Has anyone yet provided a logical argument for the existence of a god?
If god exist, he would slam my face to the keyboarfaghgjhnvn
>>1077777
>77777
shit, god confirmed
>>1077777
FIRST FOR HOLY QUINTS
>>1077767
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYSmV2FlHDw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQUsK2eNkfc
>>1077777
Do we really need more proof than this?
>>1077777
Fuck. Now I need to dust off my Bible.
>>1077777
I was a true believer of dawkins and now im rethinking my life
>>1077767
I have a 2 foot long penis.
Ergo, God exists.
>>1077777
Damn, if God loves me he will give me dubs.
>>1077844
OW YEAH, WHEN'S THE NEXT CRUSADE? I WANNA SIGN UP, DEUS VULT.
>>1077844
GOD CONFIRMED
ATHEISTS BTFO
>>1077777
Time to repent.
>>1077835
>the second is an argument from ignorance
1:34
If dubs, Zoroastrianism is the correct religion.
If singles, the last two digits are the number of years I have before I die of divinely bestowed cancer.
deus ex machina or deus vult?
>>1077863
Okay? So everything that exists needs a cause, but god doesn't need a cause, therefor he doesn't exist? This guy's arguing against creationism!
>>1077844
I HAVE BEEN CONVERTED
If trips god doesn't exist.
>>1077777
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK3iSglbZUM
GOD IS 7
>>1077767
What is [a god]?
>>1077889
holy fuck
>>1077889
So close.
>>1077889
>the big man makes it only one post away, just to be a dick
if this post ends in 24 god wants everyone to wear a hat and break the hymens of all girls before they grow pubes.
>>1077926
Nice try m8
If this post ends in a 5 then everything in this thread is irrelevant
>>1077894
anything anyone defines as a god, it seems that there is no consensus among theists as to what a god actually is. it's generally assumed as an intelligent force that created some aspect of reality through supernatural means.
>>1077926
Shut up, Mohammed
if post ends in 74 then god admits blacks can get into heaven, but only as slaves to the white master race
>>1077970
neither? I don't believe this is applicable.
>>1077976
Stop that. Don't abuse the gets.
If dubs Muhammad dindu nuffin
>>1077993
I was 2 off both times the posting system is rigged
The next trips in this thread decides truth:
>111 - Christianity
>222 - Islam
>333 - Hinduism
>444 - Buddhism
>555 - Judaism
>666 - Paganism
>777 - Zoroastrianism
>888 - Pantheism
>999 - Deism
>000 - God doesn't exist.
>>1077844
God is right here, proving his love to the pure virgin 4channers
>>1077777
Isnt 777 the holy number or something?
>>1078013
Or there is a god/God who wishes for you not to get
>>1078055
confirmed
>>1078048
monitoring
>>1078062
Yes, he wants everybody in africa to get aids and some infants to die at birth but fucks with my gets.
God needs a comedy central presents feature.
>>1078087
>implying
Reminder that the truth will set you free.
>>1078048
Rolling
pbuh
>>1078111
DEUS VULT
>>1078111
Christianity confirmed. this thread has been positively enlightening.
>>1078111
Stop using scripts, God. That's cheating.
>>1078111
ATHEIST, MUSLIMS, and JEWS BTFO
>>1077826
/co/ needs to fuck off for once.
>>1078167
>"Run, little boy! You must escape the Vatican! If they find you they will surely take your virginity! I shall distract them with my break dancing skills!"
>>1078176
Let's find out
>>1078058
Maybe in Vegas.
>>1077826
>no holes
>no crown of thorns
PRETENDER
>>1078176
777 for cathars!
>>1077767
God is a meme, and memes do exist, insofar as signs exist in our conscious or subconscious self.
>>1078176
999 Herman Cain is Jesus Christ's 2nd coming
>>1078176
rollin
>>1078176
Time to cleanse some heresy
>>1078176
Rerollin
>999 Jesus the individual.
>>1078176
000 for Rastafarianism
>>1078176
This is an insufficient roll post. Post a complete version covering all trips and 000 being a reversal of Christianity being truth.
>>1078238
Nah, god already spoke and Christ is your savior
If the thread 404's before the next set of trips are all sects valid?
Yes, I'm proof God exists
Check em
>>1078256
Obviously you are falseflagging Satan trying to convince us you are an insecure Christian. A true Christian wouldn't be afraid of a 0.1% chance of of God failing. God cannot fail. God can teach your grandmother to suck eggs!
>>1077767
damn those look good
>>1077767
All is 1, 1 is all, nothingness inside and outside.
>>1078293
Sure, if they were cooked
>>1078303
way to point out the obvi
>>1077872
That's pretty good, unless you're underage B&, then it's normal
Get for Islam
>>1078318
Mehmet btfo
>>1078176
One, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church
>>1078330
close
>>1078176
Rolling.
>>1078176
Roll
>>1078377
DUBS CONFIRM
Catholicism is heresy
>>1078176
>111 mainline Protestant
>222 YEC
>333 Catholic
>444 Eastern Orthodox
>555 Arianism
>666 gnosticism
>777 Mormonism
>888 Oriental Orthodoxy
>999 Church of the East
>000 Christianity is repealed.
>>1078380
>implying Mormonism is Christian
>>1078413
>implying there is any other criteria for Christianity than accepting Jesus as the savior of humanity.
>>1078380
Down with the Demiurge!
>>1078418
So I can believe Jesus is the savior of mankind and he wants us all to masturbate to anime? Can I believe that Jesus was a highly advanced robot from an alternate timeline?
