Going to make some arguments against theism, inb4 endless ebin fedora maymays
What objective evidence do we have for the existence of a deity?
Objective/empirical evidence? None. The "knowledge" theists claim to have about God is not demonstrable; no prophet was ever granted serious evidence by the God/gods he spoke on behalf of, despite the reality that providing such evidence is a perfectly logical course of action for a deity/deities that desire huamn worship. The lack of objective evidence given from God to prophet is almost certainly evidence that God does not exist (I'm just going to say God now, Buddhists BTFO). The religious sometimes argue that their God will not prove its existence beyond a doubt because that would rob humans of their free will, but any God that influences human affairs is already guilty of this offense.
I will reiterate: Is there any compelling evidence for the existence of a God? Christians, when not shitposting about fedoras, might assert that the Bible, miracles, and the universe are evidence to their claim of a deity, however in reality the objectivity (truth value) of this "evidence" must be assumed on faith- faith in the religious sense which is divorced from skepticism. The Bible, for instance, we have to take on "faith" that it is the word of God- if it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt faith would not be necessary. "Faith" is an unreliable process. In no other aspect of life is faith, in the sense that is used in religion, considered a reliable method for reaching the truth.
If faith is irrational and there is no positive evidence for a God where does that leave us. A God that wants me to implement an irrational process (faith) to come to worship it is no God worth worshipping. (1/2)
>>34099257
The religious point to the lack of negative evidence, evidence which disproves their God. The lack of positive and negative evidence is enough that an atheist can not say "I can demonstrate that God does not exist." and Christians basically want the discussion to stop here, what people don't realize is the subtle principle that is being put forward.
If you are willing to devote your life to a system of belief with no positive evidence, but very little evidence that proves beyond a doubt that it is completely illogical you are putting forward a principle that says "Ideas with no positive evidence and little evidence to the contrary are plausible, and should be seriously considered," either they are putting this principle forward or they are acting upon an irrational preference which is founded in their desire for community/social conformity (most likely the latter).
This principle they are putting forward is completely insane. There are an endless list of ideas/world views that have no positive evidence, but almost no evidence that disprove it. Take Carl Sagan's invisible teapot, leprechauns, Odin, or unicorns for example. All of these ideas share the common factor that they have no positive evidence that is objective and little to no negative evidence to disprove them. If Christians act upon the principle that allows them to justify their religion, they must also seriously consider all the 10,000+God/gods they have previously disregarded.
Also, if you start up with consequentialist (i.e. BUT RELIGION MAKE HAPPY) bullshit you will be cordially invited to fuck off.
>>34099257
I'm a Neoplatonist, debate me
>>34099424
I certainly do not suffer from an over abundance of knowledge on Platonism, mind putting forward a position or argument for me refute?
>>34099257
recreate the lady of guadalupe and I will tip my fedora
its not just a painting, looking at infrared scans of artist like van gogh and da vinci, versus guadalupe, its a bit 2spooky4me
Is that how you're going to convince Jesus to let you in inside heaven when you die?
What kind of evidence do you expect there to be?
>>34099554
If a God will send me to suffer for an eternity for healthy intellectual skepticism that God is not worthy of my worship. Marcus Aurelius talked about this, basically any God/gods that do harm to atheists for lacking faith is evil (A God condemns those who do not rely on an unreliable process for reaching the truth? Retarded.)
>>34099596
I'm not sure, I imagine an all-knowing and all-powerful being could present a compelling case, however.
>>34099533
>2014
>not realizing the Form of the Good
>>34099537
>This is objective proof
Ehm, could you elaborate on how my lack of belief in a God is irrational because of a painting?
>>34099794
That's not an argument, we both know.
The whole "world of higher forms" stuff is not a valid concept to my knowledge, but I am open to evidence to the contrary.
>>34099679
If you don't know what would constitute knowledge, how do you know that you don't know.
>>34099679
>I imagine an all-knowing and all-powerful being could present a compelling case
What is he doesn't want to?
>>34099902
I assume you're responding about
>>34099596
An all-knowing being would have the knowledge of what would be convincing evidence of itself to me, I mean that's kind of axiomatic isn't it?
Also a reminder that a being that is all-knowing does not have the power to change its own actions (be all-powerful) because if you can change your actions you don't already know what you're going to do.
>>34099853
>to your knowledge
who are you and why should we care about what you know?
>>34099799
Ehm, could you explain how it is a painting? Because its not
>>34100028
I am asking for evidence to set me right, anon. Instead of telling me the obvious, why don't you provide some evidence that Platonism is valid?
Holy shit, I wasn't saying "I have a lack of knowledge about Platonism, therefore it is illogical," you can't be this stupid, I am assuming you're emotionally attached to the issue or you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>34100009
>because if you can change your actions you don't already know what you're going to do.
