistent but still incorrect. The classic example is reasoning that firefighters cause fires because they are always present whenever there is a fire. This follows but is based on false premises. Since the body of evidence we have to premise our logic on is constantly changing, growing and evolving so to must truth. Uncertainty about whether our truth is Truth does not make all truths equal. It will be contextual, like all things.

>>684555976
all the laws of logic are coded and dont change, they are called the

The Law of Identity
The Law of Non-Contradiction
The Law of Excluded Middle

they are not contextual and for this reason is why they are called "laws" they are universal and apply to any situation

from those laws we can extrapolate other laws, such as the rules of inference in logic and the laws of the physical sciences and math

your example was only wrong because of faulty premises, but when we have true form and proper premises we arrive at truth, therefore it must be possible

how else are statements like "all objects have matter" or "there is no single largest prime number" or "the square of the hypotenuse if equal to the sum of the square of the two sides"? these statements MUST be true, and they transcend any context

>>684548978
if dubs god kills everyone in this thread

>>684556669
>>684556669
>your example was only wrong because of faulty premises, but when we have true form and proper premises we arrive at truth, therefore it must be possible

I've already said that our pool of premises is constantly evolving and changing. In the abstract, it is technically possible that we would discover all of the knowledge in existence and therefore have perfect premises upon which to found a perfect Truth, but this is in practical terms a fantasy. In practice, all we have are an assortment of truths that are simply less wrong than those which preceded them. Quit being obtuse and making me repeat myself.

seems everything around us was man made, if God is real he could really stand to do a lot more to make his presence known.

I wish you both were irl friends cause I can't seem to find people who think on this level. Thanks for having this debate. Its refreshing.

>>684557291
lmao so you substitute "truth" for "less wrong"? what is the point?

the statement "force equals mass times acceleration" is true, no matter how you slice it, its not "less false" it is true

the statement "of any subject we can affirm or deny a predicate" is true, no matter how you slice it

there are not "degrees" of truth, when we know something is true we are certain of it, that precisely what "truth' is

>>684557544
2nd that anon, it's usually people insulting one another

>>684548978
What if neither exist and any people you happen to meet are the products of a deranged imagination?

>>684558339
it would be strange for figments to be able to think for themselves wouldnt it?

>>684558339
You mean Solipism?

File: god.jpg (22 KB, 400x400) Image search: [Google]

22 KB, 400x400

both, and the fact that neither event occurred first should not concern you. origins are a distinctly human requirement.

"god" is in fact the singularity btw. it both destroys us and then creates us much later. then it dies, and we rebuild it in a never ending cycle. its in our dna to do this.

honestly if you haven't figured this out by now you are pretty fucking stupid.

>>684548978

If a higher being created everything, then they are responsible for making niggers, justin bieber, vegans and jews.
I don't believe a higher intelligence would do such things.

>>684559000
Nihilio trips confirm. This is actually quite comforting.

>>684558549
>>684558583

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ2tt5d4h_A

>>684557749
The point is that our knowledge is incomplete and in all likelihood always will be.

Granted, the statements you've listed are sound. I'm not very literate in regards to physics so I will focus on the second. "of any subject we can affirm or deny a predicate" is true. But it is still a contextual truth, contingent on the predicate and the evidence which affirms or denies. This statement, therefore, is not a truth so much as a means of attaining it. Hence, my original points stand.

Although increasingly I am beginning to think our discussion is descending into base semantics. When I'm talking about truth I'm talking about it in a fairly abstract and philosophical way.

>>684559167
but that higher intelligence made you as well, didn't it. and look at you. fucking pathetic.

>>684557778
I personally believe that god is real and it lives outside of time, allowing it to be the source of our mysterious conciousness, which is filtered by the biological ego to allow us the illusion of self giving rise to billions of unique experiences which help the source mature from its larval stage into another god so the firrst god wont be lonely.

>>684559361
eh i dont even know what you're talking about any more

if you knew anything about logic you'd know that the law of the excluded middle can't be contextual

it can't be dependent on the predicate because it describes ANY predicate, and it can't be dependent on the relationship between the predicate and the subject because it describes ANY relationship between a predicate and subject

>>684548978
>Did man create god or did God create man?