>>1078427
Emphatically yes. You would have your own sect of Christianity. The only people who try to mount on extra criteria are butthurt Christians trying to play king of the hill with the definition.
>>1078501
If it's arianism I'm pissed
>>1078427
You can believe anything you want, religion is about faith, not proof. Most religious people will admit this actually.
>>1078501
Only 1000 posts until we are back around.
>>1078505
>Religion is about faith, no proof.
That's only been true since the scientific revolution.
>>1078176
rollin
>>1078517
True to some extent, but even way back when you had semi-influential theologians like Augustine arguing against a literal interpretation of the book of genesis for example.
If dubs then God remembers he's already dead and stops spooking us.
>>1078543
>implying Fritz thought Christianity was spiritual
>>1078380
God is dead tbbqh
>>1078555
>Arianism
>>1078517
Not for Orthodoxy and CERTAINLY not for something like Judaism
>>1078555
CHRISTKEKS BTFO
>>1078555
MONKEY'S PAW!
>>1078555
TRINITARIANS BTFO
>>1078176
Reunited Christianity under a Catholic system. Catholic is the current correct form.
>>1078555
>Arianism
fucking spooky
>>1077777
Hold on guys, if this were REALLY God's work, then why did he stop at five sevens? Why not seven sevens? Surely god is capable of seven sevens.
What is Arianism anyway?
>>1078680
Because that would take for fucking ever for that to come around, like years.
>>1078692
Matthew 19:26
If dubs, I am the next prophet
>>1078711
Preach us your wisdom enlightened one
>>1078711
oh shit nigga
>>1078711
Will you bring about the end times great one?
>>1078176
Rolling
>>1078705
>>1078711
Coincidence?
>>1078176
SEDES ES PETRI
>>1078729
Confirmed for impostor
>>1078711
lead us o great one
>>1078176
#NeverOrthodoxy
>>1078764
Reroll
Fufudufuucuchdhsvdvdbhdhrhiuuuuuuuuck
Dubs i am a faggot
>>1078799
NOOOO WAY
ITT: God is real, Aryianinsm is the true religion, the 4chan prophet just got crucified in less than 10 minutes.
Will we discuss ontological arguments? Cosmological arguments? Teleological arguments? Moral arguments? Transcendental arguments? Will we discuss the role of logical argumentation as it pertains to the popularity of theism in general?
> nah bro let's just see how many numerals run in a row by accident
This is our /his/
>>1078176
Rolin
>>1078869
There are no better arguments for God than gets. All other arguments for God are flawed.
>>1078887
It's over already.
>>1078176
Lets see
>>1077844
step up atheists God confirmed
>>1077777
He sure slammed those repeating numbers tho
>>1078869
all those arguments are so shitty we might as well decide it by gets
>>1078869
Shut up faggot. Dubs are a sign of God's will
lmao I don't think ignorance comes any worse than blind faith, but I couldn't be more happy with how this thread turned out.
>>1078918
Solid counter-arguments anon, good job.
>>1078955
Do you have a favorite argument for God that you think is flawless? Are you claiming that many of them are valid in hopes that someone will explain them to you?
>>1078869
The proposition "God exists" has too many interpretations to be meaningful.
jesus
>>1078970
No - though I find many of the arguments interesting, I consider myself an atheist.
The point is the discussion, the examination, rather than the bare dismissal; if we just write off these arguments as pathetic, then we fail to educate those who know less about them, we fail to engage with their persuasive attributes and their flaws, and we fail to keep ourselves open minded to new formulations of these arguments that, maybe, avoid the errors of thier predecessors.
If we care enough about the question of god(s) - as I think we should - then it's obviously worth taking the topic seriously enough.
>>1078974
It depends on the formulation of the specific argument in question - especially if that argument is associated with a particular faith tradition; we shouldn't just dismiss all arguments for god on the grounds that "god" can *sometimes* be poorly defined.
>>1079017
Honestly, when I found all the arguments wanting I let the slowly fade from memory. All that remains off the top of my head is the conclusion, not the arguments themselves. When arguments for God come up I need someone to actually bring up a single argument at a time so I can brush off my memory and give a meaningful response. Until then all I can say is that they are all insufficient.
>>1077777
These sick quints
>>1079000
Nah senpai I am the real jesus
>>1079093
you can't even get dubs, false prophet.
>>1079108
I am sorry, I'll just kill myself
>>1079122
dubs confirm, sudoku is only option
>>1079122
>>1077777
BLESSED ARE THE CHOSEN
>>1079057
Well, if on-the-spot you can refute any fallaciousness of the inferences, then excellent - but the conclusion of any such argument, obviously, will be "god exists," so it's worth knowing their rationale well enough so that, in advance, you can to remember how they go wrong and can call them out on it.
We shouldn't only be ready to say *that* the conclusion is wrong - we should be ready to explain *why* the conclusion is wrong.
Fucking damn it, where can I livestream my crucifixion?
>>1079043
I guess that if we have a specific definition of the word "God", we can rule out every belief system that doesn't fit in with that particular conception of God, but that doesn't really help us determine which one is true, especially given the ductile nature of religion.
>>1079132
Or I can claim they are wrong and rely on the person claiming one of them is right to point that one out or even argue it themself such that it jogs my memory.
>>1079156
Blasphemy
>>1079160
I'll side with trips over your word, m8.
>>1079170
Lies. Odin is the true god.
>>1079156
>not accepting jesus
>2016
>>1078111
Christ's truth is proven! Christ is Risen!
>>1079176
If Odin were real, why didn't He give you dubs?