But, God is like really smart, and like, he can like, do and not do; so, like, he can know everything, but sometimes, he doesn't know everything because, like, he's God and junk; and, like, I'm making objective statements without any empirical backing.
>>34099679
>If a God will send me to suffer for an eternity...
>that God is not worthy of my worship
Yes he is, because in fact that is a great demonstration of power. You are the worthless, defenseless one.
>>34100122
What is the point of this response?
>>34100101
see pic related. I don't know what you're talking about, but if you have objective proof for God please elaborate. I'm willing to be corrected.
>>34100122
:)
>>34100171
If a God demands that I be irrational or suffer he can go fuck himself. You're putting that ellipses in a very opportune place you fucking sophist.
>>34099257
>Theism Is Irrational
>i get asscrucified because of the beliefs of others
Heh.
Universe is too organized for a random explosion nigga.
If God doesnt exist what dimension/where do dreams and thoughts exist??
Stupid niggers.
>>34100220
Who painted that and why is there no undersketch on the infrared scans?
>>34099257
[edge intensifies]
>>34100102
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Swl0Pl4rURo
...& move those goalposts one inch and you lose, negrito...
>>34099257
Good goy, there is no god, only the material
>>34100241
Is this an argument as to why theism is rational?
Are you implying that the beliefs of a massive number of irrational theists do not effect me every day?
See ISIS
>>34100262
I am not making claims to objective knowledge about the origins of the universe, I am merely pointing out that the theistic perspective is irraitonal.
>>34100280
Is that a serious argument?
>>34100292
Not sure. Tell me how this objectively points to the existence of a God?
>>34100306
That's right bro, when ice hits steel, maximum edge.
>>34099257
If there's no God then how did this happen?
>>34100350
You seem to know the answer to >>34100280 so, tell me.
>NO NO NOT SERIOUS ARGUMENT U-UH GOD DOESNT EXIST
>>34100350
>I am merely pointing out that the theistic perspective is irraitonal.
Any more rational than a random explosion from nothing making everything in the structure it is now?
>>34099257
le epic atheism XD
>>34100009
That may be the case, but it is irrelevant. It's about you. You say 'I know!' or 'I don't know!' and you base it on some criteria of knowing. If you say you don't know what the criteria are, I'm asking how you can know or not. If YOU have some criteria, let's hear it, otherwise you are basing your argument on nothing
>>34100414
Well, my inability to explain the human perception of dreams and thoughts is not objective proof for a God. However, I would posit that it is most likely a subjective experience due to the complex interaction of neurons/brain whatever.
>>34100435
If the Big Bang Theory has objective evidence to the contrary I would suggest that you go win yourself a Nobel prize with that evidence. Also, my inability to explain something doesn't make your explanation valid.
this is great, OP. I needed to be reminded that specimens such as yourself remained.
Your post is the scientism fallacy
>The only knowledge that can be gained is from evidence
or something similar. Its self refuting as that statement isnt scientific. Its a variant on hume's fork which is also a failure. I didnt read the rest of your post because your premise is irrational.
>>34100350
If there was no undersketch it was not painted but placed there by god
>>34100102
I'm questioning your base of morality (and the phenomenology of such) through the assumption that you consider man to solely be a process and the result of natural and amoral developments i.e. natural selection.
>>34100538
I'm not denying the Big bang happened, I'm saying what came from it doesn't seem to be the work of random collisions. The cosmos is too ordered.
>Also, my inability to explain something doesn't make your explanation valid.
It can make us equally invalid, no?
>>34100543
>The only knowledge that can be gained is from evidence
That IS the only form of knowledge.
Anything else you can never know if it in fact correlates with reality or not - you have to actually look at reality.
>>34100835
There can be no proven evidence I had a dream last night.
Doesn't mean I didn't;t have one.
>>34100340
I'm not extremely familiar with Godel's theorem, but instead of googling a counter-argument here is my response:
Philosophy is founded on certain assumptions, such as that truth is preferable to untruth. Essentially, knowledge boils down to certain assumptions within our own giant logical system. Your option is either to accept that there are some assumptions or be crippled (We still have to assume certain things about aviation, we don't have all the laws/theorems worked out yet). Sorry if I'm off-point.
Also I see a potential for a false dichotomy with the independent justification/platonic forms decision.
>>34100564
K, please go get a Nobel prize with your objective proof for God, mention me in your acceptance speech.
But seriously, if this is proof for God why don't you present it to the national academy of sciences?
>>34100663
I don't claim objective knowledge about the origins of the universe, at least I haven't in this thread.
>>34100835
Agreed
>>34100835
If it's the only form, why make the category of empirical?
>>34100835
Define evidence. Also, how can we know if we are not hallucinating?
Also, you lost by not addressing my proof of Platonic forms. :^)
>>34100901
>There can be no proven evidence I had a dream last night.