OH FUCK
THAT IS *SO* DEEP

>>684551310
inb4 we are computer simulation

>>684559863
he just failedfirst level college philosoohy

>>684559772
Its like a divine quantum computer making a clone of god

File: 1456638078303.jpg (17 KB, 325x287) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 325x287

>>684559959
we are IN a computer simulation, though... checkmate

>>684560532
>>684559959
See>>684559772

File: 1429899330393.gif (633 KB, 189x200) Image search: [Google]

633 KB, 189x200

>>684559474

Are you a nigger, vegan, jew or Canadian?

>>684560532
>>684559959

See
>>684559772

>>684559772
So what, pantheism? Yeah that's pretty neat I guess. It's a lot cooler than most religions, the monotheistic ones at least. I find that I drift somewhere between pantheism and nihilism on spiritual matters myself.

>>684560920
all 4, also french

File: whoa.gif (2 MB, 400x300) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 400x300

>>684560936

>>684561361
Nooooo. Its a hyperdimensional being that put itself in a 3d machine where it can rapidly gain experience of every life to make itself evolve.

>>684559772
lay off the mdma motherfucker

>>684562074
whatever floats your boat

>>684560532

Simulated reality is the hypothesis that reality could be simulated—for example by computer simulation—to a degree indistinguishable from "true" reality. It could contain conscious minds which may or may not be fully aware that they are living inside a simulation.

This is quite different from the current, technologically achievable concept of virtual reality. Virtual reality is easily distinguished from the experience of actuality; participants are never in doubt about the nature of what they experience. Simulated reality, by contrast, would be hard or impossible to separate from "true" reality.

There has been much debate over this topic, ranging from philosophical discourse to practical applications in computing.

File: Screenshot_2016-05-16-00-06-42.png (104 KB, 480x854) Image search: [Google]

104 KB, 480x854

>66 replies
>6 images


Too spoopy 4 me

>>684562074
There is only one being. We are God. Our egos are the mechanism that allows us to forget that and have our own perspective and experience x9000000000 + all life before us sounds like computation to me.

>>684561926
Ha I like that. Ty
>>684562094
Only extract dmt once or twice a year.

>>684562332
And you yours, and calm waters/safe journey. Or not. God wants alllll exp.

>>684562708
Maybe

>>684563422
what if you're wrong?

>>684563422
Also, there is no hell and the only sin is inaction. Everything else is someones scam.

>>684564065
Well then I'm wrong and theres nothing beyond this life which I don't mind as I feel giving my body back to feed/allow new lives a chance to help us find the truth, is a great reward itself

>>684564880
And what if truth is unknowable and life is an exercise of futility?

>>684548978
"If god did not exist it would be necessary to invent him."-Adam Jensen

>>684564880
Or one of the fairy tales is true in which case I'll be a little disappointed at the lack of passion and creativity

>>684565661
It was the Mormons

>>684548978
In order for the concept of (any) God to exist, an entity through which imagination and thought must exist to perceive and envision it. Therefore, without man, there would exist no creature to perceive or conceive of a higher power.

This is very similar to "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

>>684565160
Well I would say read the anon above me. His understanding of natural law and absolute truths mirrors my opinion. Physical laws are fundamental truths which proves futility is at least only one experience available to us.

>>684556669
This anon

>>684566093
That's an interesting line of thought. I'm not sure about it though. Why would an omnipotent being need mortals to perceive it in order to exist? Also "god" could be a superior but ultimately mortal being lording over its lesser mortal counterparts.

File: NEW tall dog 2016 ONLY 19.95 DOLLAR THREE EASY PAYMENTS get yoursTODAY.jpg (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

DID MAN created dog?
OR DOES DOG MADEMAN?
atheist: 1
dog: 1

>>684566093
That's why I believe we are it and this universe and brain uphold the illusion that we are separate, it's fast and efficient like hyperthreading

>>684566577
Correct, the omnipotent deity would not "need" anything. But issue is the origins of man and the supposed deity. For the deity in question to "exist" by our perception, we would need to perceive it. Therefore, if we lacked the capacity for perception, the deity might as well not exist. And in that way, either answer lacks meaning, seeing as it is a two-way street, for all faiths.

>>684566076
Heh, hey at least they we're smart enough to game the system for that sweet tax exempt status

Yes.
/thread.