>>1079151
It's just a matter of being familiar enough with the issues to be able to be able to analayze the particular argument in question, anon. Don't count on the general issue of "burden of proof," no matter how proper that burden might be; focus instead on your ability to invalidate whatever *specific* arguement is thrown your way, if you wish to convince onlookers and your opponent.
If I assert that all the theistic arguments I've heard are insufficient, then I should be able to explain, on the spot, why those arguments are insufficient - and in this way I'm always prepared, to the maximal degree that I can be, to fight off invalid arguments for god. This preparedness is better than just trusting and hoping that, if the moment arises, I'll be able to recall on-the-spot all the subtle points that invalidate the particular argument for the existence of a god that I'm confronted with.
>>1079246
>Don't count on the general issue of "burden of proof,"
The fuck not? I'm not going to prove literally every conceivable thing that COULD exist implausible.
Also I think you are underestimating the kind of time spans humans have to deal with. You may have learned all this stuff in the last few years, but that won't always be the case. Eventually the topic will come up and you will not have talked about it in years. There is nothing wrong with stating your conclusion and then going into detail as it becomes relevant. The alternative is to allow all that thought you put onto the topic to go to waste, and that doesn't benefit anyone.
>>1079266
>>Don't count on the general issue of "burden of proof,"
>The fuck not? I'm not going to prove literally every conceivable thing that COULD exist implausible
I mean this: if you wish to convince the average person - who is unfamiliar with the demands of careful philosophizing and its burden proof - then it's prudent to have the details of your position at the ready. Otherwise, you'll have to remember, or improvise, your position on the spot, and those amateur observers won't give you the credit that the burden of proof confers upon you - because those observers are too amateurish to appreciate what the burden of proof even is.
Mine is simply a pragmatic argument for what is in the best interest of the religiously skeptical, atheistic worldview that I would promote.
> You may have learned all this stuff in the last few years, but that won't always be the case.
Certainly not, if I don't *try* to refresh my memory, and to keep current with what has developed in the meantime with my chosen subject of specialty.
> There is nothing wrong with stating your conclusion and then going into detail as it becomes relevant.
Yes - provided that you have mastered the subject well enough that you can respond to any challenges at a moment's notice, even years after your studies.
> The alternative is to allow all that thought you put onto the topic to go to waste, and that doesn't benefit anyone.
There is another alternative, I think: choosing and studying your topic of speciality so that you can confront the many people who hold opposite positions, and so that you are maximally prepared to confront whatever counterarguments come your way. In other words, being sufficiently versed in your chosen subject so that you can opine and can be ready to counter, with specifics, whatever competition comes your way, rather than letting your thought-out and prepared opinions go to waste.
>>1079192
and Arianism is correct. guess you just ignored that part
>>1079210
Because Odin only has one eye. He can you GET you one digit at a time.
>>1079427
>description of philosopher... as a troll
What if the philosopher in question is Diogenes?
>>1079427
>Fetus's first troll image
>>1079427
> People who dismiss Nietzsche or Wittgenstein don't know anything about philosophy
wew lad
>>1077777
Converting as we speak. Anyone got some holy water?
whoop dee doo, a bunch of quints, trips and dubs, and nearly failed dubs. the presence of got is in this board - NOT. The universe is atoms, guys.
I'm so sure that the universe is atoms and that's all, that this post will prove it. Once this post doesn't end in 666, that will be the end of the entire thread. no god, go fuck yourselves, etc.
OR if this thread ends in 666 once I've posted (I have made a point of not examining his' post count before posting this) then I promise to be Christian, so help me God. (nope, won't end in 666, fuck you god, your shitty thread is over. I refuse to take this thread's hint and I insist on proof.)
>>1079589
Fuck you, check my singles
>>1078176
Rolling for Catholicism
>>1079589
This thread's done more to convince me that the christian god exists than any other argument this board's given me
>>1079427
there are way more categories of retards than that
including the kind that save moron tier infographics
>>1077844
If trips, Islam is the way and the truth
>>1080000
لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله
>>1080000
Technically not trips.
>>1080000
>t r a n s c e n d
If god isn't real then how did Jesus part the sea?
>>1080000
this thread is truly blessed, everyone who posts here will obtain a qt philosopher gf in the next month
>>1080044
Bless you and your dubs.
If singles I fucked your mom
>>1077767
Religion is just a good tool for handling non - educated people and make them do what you want (good or bad stuff)
check em'
>>1077777
DEUS VULT
>>1080000
insha'allah
If my post number ends in random numbers like 273
Then there is no such thing as god, and humans are the result of evolution and random chance.
Is it really reasonable to expect a logical argument for something that is meant to be beyond logic and humans? We can barely piece together definitions and ontology for decidedly banal and human things. Why would you assume we're capable of understanding things that would stand above us?
>>1080000
tough luck.
>>1078176
Gnosticism of course
I'll explain what happened to me.
>2008
>See supernatural things
>Start looking for God and investigating things
>Start with weird eastern religions
>Things go horribly for me
>I am tortured, locked up, hated, miserable, in pain, demonized, receiving no help, shit goes horrible for me
>2010
>move to christianity the "book" way
>Initially things get a bit better but shit starts getting suspicious and I start getting fucked over again
>Oh it is a test (and nobody helped me with the demonization)
>Start reading up and investigating
>See the contradictions
>Try new things, variations, check what I'm doing wrong
>progressively worse the more I seem to be doing things by the book
>suddenly realize the ruse the moment I pray more to God for help in a very fucked up situation (I even wanted to die of cancer and end it all already)
>Notice this way of how God would be really like
>Put it into practice, my life improves drastically
http://pastebin.com/m7aXiBwq
Meanwhile since 2008 Spain is going to hell with no return. That's when the crisis started, also the rest of the world isn't going very nicely.