Yes there can.
>Doesn't mean I didn't;t have one.
How do you know you had one if you don't have any evidence for it?
>>34099257
>>34100906
>I don't claim objective knowledge about the origins of the universe
Neither have I. I'm assuming you believe in the Big Bang, do you not?.
>>34099257
RADICAL Theism is very irrational
RADICAL Atheism is also very irrational
We can discover every single piece of scientific evidence and combine all of our knowledge of the entire universe and STILL would not be able to prove, or disprove, God, the entire concept is a logical fallacy
If Atheists are right; then God is a product of man
If Theism is right, then God does not exist inside this universe and thus cannot adhere to this universes laws
We will ALWAYS have religion, even if we took every single religious man on Earth and went back in time to the Big Bang to show them all it happened, we'd still have religion, it is simply not possible to disprove God, this is why Atheists and Theists will always mindlessly bicker and debate about it, it goes knowhere
Agnostic Apatheist is the only rational belief system
>>34100999
I think it's plausible with quantum physics being as bizarre as they are, I'm not a physicist so I can't really speak with authority on the manner.
>>34100948
>Yes there can.
Like?
>How do you know you had one if you don't have any evidence for it?
I remember it.
>>34100937
>Also, how can we know if we are not hallucinating?
Doesn't matter - if reality is an hallucination then that would be the basis for empirical evidence.
The point is that logical deduction or philosophical arguments are completely useless at generating knowledge unless they start from empirical premises.
You can make any perfect logical argument of "If A therefore B", but unless you can show that A actually models reality you haven't said anything about reality.
>>34101059
On the Dawkins scale I'm a 6. I don't claim to know that God does not exist, just that it is very unlikely. I'm a de facto atheist.
>>34101084
>Like?
Dreaming has distinct blood flow and brain wave patterns.
>I remember it.
Memories are physical configurations in the brain, so that is empirical evidence.
>>34100937
OP here.
You didn't reply to me. I responded to your proof of Platonic forms
>>34100906
first part.
>>34101154
Wouldn't that technically make you an Agnostic Atheist?
Agnostic Atheism I think is far more rational than Radical Atheism, radical atheists are just stupid
>>34101199
>Dreaming has distinct blood flow and brain wave patterns.
Assuming you weren't testing me while I was asleep, how could you tell?
>Memories are physical configurations in the brain
Can you tap into these?
>>34100488
>An all-knowing being would have the knowledge of what would be convincing evidence of itself to me, I mean that's kind of axiomatic isn't it? (me)
>That may be the case, but it is irrelevant. It's about you. You say 'I know!' or 'I don't know!' and you base it on some criteria of knowing. If you say you don't know what the criteria are, I'm asking how you can know or not. If YOU have some criteria, let's hear it, otherwise you are basing your argument on nothing
Please be more specific. Too many pronouns/10 this is just confusing
>>34101118
If even hallucinations are valid why in the fuck are you an atheist?
>>34101263
I suppose you could say that, I consider myself a de facto atheist but a de jure agnostic.
Well of course theism is irrational.
If it was rational then it would SIMPLY be a case of REASONING theists into a point where they accept the obvious tautological sets like life before death, and all the other self-refuting stuff without anything to ground it in reason.
Theism does not exist in a vacuum, but as a result of pressures of life, and the theists, though wrongly, crave a salve to balm the misery of existence.
It is improvements in living standards, not newfound rationality that has resulted in the decreasing spirituality of the world, and assuming atheism was the goal, then improving the living standards of the world would be the method best suited to implement it.
>>34101059
>>Agnostic Apatheist is the only rational belief system
Fuck yeah, muh nigger! Apatheism, look it up, the question "does God exist" is moot, why the fuck do we care until we are dead?
>>34101297
>Assuming you weren't testing me while I was asleep, how could you tell?
I don't understand your point, missing an opportunity to test an event is a completely different issue.
>Can you tap into these?
Not to extract finer details yet.
>>34101384
I can't be apathetic about Christians legislating religion, or ISIS.
>>34099257
>in no other area of life is faith used
I have faith my wife won't cheat on me
I have faith drinking pure water won't poison me
I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow
>>34101320
If reality is in fact an hallucination then I would definitely be an atheist.
>>34101368
But this doesn't disprove theism. It's a theory you can't prove really.
>>34101479
You don't have to be, Apatheism refers to simply a belief or disbeleif in God, it has nothing to do with how you feel about people
>>34101519
Nice bait mate.
There's two definitions of faith, the religious and secular versions. You are conflating the two.
Religious faith is specifically in the absence or in spite of evidence.
100/10 made me reply.
>>34099257
>Makes argument against the existence of God based on refuting books that were written by man.
>>34101427
>I don't understand your point, missing an opportunity to test an event is a completely different issue.