So I'm taking for granted more actual humans are realizing this and wrath is about to come. See how countries lately seem to be infiltrated by enemies of their people? Terrorists and such? Oh wow, what might happen?
>>1080325
>N-no we are perfect christians the way christians are to be intended!
Oh, and why are your countries being struck by terrorist attacks and mass inmigration of potential terrorists? Why are countries being ruined economically?
>t-that's satan
Let's see:
Matthew 10:29
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father's care.
Looks like the will of God, not the will of satan.
>b-because they are of the devil like you
Does not the bible say that most of the world are demons? How come there's so many "true christians" like you?
1 John 5:19
We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.
Matthew 10:21
Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.
Yep, looks like it's a minority of actual christians.
2 Thessalonians 2:4
He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
Jesus: Oh hai guise, I'm a god and now you depend on me instead of on God.
praise be
>>1080325
I believe you need a therapist, not a priest
>>1080044
Ave dubs, ave /his/
>>1080011
D O U B L E D U B S
U
>>1077777
Shit, well this is undeniable.
>>1077767
The Modal Ontological argument is pretty nice.
◊= modal operator for "possible"
□= modal operator for "necessary"
->= conditional
~=negation
Gx- That which no greater than can be thought of exists.
1. (P -> Q) -> ( ◊P -> ◊ Q) Axiom 1
2. Gx -> □ Gx Because: It is greater to necessarily exist then to not necessarily exist.
3. (Gx -> □ Gx) -> (◊ Gx -> ◊ □ Gx) From 1 and 2.
4. (◊ Gx -> ◊ □ Gx) From 2 and 3.
5. ◊ Gx Assumption: There is nothing contradictory about the concept of “That which no greater can be thought of”, thus it is possible that it exists.
6. ◊ □ Gx From 4 and 5
7. ~ □ Gx -> ~ Gx From 2
8. ~ Gx -> ~ ◊ □ Gx Axiom 2
9. ◊ □ Gx Re of 6
10. ~ ~ Gx From 8 and 9
11. ~ ~ □ Gx From 7 and 10
12. □ Gx From 11
5 would be the premise to press on to try to make a case against it.
>>1080401
> There is some kind of unified objective "greatness"
> 2. Gx -> □ Gx Because: It is greater to necessarily exist then to not necessarily exist.
> 5. ◊ Gx Assumption: There is nothing contradictory about the concept of “That which no greater can be thought of”, thus it is possible that it exists.
[citation needed]
Then again, you have to prove that "That which no greater than can be thought of exists" is actually God and not, well, a very big rock, very big black hole, primordial radiation, the Big Bang or whatever.
>>1080423
I thought it was simply that the greatest thing would be defined as god?
>>1080433
You mean, if you define "god" as "the greatest thing"? You can, but first you should define "greatness", and even then you'll get sterile god you can't do anything with. You can't deduce if it has some kind of consciousness/personality or not, you can't deduce did it create the world or not, you definitely can't deduce any morals form it, you can't tell that it gives a shit about humans, whatever it's benevolent or evil and so on. In other words, there's still infinitely long way from this abstract concept of the greatest thing out there to the concrete gods of actual religious traditions.
And it doesn't fix the argument itself: Kant's objections still holds despite the argument being reformulated in a fancy modal form.
>>1077777
Oh shit, bois, God's in the house! Dem quints ain't lyin'!
On a side note, does anyone notice that no one else has given an argument?
>>1077844
HOLYSHITBOIS!!!
>>1077926
Dude Gabriel gave me commands in the cave lmao
>>1077957
So close...
>>1080563
You can't get a better argument than those digits
>>1078176
With all this rolls, it appears that none is correct. Paul was right, then, eh?
>>1077767
Ask Descartes.
>>1080000
Not trips. Back to Christianity!
>>1080273
gg no re
>this thread
time to nuke /his/
>>1077777
Praise be upon you, oh lord, for you have proven your existence with thine holy quints. May we cleanse the heretics of Kek from all boards in a righteous crusade, with your guidance and holy power.
Amen.
>>1077844
>>1078055
I love you God.
Crusade when?
>>1078176
Here you go. The truth.
>>1078555
>>1079156
>Arianism
Get out of here. Thank you First Council of Constantinople. Arius was and always will be a heretic.
>>1078176
Rolling
>>1077777
amazing.
>>1078048
Representing Islam, here.
>>1077777
Back to Humanism transcedental anomaly...
>>1077767
The way I see it, if the Universe is infinite, then somewhere, someplace, there is a God.
>>1080828
The Universe is finite, m8.
>>1080833
What's it expanding into then? But anyways, it's still a theory, isn't it?
>>1080842
> What's it expanding into then?
It just expands.
>But anyways, it's still a theory, isn't it?
No, it's pretty much academic consensus for 80 years now.
>>1080852
Whatever, there's still a lot we don't know. I guess that's why there's such a thing as faith.
rolling for holiness
>>1080000
maa'shallah
>>1077777
He was even considerate enough to click Post for you.
>>1078555
I think you meant to type God is DAD
>>1080000
Quads are NOT trips. Pay attention to the tricks at hand here. Islam IS the religion of the false prophet we were warned about.