If I said I had a dream last night and no one was testing my brain how could you tell if I actually had a dream or am lying?
>>34101519
This, retarded fucker hasn't realized all political ideology are directly related to theology
>>34101592
I was refuting theism, specifically Christianity.
Deism is more plausible since it does not require as many leaps of faith as theism, but there's still no objective evidence for it.
>>34099679
>God will send me to hell because I'm skeptical
Incorrect. You, and every other human is going to hell based on their sins. Jesus is an escape from that, but you have to accept the free gift of salvation or you're screwed.
>>34101650
What does that have to do with empiricism being the only way of generating knowledge?
>>34101753
If I live in accordance with the societal/moral bounds of the world I live in at the time and don't adopt, let's say an irrational theistic position, why would a God who provided no objective evidence for its existence be upset that I did not accept its existence?
>God-Tier
Apatheism
>High-Tier
Agnostic Apatheism
Agnostic Atheism
>Mid-Tier
Agnostic Theism
>Fedora-Tier
Radical Atheism
>Al-Qaeda-Tier
Radical Theism
>I literally have no idea what I'm fucking talking about-Tier
Pure Agnosticism
>>34101773
Can you empirically prove if I had or had not had that dream last night?
>>34101910
Memories are empirical.
>>34101938
So why can false memories be created?
>>34101650
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Of course it does. Someone not being around to observe a well-documented effect explained and repeatedly demonstrated by the laws of physics doesn't make it not happen.
I don't really get your point. If you had a dream last night, then you had a dream. If you didn't, and you claim that you did, you're lying. Are you saying that our inability to prove what you said somehow disproves empirical evidence? Because that is a conceited notion.
>>34100220
many have pointed out that this picture is symbolic of a yoni. Note the position of her hands... But is she standing on a baby? Lol.
>>34100414
Are you seriously trying to label natural neural processes as metaphysical somehow? Fuckoffff
>>34100539
OHHH! You totally burned that person criticising your position as being full of shit there! YEEEAH! FEEL THAT SCATHE, ATHEISTS!
>>34102073
Same reason corrupt images on your computer can be created - signal errors.
What a horrible thread.
>But you can't prove God DOESN'T exist.
>M-muh edgy fedoras!
Is that really supposed to be a satisfactory argument?
Your belief has no basis in our perceived reality. Before you say 'what if it exists outside our perception?', then understand that there's no way of demonstrating that one way or the other, so there is no reason to believe it.
I honestly don't understand how anyone can accept this kind of stuff any more.
I understand religion's influence on law and morals and society and family, but the first world should be at a point where we can base such things on reason and empathy, without having to rely on the mental crutch of an almighty rule-giver.
>>34100906
K, please reproduce it if you think it so simple
>>34102173
I am not the one presenting claims of objective knowledge, you are. If this painting somehow is a proof of God, I don't see why you or whoever figured it out isn't sitting on a pile of scientific awards.
>>34102078
No, I'm saying it disproves that empiricism is the only way of knowing something.
Hey Christians, how does it feel to worship a sandnigger god?
>>34102170
>But you can't prove God DOESN'T exist.
>M-muh edgy fedoras!
But those aren't the arguments being presented, at least not by me. It's more an argument to disprove radical atheism.
>>34102164
So basically, you cannot use empiricism alone to determine reality.
>>34102268
How does it do that?
I think you may be confusing epistemology with methodology.
>>34102453
OP here.
My position is that of an agnostic atheist, I was not trying to present radical atheism as valid. I do not have objective proof that God does not exist.
>>34102268
But it doesn't. Because assuming that you were telling the truth about having a dream, it can be proved that you did based on evidence given by the repeatedly demonstrated (and observed) effects explained by the laws of physics.
Obviously we can't prove it NOW, because the dream is over, but our prior knowledge BASED on empirical evidence tells us what we need to know.
Are you saying that this isn't the same as empirical evidence? That observation and using knowledge gained by previous observations to support a hypothesis are different?
>>34102468
No, only empiricism can be used to determine reality.
>>34102530
False statement.
Captcha: maendom cumstance
>>34102591
>False statement.
Elaborate.
>>34102453
see:
>>34101059
I still think Apatheism makes the most sense
>>34101546
who said disprove theism? Theism exists in the realm of UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS.
The gods that obviously dont exist are evidence towards reasonable doubt in the next possible god.
However, if the misery of life were lessened, then the societal needs that require a 'well this world is hard but the next one will be better' (generally the underlying principles of most successful religions, providing you adhere their dictates) then overall that would be a shitty car to try and sell to the happy peon.
>>34102508
>it can be proved that you did based on evidence given by the repeatedly demonstrated (and observed) effects explained by the laws of physics.
But it can't, because I may or may not have had the dream and you cannot prove I did or didn't.