>>1078176
Only God Forgives
>>1080917
> Quads are NOT trips
Jesuit logic, it's obvious what quads >= trips, i.e. every quad is a trip, but not every trip is a quad. Moreover, the simple fact of quads being superior to trips, shows us the obvious superiority of Islam and the
falsehood of Trinitarian theology.
>>1080000
ALLAHU AKBAR
>>1080942
Not him, but every quad CONTAINS a trip, yet is not inherently a trip. Say, my lunchbox, for example. It contains an apple, but it's not an apple. See?
>>1077767
Muh bible is proof
>uses science to disprove bible
Ok yea but what if god is just like all powerful and the bible is just kinda wrong.
>You'd still be fucking wrong then, why should i not masterbate if you just have this BS idea of an omni-potent being. You just had to admit that the bible is wrong.
YOU CANT DISPOVE THIS WISHY WASHY CONCEPT therefore i claim victory. Now STOP masterbating.
>Fuck you. Fuck you to death.
>>1080951
Your analogy is false, just because the post is quad doesn't mean it isn't trip. Just because number 12 is a multiple of 2, it doesn't mean it isn't multiply of 1, 3, 4, 6, and 12 also. If you define a trip as "consequence of digits with the last 3 being the same" you can obviously deduce that every quad is actually a trip by definition.
>>1080798
Christian Arianism already won.
Praise God!
>>1080273
OUR GOD IS AN AWESOME GOD HE REIGNS
>>1080833
>The Universe is finite, m8.
That's not even true. The universe may still be infinite.
would god allow this to happen?
>>1080273
Holy shit this thread is convincing me to convert
>>1080044
This is all I can hope for.
>>1080044
>qt philospher gf
>philosopher
No thanks.
>>1080795
My sides just exploded
>>1080401
Why, if you know this form, would you choose to write it in this form? I'm sure you know how to write it out in English as well, why not do that?
>>1077777
Then Peter approaching asked him, “Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus answered, “I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times.
Matthew 18:21-22
>>1081323
>Not seven times but seventy-seven thousand, seven hundred and seventy-seven times
>>1081353
It's not supposed to be interpreted literally, doofus.
>>1081360
>>1080000
Insha'Allah
>>1080000
Alberto Barbosa (pbuh) has confirmed Gods truth with these digits.
JUDAISM IS THE TRUTH AND THE WAY OF LIFE....
said no one
>>1081402
If repeat numbers Islam is salvation of Mankind.
>>1078303
>this Ameriblubber fear of raw meat
>>1081035
or this?
>>1077777
Whelp.
>>1081245
Cosmology is difficult enough for some people without you telling lies on the internet.
>>1081562
That was Satan playing tricks. Same with the Islam quads
Some of literally the most major philosophers in all of western history concern major parts of their work with the ontological proof of god. Have you ever read a book before?
>>1081579
But the other post called the exact number while the other post claimed to get trips but got quads instead, as if he didn't know the exact post number he was going to get.
>>1081639
Satan is a trickster. I bet he did that on purpose
If I get trips, Islam is the right way.
>>1081677
Nice try Mohamed
quints for Islam being the true religion
If dubs, Arianism is false and the trinity is real.
>>1077777
Win!
>>1081732
Stop trying to repeal the gets, you butthurt Trinitarian. It doesn't work that way. There was already a chance to repeal the Christian gets, but we got Arianism instead. Live with it.
>>1077767
OP I need to know more about those onion bombs they look real neat but I'm worried the onion will be burnt but the meat not cooked properly.
>>1078176
Can 888 confirm Mormonism?
>>1081815
No, it's over. All these get attempts after the fact are just sad.
>>1080423
I don't find that to be a particularly strong critique. One need simply to look at every positive property and consider which intentional object has more of it. It seems easy enough to judge if one being is smarter, stronger, etc than another. P2 simply has to do with whether something exists in its own right or through something else, if it's through something else then we are dealing with no value in regards to existence, since the existence is coming from something else, this something else can be said to have "more existence" than it due to this. God has all of his properties as actual(complete) infinities, which means that nothing could have more of his properties than he has. The orders of perfection don't seem contradictory or problematic in any way to me.
This leads to Kant's other main critique: that you shouldn't use existence as a predicate, but intentional objects, or essences, are prior ontologically prior to being or non-being qua Meining or Suarez, who ever's theory you want to use to justify that.
>you have to prove that "That which no greater than can be thought of exists" is actually God and not, well, a very big rock, very big black hole, primordial radiation, the Big Bang or whatever.
God clearly has more intelligence, love, and power than any of the these things according to his definition - unless you start positing some sort of weird panspychism.Those could be candidates for a cosmological argument maybe, but definitely not for an ontological argument.
>>1080460
To be fair the God of classical theism by definition blurs the dichotomy between consciousness/personality or not - what God has is like that, but our's are only analogous to the point where the difference is major. Infinite benevolence would entail caring about humans. Infinite goodness entails that he is not evil, since evil is the privation of good. The creation of the world bit can be covered through the cosmological argument, and moral realism is suspect anyways.
>>1081921
Which collection of attributes are best?
I bet you couldn't even use what we have now to time the stock market, let alone figure out what's the "best" to make a god.
>>1077767
The universe is (by our reckoning) around 14 billion years old. Any number of extraterrestrial civilizations that predate humanity by even just a few million years could have evolved into what we think of as a "God" or "gods" by now.
>>1081921
>It seems easy enough to judge if one being is smarter, stronger, etc than another
It it though? And even if it is, which set of attributes should we use to determine the greatest being? Is "killing the most people" one such attribute? Having the most penises? Easting the most pizza? Causing the most suffering in general? (Btw if you're going to try to prove your ontological god is at the same time creator of the universe, the he is the cause of all suffering in the world) Is "the most sinful" one such attribute? And how can you say existing is "greater" than not existing? It's not obvious for me at all. It looks like you're merely projecting your personal preferences, trying to present them as objective truths.