Where was God during the caveman era?
Checkmate theists
This fucking thread.
>>34102640
Intellectual integrity > Happy peons
>>34101753
Why would god need a spaceship?
(see what I did there? You used a source to base your claims, and so did I. Captain kirk is way cooler than some long haired jew)
> le objective evidence
Objective evidence?
It is simply deduction that is used to determine that an intelligent creator created Earth.
How do you explain the universe being as stable as it is to be able to support life as we know it? In fact, the chance of the universe being the way it is is 10^15, which is really REALLY fucking unlikely.
Using occam's Razor we can establish that it is infinitely more likely that this universe was made this way on purpose than it just being that way by accident. Whether by God(s) or some nerd Cthulian programmer who's working on our universe as some science experiment.
>>34102640
SO you're saying a happy and luxurious society would be more inclined to atheism because of the lack of suffering theism soothes?
Although this may be true, it still does not disprove theism.
>>34102656
That is irrelevant. We're talking about epistemology here, as in what is the possible ways you can theoretically generate knowledge.
Whether or not you can manage to prove a particular event has no bearing on the epistemology itself, that would just be a practical or technological failure.
>>34099257
The book of Daniel contain prophecies(the prophecies of Alexander the Great in chapter 8 and prophecies of Antiochus' campaigns in Egypt in chapter 11) that are so accurate that naturalists have no choice but to assume the dating of the book of Daniel to after 160 B.C., after Antiochus' campaign despite it being included in the Septuagint 100 years earlier.
Daniel 8 highlights
>The goat stands for the king of Greece.
so it must be a Greek king
>The large horn between his eyes is the first king.
Alexander
>20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
Alexander conquered Media and Persia
>22 Four horns took its place when it was broken off. They stand for four kingdoms that will come from his nation. But those kingdoms will not be as powerful as his.
When Alexander died, his nation split into 4 kingdoms: The Ptolemaic Kingdom, the Seleucid Empire, Kingdom of Pergamon, and Macedonia.
also the part that says
>24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power.
is referring to Alexander's father, Philip II. Alexander had everything needed for world conquest handed to him by his daddy.
>25 ...Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.
Alexander died not in combat, but from disease.
Additionally the language in the Book of Daniel has Persian influence, but very little greek influence, which would be expected in a 2nd century text. The Hebrew matches that of 6th century Hebrew(yes, languages change over time), and the Aramaic is similar to the 5th century Aramaic used in Ezra.
>>34101862
Because being rational is the ONLY THING that the organized religion...er I MEAN GOD
can't forgive you for!!
>>34102830
>the chance of the universe being the way it is is 10^15
>Using occam's Razor we can establish that it is infinitely more likely that this universe was made this way on purpose than it just being that way by accident.
Cool assumptions.
>>34102872
Then I may have gotten my shit mixed up methodology, apologies.
>>34102830
>How do you explain the universe being as stable as it is to be able to support life as we know it? In fact, the chance of the universe being the way it is is 10^15, which is really REALLY fucking unlikely.
Unlike theists, I don't make claims to objective knowledge about why the universe is stable. But the theory that
>The universe can't always have been there
>But a creator CAN always have been there
>The most evolved being that never evolved
Doesn't really make sense...
>>34102902
underrated post :)
>>34102830
But the universe as we see it now is most likely infinitely large so the chances of our solar system existing is very possible.
>>34102994
I'm talking about the structure of the universe itself, like how gravity works.
>>34102830
>OH NO, GOD OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T EXIST, BECAUSE THIS UNIVERSE DOESN'T HAVE LIFE IN IT!
Said nobody ever, for fucking obvious reasons.
See how retarded it is? Think about what you say before you say it.
>>34102994
>infinitely large
If you discard the big bang.
>>34102868
still not concerned with disproving an unsubstantiated claim.
I said that in the post u replied to.
>>34102993
>>The most evolved being that never evolved
I never claimed a creator never evolved, also, a creator would not be bound by the law's of our universe or logic since they exist outside of it.
>>34103124
What? The universe is increasing in size and the rate of its increase is accelerating... How would the big bang contrast with this idea?
>>34103177
>they exist outside of it.
Completely incoherent concept.
>>34103187
Because that would mean the universe is finite.
>>34101938
>Qualia is empirical
wow, such science
many measurements
>>34103177
>Claiming knowledge about a creator in a dimension you have no proof exists
What the fuck? Are you just shifting the goalpost? If God exists outside this universe then he can't have any measurable effect on it, or have created it.
>>34103177
If they exist outside the universe, then surely that rules out the idea of a personal god(s), like the one described by pretty much every religion ever.
Also 'outside the universe' doesn't really make sense.
>>34103122
Well the way the universe being the way it is at all it very, very unlikely.
One in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.
Even if life didn't exist by chance, that's more likely than all the systems of the universe being the way they are.