> that you shouldn't use existence as a predicate, but intentional objects, or essences, are prior ontologically prior to being or non-being qua Meining or Suarez, who ever's theory you want to use to justify that.
wat
>God clearly has more intelligence, love, and power than any of the these things according to his definition
Again, why is "intelligence" and "love" is parts of "greatness" and not "craziness" and "hate"? And who says the greatest black hole can have no intelligence or love?
> Infinite benevolence would entail caring about humans.
> Infinite goodness entails that he is not evil, since evil is the privation of good.
"Let me use my subjective opinions, believes and ideas of god to postulate some not self-obvious propositions and then use them to prove my god into existence. What circular reasoning?"
> The creation of the world bit can be covered through the cosmological argument
And you get out of it another entity with another attributes. You need another proof to show that these two entities are actually the one. And after that, you would still be far from any recognizable god from tradition.
Ends in 30 and I am Jesus
Ask me anything
>>1082433
Get thee behind me, Satan!
Trips everyone goes to heaven, dubs will go to hell
>Posting in blessed thread
If get the anime of Jesus & Buddha is real and the real religion is the one that takes something from all of them.
>>1082732
Well shit animu shouldent be real anyway.
>>1082737
Its real tho
>>1082755
No, I am the prophet
>>1082757
OOOOOOHHHHH
PALIS COUNT
>>1077767
the fact that we have beer...
>>1080044
please god
>>1082199
>One need simply to look at every positive property and consider which intentional object has more of it
Is it a positively defined property? Then God has it in an infinite mode.
>>1082400
>killing the most people
That's an accidental feature of a being since it is based on an action as opposed to what the thing is. Given that God would have to have freedom in an infinite mode, he could have done otherwise than this if he did it, so this can't fit into his definition.
>Having the most penises
That would entail God being a material being, being material entails being in a state of privation, as all material things perish. Likewise matter is just an empty substratum to form that has no existence of its own- material things are an admixture of being and non being in a sense. Any sort of specification of material parts is a negative feature, not fit for the definition.
> Eating the most pizza
Eating implies that one needs sustenance, which is a negative since it shows that the being is lacking in existence, as it needs to derive it from other things. Likewise, this is also based around action, which God is not necessitated towards in any way according to the definition. We can rule this out.
> Causing the most suffering in general
Again this is action based, it can't integrally work into God's definition since he need not do this or not do this.
> then he is the cause of all suffering in the world
Only if there is no free will, humans cause suffering freely at times, even if they are using God's causal power to do it.
> Is "the most sinful" one such attribute
Sin is just acting evilly, evil is a privation of good, which God has infinitely. Likewise being sinful and acting evilly are equivalent to acting against God since he is infinitely good.
>And how can you say existing is "greater" than not existing?
Because the being that exists has more existence than the being that doesn't exist.
1/2
>>1082872
>wat
To know what something is is not to know that it exists. I know what several extinct animals are even though they don't exist, I also know what a unicorn is despite them not existing. The object qua object is first and foremost it's intentionality, whether or not it has existence is ontologically posterior to that.
> why is "intelligence" and "love" is parts of "greatness" and not "craziness" and "hate"
Craziness is just a word we use to imply a privation of order. Hate is just the privation of love where it is due.
Infinite benevolence would entail caring about humans beings as the benevolence has to extend infinitely, hence to humans.
What would you define as evil other than the privation of good? I don't see any reason to posit a concept of evil that is not analytically equivalent.
>And you get out of it another entity with another attributes.
No, pretty much every sustained cosmological argument brings you to a being who is infinite, omnibenevolent, omniscient, necessarily existing, etc. When you actually go through a sustained cosmological argument like in the Summa or in Scotus' De Primo Principio they wind up being the same God.
>after that, you would still be far from any recognizable god from tradition.
Not at all. The God that is revealed is the one supported by Catholic orthodoxy. The personalistic theism that acts like God is a big man in the sky like Zeus is not the traditional conception. It has a dual modernist/pagan literalist bent to it that is antithetical to the views of the church fathers.
2/2
>>1082872
Except the best thing might not have "all attributes maxed" if there were ever such a thing
Nothing in that proof says that
>>1082884
Ok, I should have known I was talking to someone crazy at this point, now you're handwaving out the ass
>>1077777
This shit happens every single fucking time.
If my post ends in 1-9, there is no god. If it ends in 0, He has proven His existence once again.
>>1082920
How would you define "best" then, if not in this way? ( should be "greatest" to keep us consistent with one another, not sure if that word as different connotations in your usage)
The definition I am working with is "that which no greater can be thought of". We aren't using "great" in a subjective preference based sense here though, we are using it in the objective sense of it: whatever has more of the relevant property is greater according to that property. If there was some combination of properties that were not "maxed out" but somehow made that being greater than a being with all properties maxed out, then it would be according to a new property that supervenes on the combination, and hence we can always ask if there could be another being which had this supervening property to a greater degree, if so then that being is not what we are talking about. If we look at any being that does not have all its properties "maxed out" then by this objective definition something that was equivalent to that being except for having one property "maxed out" where the original being did not would make that being greater by some degree. So all the properties have to be "maxed" out in order to satisfy the definition.
>>1082924
How so ?
>>1082263
No. They would be god-like not gods. The word god implies some supernatural position, hence the challenge in disproving.