>BUT IF IT WASN'T THAT WAY WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OBSERVE THIS MIRACULOUS OCCURRENCE
I don't understand how that could possibly necessitate the absence of God(s). We're supposed to be open minded rational people right?
>>34103268
>Matter is compressed at one point in time
>Starts expanding and expansion accelerates
>Therefore the universe is limited
What? I don't see where you're getting this from.
>>34103098
Anthropic principle, moron. If the universe didn't evolve in the manner that it did you wouldn't be around to misunderstand basic logic and spout retarded opinions on the internet.
Furthermore, you have no idea what a universe is. There could be 10, 1000, 100000000000000000, or infinite universes, all with their own properties.
>>34103187
The universe can be measured, it's finite, the mass within it is finite. The universe may as well be infinitely large to our minds but it's still actually finite.
>>34103337
>unlikely
What are you basing that on? Where's your sample of other universes?
Also, source/calculation on those numbers please.
>>34103343
If it's still expanding then it's not infinite, as infinity cannot expand.
>>34103281
God =\= deity
Define the terms, win the argument.
>>34103438
But something can expand infinitely.
Theists are pretty much all dumb. Christians the most.
>>34103438
>>34103404
If I have a function called the universe that's expanding at an exponential rate for all eternity how is that not infinite?
>>34103454
>Claiming knowledge about a creator in a dimension you have no proof exists
>What the fuck?
>Are you just shifting the goalpost? If a creator exists outside this universe then he can't have any measurable effect on it, or have created it.
Happy?
>>34099257
>i don't believe in god
>i must make a thread so everyone can validate me or my belief
ahaha.
>>34103263
If you're a retarded /pol/ troll maybe
.>>34103281
He/it must've since something cannot come from nothing
>>34103300
Yes it does, scientists believe in the multiverse, the multiverse doesn't logically make any sense, that doesn't mean it's still not there.
OP is intelligent but is not direct enough with his argument and too acceptant of stupidity. Stick with God, and don't move onto Theists provided 'proof' (bible quoting, truths about God, how God acts, etc).
>>34103411
Wouldn't surprise me if it was Lee Strobel or someone like that.
>>34103543
>I shouldn't want to correct anyone's invalid beliefs
But I don't live on an island in the middle of the pacific ocean, or else I wouldn't have to read your shitty post
>>34103475
>>34103529
because the universe will always be of finite size.
>>34103548
>If you're a retarded /pol/ troll maybe
Define what existing "outside of the universe" precisely means.
>>34103379
The Anthropic principle is easily refuted.
The universe being the way it is is as likely as you being thrown unprotected into the core of the sun, and there you are thinking "well, I'm still alive, that's a little weird *shrug*" instead of being "HOLY FUCKING SHIT, WHY DID THIS HAPPEN!"
There is no evidence for God.
There is no evidence to suggest God, so even as a guess, it's irrational.
Creation is not God-exclusive, it's actually okay to think about something being the cause to the big bang, such as energy, or something, but where in, during our reverse-engineering of the universe, do we reach God? We don't. It's fiction, nothing implies God, God implies itself. The worlds best forced meme.
>>34103551
Appreciate the compliment I suppose. How could I be more direct with my argument? (I am being serious, I am open to criticism.)
>>34103548
I'm responding to you after you responded to my post
>>34103281
Why didn't the creator have to come from something? Are you suggesting an infinite number of creators?
>>34103655
Except only one of those is possible.
>>34103379
>There could be 10, 1000, 100000000000000000, or infinite universes, all with their own properties.
But I thought that was supposed to be illogical hogwash
>le materialist smileyman faec
The universe isn't some cold mechanical machine m8, at the smallest level you will not see particles, but mathematical probabilities.
>>34103337
If we're to assume time is infinite, then statistics like >one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion are kind of meaningless. In whatever space the universe exists and was created in, it would be like an infinitely running random number generator--a generator which, despite inconceivable odds, would eventually result in the way our universe was developed. Time is subjective, the "odds" of something happening don't prevent it from occurring if those odds have forever to be generated.
>>34103529
That's like a car speeding up slowly from 20 miles per hour and at 100 miles per hour the passenger is all "whelp, I guess we're moving at infinite miles per hour" infinity is not a number, it's a concept.
>>34102530
k so we're throwing history out the window?
>>34103698
>le hookman
>>34103655
>The universe being the way it is is as likely
No, you have *no idea* what the possibility space for "universe properties" are, you have no idea how many "trials" there has been, you have no idea if physical laws even have the possibility to vary.
It's a complete unknown, any number put on the chances of a universe supporting life is complete bullshit.
And the only thing you really need is a non-zero possibility, then it could have happened, no matter how small a chance.
>>34103590
So you had to make a thread because you want attention or you feel insecure of your "atheism". Top lel, nigger.