Unless of course they have somehow evolved magical powers, then I will concede in calling them gods.
>>1082966
He doesn't have to prove anything to you.
Also Satanic dubs prove the devil is trying to lead us astray
>>1083261
If he is making a claim he does. Otherwise we could start accusing you of being a pedophile with no supporting proof.
>>1083281
No, I meant God doesn't owe him anything. Also, that Satan messed with his gets
>>1083287
Nor do we owe a God who doesn't want to be apart of our lives anything.
If he wants to be a dead-beat dad that's up to God but, if he claims to be the bigger entity in body and spirit then he should act accordingly.
>>1083306
I disagree. Simply by nature of being God he deserves respect, or at least to be respected. An omnipotent being deserves respect because of the vast amount of power He has. This is similar to someone holding a gun to my head. I do not have to like the person, but I sure will respect them as long as they are in that position of power.
>>1083339
>I disagree. Simply by nature of being God he deserves respect, or at least to be respected.
Do you respect all gods then? I bet you don't.
>An omnipotent being deserves respect because of the vast amount of power He has.
>the vast amount of power He has
I've yet to see this power. If he shows his power then maybe we can have something to talk about.
>This is similar to someone holding a gun to my head. I do not have to like the person, but I sure will respect them as long as they are in that position of power.
So you're saying God is like a crazy gunman trying to get people to love him by putting a gun to their heads? He sounds like a swell guy, sign me up!
>>1083386
>I've yet to see this power. If he shows his power then maybe we can have something to talk about.
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm
Proof of a God's existence
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNat (scroll down a little bit)
Proof of God's omnipotence
>So you're saying God is like a crazy gunman trying to get people to love him by putting a gun to their heads? He sounds like a swell guy, sign me up!
You're misinterpreting what I said. I'm saying that someone who has absolute control over you deserves respect, even if you do not necessarily like them.
and as for your first statement
>Do you respect all gods then? I bet you don't.
It would be impossible for there to be multiple omnipotent gods because they would no longer be omnipotent. Therefore only one God deserves respect. As for other religions, I respect other people's beliefs and they can believe whatever they want.
>>1083432
>Proof of a God's existence
>5 proofs
I have yet to see is power! If he does his power, conversation over but, he hasn't.
>You're misinterpreting what I said. I'm saying that someone who has absolute control over you deserves respect, even if you do not necessarily like them.
>respect
That word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
I don't respect anything that doesn't show it's worth. If God indeed did create the heavens and the earth and everything that hold true in this universe, he could at least have the decency to tend to us. You don't give birth to a baby and then just leave it for the wolves! If he wants people to call him God, act accordingly.
>It would be impossible for there to be multiple omnipotent gods because they would no longer be omnipotent. Therefore only one God deserves respect.
That's right, so what says your sect of whatever religion you follow is the right way to God?
>As for other religions, I respect other people's beliefs and they can believe whatever they want.
So why are you trying to change my beliefs?
>>1083474
>I have yet to see is power! If he does his power, conversation over but...
>...If he does his power...
>if he SHOWS his power
>Fix'd
Stupid auto correct
>>1083474
>I have yet to see is power! If he does his power, conversation over but, he hasn't.
Did you read the other source? According to Spinoza God is everything. He is in every single thing that exists. That's pretty powerful.
>I don't respect anything that doesn't show it's worth. If God indeed did create the heavens and the earth and everything that hold true in this universe, he could at least have the decency to tend to us. You don't give birth to a baby and then just leave it for the wolves! If he wants people to call him God, act accordingly.
Is the Earth really such a bad place. I don't want to get into an argument over the nature of whether life is good or bad, but I am inclined to believe life tends to be good (if you disagree with that that's ok).
>That's right, so what says your sect of whatever religion you follow is the right way to God?
I don't know for certain that my beliefs are correct. I am agnostic although I lean towards a Spinozan system as being most probable.
>So why are you trying to change my beliefs?
I am not trying to persuade you to change your beliefs. As I said above, I'm agnostic and believe that claiming to have any kind of supernatural knowledge would be absolutely false. I made a joking comment>>1083261 and decided to continue in a playful back and forth hoping to learn something new. Sorry if there are any hard feelings.
>>1083531
>Did you read the other source?
I have done years ago, as I stated to read it I can't say I remember it. I'll give it another read.
>According to Spinoza God is everything. He is in every single thing that exists. That's pretty powerful.
Beautiful even, but doesn't make it true. I'll read the text and get back to you.
>Is the Earth really such a bad place. I don't want to get into an argument over the nature of whether life is good or bad,
It is neither good nor bad.
>but I am inclined to believe life tends to be good (if you disagree with that that's ok).
I like to believe that people are usually trying to do what they believe to be the right thing but, what is good for the wolf is bad for the lamb. So this idea that there is an objective good and bad is totally preposterous.
>I don't know for certain that my beliefs are correct. I am agnostic although I lean towards a Spinozan system as being most probable.
Fair enough. Nor do I but, I base my world view on what I can perceive not on speculation.
>I am not trying to persuade you to change your beliefs. As I said above, I'm agnostic and believe that claiming to have any kind of supernatural knowledge would be absolutely false. I made a joking comment>>1083261 and decided to continue in a playful back and forth hoping to learn something new.
Sorry, I took your post as an actual statement. It's hard to differentiate between serious and jokes.
>Sorry if there are any hard feelings.
Only in my pants
>>1083259
Everything that we think of as being "supernatural" -- especially "magical powers" -- is just science that we don't understand yet.