>>34099257
Guess I'll post this again since no one ever replies
The whole concept of a prime mover(which is the Aristolic term for god) is meant to answer the infinite regress of cause and effect.
The prime mover is the first cause, but is exempt from requiring a cause. Something that is not bound by time is immune to the laws of cause and effect.
Until entropy can be proven to be reversible, the universe will be suggested to have a beginning and an ending- an initial point of 0 entropy and a terminal point of maximum entropy.
But because this prime mover is not bound by time, it's impossible to find, just like dark matter is. It's a hypothesis, like ether and corpuscles once were, and like dark matter is today. We don't know, but it works with our model of science, but it's unprovable. Eventually we'll come up with something better, or maybe we'll even find a way to verify the existence of a prime mover.
To the fine-tuned universe guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg
It's a bretty good video. Shame he stopped making them.
He gets to the fundamental constants bit towards the end.
>>34103680
Too edgy even for atheists, you might cut someone be careful man.
>>34103795
History is based on empirical evidence.
>>34099537
Our mother, whatever guise she appears in, exists. This is proveable.
I doubt her relation to a Jew war god is debateable however, since she appears in all cultures and far before Yeshua.
>>34103792
Is something that expands faster and faster for all time not boundless? Any boundary is removed instantly, essentially?
>>34103852
Not sure which part you're responding to.
>>34103881
If a theist presents an argument against an atheist does that mean he is insecure in his beliefs?
Well I guess your "Argument" proves that you're insecure in your beliefs.
Checkmate, nigger.
>>34103746
But does that really necessitate the absence of a creator?
Who created this generator you speak of?
>i dunno xD it can't be god though xD
>>34103886
>The prime mover is the first cause, but is exempt from requiring a cause. Something that is not bound by time is immune to the laws of cause and effect.
So basically a false dichotomy? The prime mover is just a special snowflake?
Also, most importantly, prime mover =! personal God. So your argument has no bearing on the validity of theism.
>>34103886
It's not an explanation though, it's a stopgap.
>works with out model of science
>unprovable
No, it doesn't work with science, it's a untestable idea that is incompatible with science. It can't be proven or disproven, so it is useless to science.
>>34103860
>What is quantum physics
>BUH! GOD CAN'T EXIST BECAUSE I SAY SO!
>How?
>BECAUSE OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE THINGS DON'T NEED TO MAKE SENSE
>atheists believe God is a man in the clouds with a beard
>>34103698
In the famous words of every Theist...
You'll know...
>>34103917
Yer mum is based on my DICK
>>34104058
>Claiming knowledge of how things outside the universe can or have interacted with us
>Shifting the goalpost of God outside of this universe because you live in the 21st century
Seems reasonable...
>We don't know, so it's gotta be God rite guise!?
Will you never learn? Every aspect of nature used to be assigned to a god, but science unveiled the bullshit, and it's only a matter of time before it happens to your god too, until it won't even have the room to be a "prime mover".
>>34103886
>The prime mover is the first cause, but is exempt from requiring a cause
Which is no different from "something from nothing".
And nothing seems like the simplest "thing" which can violate causality.
>>34104209
#rekt
>>34104025
>The prime mover is just a special snowflake?
If the universe were eternal, it would become a special snowflake whose origins don't have to obey cause and effect. But it's not eternal.
>prime mover =! personal God. So your argument has no bearing on the validity of theism.
Correct, but it's much easier to go from deism to theism than it is to go from atheism to theism.
I'm open to the idea of god, I think. But am I uncertain my whole life and just "hope" I'm right, or will I ever actually KNOW God is real?
>>34103917
History is a set of lies agreed upon. - Napoleon Bonaparte
>>34104294
>If the universe were eternal, it would become a special snowflake whose origins don't have to obey cause and effect. But it's not eternal.
>It's not eternal
If something has to be eternal there's no logical/empirical reason that it has to be a conscious creator.
>>34103886
You could just as easily say that the universe has always existed in some form or another, "before" the big bang, meaning there is no need for something outside the universe to exist.
>>34104314
God is not demonstrable. You can not know God exists, or that God does not exist, but it is safe to say that there is not a compelling case for a God and that God is merely a bad guess made from today- the beginning of time.
>>34104294
>Correct, but it's much easier to go from deism to theism than it is to go from atheism to theism.
Not him but if it's so easy, some theologian would've done it already, and no one has even come close.
You gotta define god first, before you start talking about its existence.
That's basic shit man, come on.
Theists always end their arguments for God with some loose implication---"You'll know, when you bump into what I bumped into"---logic. It's just weasel words...