So the ability to do something that we'd think of as God-like, such as (just a random example) the ability to *think* an entire solar system into existence, may seem like impossible magic to us, but to creatures that are millions or even billions of years ahead of us who have a much, much better understanding of how things work, it could be as easy for them to do as it is for us to turn on a sink or use a 3D printer. Beings like that exist -- considering the estimated age of the universe, the odds of them *not* existing are next to none -- and to us they're both omniscient and omnipotent, so they're gods by any definition of the word.
>>1083813
>Everything that we think of as being "supernatural" -- especially "magical powers" -- is just science that we don't understand yet.
Okay princess bubblegum. Supernatural by definition is a force beyond science.
>So the ability to do something that we'd think of as God-like, such as (just a random example) the ability to *think* an entire solar system into existence, may seem like impossible magic to us,
If they have discovered a process to do this using science it wouldn't be supernatural would it? Therefore not a god but, god-like to us.
>...but to creatures that are millions or even billions of years ahead of us who have a much, much better understanding of how things work, it could be as easy for them to do as it is for us to turn on a sink or use a 3D printer.
Maybe, but maybe it takes 15b years for life to actually evolve. Claims are easy to make.
>Beings like that exist -- considering the estimated age of the universe, the odds of them *not* existing are next to none
Citations needed
>-- and to us they're both omniscient and omnipotent, so they're gods by any definition of the word.
No they're not. Are they supernatural? Meaning are they able to exist outside of the scientific universe?
I like your enthusiasm, just not your authority
>>1083651
Sorry for the delay, I was eating dinner. I don't know if you're still out there in internetland but if so here's my response.
>Beautiful even, but doesn't make it true. I'll read the text and get back to you.
I should have made it clear I wasn't referring to the line being powerful (although Spinoza is a pretty great writer as far as philosophers go) but to the strength of being literally everything. If God is everything in the Universe he is extremely powerful.
>It is neither good nor bad.
I'll accept that.
I like to believe that people are usually trying to do what they believe to be the right thing but, what is good for the wolf is bad for the lamb. So this idea that there is an objective good and bad is totally preposterous.
I'm not a fan of moral relativism although I don't have a good argument against it at this point in time. I've been trying to find a good way to rationalize objective morality even thought that's not the way philosophy is supposed to work (I usually try and accept what's logical no matter what "feels" good).
>Fair enough. Nor do I but, I base my world view on what I can perceive not on speculation.
Could you expand on that? Spinoza based his views on trying to move away from speculative religion and it even resulted in his excommunication.
>Sorry, I took your post as an actual statement. It's hard to differentiate between serious and jokes.
It's ok. I kind of baited and this is the second time something like this has happened to me. Most of my best conversations on here have resulted from someone taking something I said mostly joking as serious and ending up going back and forth. The other time was on /mu/ and I ended up talking to that same person on a /mu/ omegle thing for like 15 minutes a couple weeks later.
>Only in my pants
Mine too
>>1080859
but why would you ever assume blind faith is either more healthy than, or equally healthy to a world view based in observation, evidence, and reality?
>>1083872
We often decree things that we don't have explanations for as "magic" or "supernatural," which is wrong, because nothing -- absolutely nothing -- exists "outside of the scientific universe." *Lots* of things exists outside of our very, very limited *understanding* of the scientific universe, but that's entirely on us, not on any exceptions to the rules of physics.
>>1084035
Then they wouldn't be gods, just god-like. Which is what I was saying in my OP.
>>1080044
qt philosopher gf get before the blessed thread dies.
>>1080044
pls
1-9 means there is no God and we will all die.
A logical argument for God is not very hard to construct. There is a difference on "sound" and "valid." The truth of premises does not concern logic, only whether the conclusion follows the premises.
So yes, there are logical proofs of God, and if you deny it, you've misunderstood what 'logic' is. A logically irrefutable example is Gödel's proof.
The contemporary proofs of God are usually long and complex enough to not be formalisable. So they often rely on intuition, hidden premises etc., but they may still be sound.
If you want a more sound way of formulating proofs of God, look up William Lane Craig's arguments. They rely on some dubious philosophical assumptions but they are generally quite well made. If you want to look up good criticism of it, then check this debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KMd_eS2J7o
I am not aware whether there is a video where he goes in more depth (as he could do). The best way to study him would be to buy his book.
Edward Feser has reformulated an Aristotelian approach to proving God. Here is the outline of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAIHs5TJRqQ
Most proofs of God rely on metaphysical assumptions/models and then deductively show that God exists from them.
There also exists such possible implications from theory of mind, as an example. Panpsychism leads very easily to pantheism.
The fine-tuning problems are however not based on metaphysical assumptions but rather from an inference to the best explanation.
It is impossible to prove God's existence wholly logically. "God exists" is not a truism.
But from making some metaphysical assumptions, it could be shown, and has been shown logically.
I am an atheist by the way.
>>1085397
Aw shit.
>>1085712
Do you mean god as in the christian god, or god as in "a higher power that created the universe/set the universe into motion"?
>>1085751
The latter.
Obviously proving specific details about God, such as it being a Christian God, would require more work than proving the existence of God since that is a weaker statement.
Most arguments for the existence of the Christian God goes in two steps:
First making a deist argument for the existence of God.
Then arguing that Jesus was God's son.
The latter part is usually based in biblical studies/historical cross-referencing etc.
Watching Muslims and Christians debate whether Jesus was God/God's son or not is hilarious.
![CSsPAdtXIAAn9W4[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/40B2dyb.jpg "CSsPAdtXIAAn9W4[1]")