>>34103746
I'd rather not explain quantum physics with you, so instead I'll take this route of logic:
If you're to imply that this "generator" which created the universe (which, for one, wasn't actually a tangible subject but an attribute of the existing phase-space before "the universe," and two was completely hypothetical and invented on-the-spot by myself) needs to be created, then I argue that THAT creator needs a creator. And that creator and that creator and that creator, and it would span backwards in an infinite chain of creators creating creators creating creators. A God would not be exempt from this.
Just because it does not DISPROVE a creator doesn't mean it needs a creator in order to explain its existence. But that goes into quantum physics, which I'm not really an authority on to adequately explain.
>>34104550
Fucked up, meant to quote:
>>34103973
>>34104538
everybody ends up saying stupid shit in these arguments
they're completely pointless and there's no winning. atheists believe they have "won" because no evidence to God was given, and theists believe they have "won" because no evidence was given that God doesn't exist.
>>34104538
I like theists who admit straight off the bat that it comes down to faith.
At least they don't waste your time with false science and mental masturbation.
>>34104628
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the belief that there is no god. So yeah, atheism looks like the more reasonable position at the end of these arguments.
>>34104424
>If something has to be eternal there's no logical/empirical reason that it has to be a conscious creator.
Of course not, and that's why you have to use Christianity to explain why we can assume that the prime mover is conscious.
>>34104424
>"before" the big bang, meaning there is no need for something outside the universe to exist.
The issue is that there's no such thing as 'before', as time didn't exist until the big bang triggered t = 0.
We don't live in a spherical universe, we live in a flat one with great certainty. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html Therefore the universe cannot be cyclical.
>>34104243
>>34104424
You see what happens when you deny a creator at all cost? You start saying silly shit.
1.) The universe needs to be created by something, that's just how the universe is, it's it's very nature, it is begun, it will end
2.) There was a big bang, and there is no evidence to show this is not the case. No empirical data. Assuming otherwise is just grasping at nonsense to back up your opinion.
You'll know God exists when Jesus comes to you.
/thread
>>34099257
Someone just turned 16 and realised what everyone has known for years.
Take your edge elsewhere, this is a tired debate and nobody takes religion seriously anymore.
>>34103952
>Well I guess your "Argument" proves that you're insecure in your beliefs.
You present nothing, you are just another generic angry fedora weakling stuck with an obsolete positivist paradigm (which died in the 1970's). I laugh at your attention whoring and your damage control. No amount of proof of evidence will ever convince you, you already defeated yourself. Ahaha.
>>34104739
>created by something
>>34104432
>but it is safe to say that there is not a compelling case for a God and that God is merely a bad guess made from today- the beginning of time.
But there is a compelling case. The universe being the way it is is 1 in 10^15. Saying the universe was shat out by some dumb multiverse machine that doesn't make any sense is sillier than just saying "god did it"
>>34104810
>Fedora status: *tipped*
>>34104852
the universe doesn't make sense, of course it's natural
>>34104737
Hence the quotation marks around before mate.
>have to use Christianity
Or you could use a different brand of bullshit. Just saying. "We don't know" is the only honest answer. An explanation that relies on a faith is not an explanation.
>>34104739
>The universe needs to be created by something
According to what exactly? Creation implies intent. You have no reason to believe that.
>>34104763
Jesus is fapping to me? Eugh gross!
>>34104803
You are just using ad hominems.
Did not read more than 10 words/10
>>34104927
>if I portray atheists as "uncool", it will mean my blind faith is correct!
>>34104739
And this implies God why? A creator is not God-exclusive. We took the concept of creation AND THEN applied it to God. We can rationally reach the conclusion, "the big bang needs a cause", but by no means does this imply God. A negro seems like a white man, but the two are different. God seems like what happened before the universe, but that's truly, "what happened before the universe".
>>34104716
>Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the belief that there is no god. So yeah, atheism looks like the more reasonable position at the end of these arguments.
It must be a belief since atheists are so fucking terrified of being labeled as believing in something.
>>34099679
>If a God will send me to suffer for an eternity for healthy intellectual skepticism that God is not worthy of my worship.
I don't think you understand the doctrine of heaven and hell. Heaven is spending eternity with God, while hell is spending eternity without God. If you don't love God, why would you want to go to heaven? It'd be an eternal torture for you, like being forced into a marriage with someone you don't love. Likewise, if you love God, you wouldn't want to go to hell, because it'd be eternal torture to spending eternity without the one you love.
sheol = hades = hell by translation. All of the bible verses involving Jesus talking about burning in hell in the KJV is really talking about Gehenna, which they decided to also translate to the word 'hell.' Gehenna was a place where the worshippers of baal and moloch performed child sacrifice by fire, and they use it to describe how miserable hell is to believers.
>Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. - Ecclesiastes 9:10
Hell is eternal nothingness without God. It's oblivion.
>>34105040
What?
When will retards finally realize that there will never be evidence for God?
And I'm not even an atheist.
>>34105004
>if I portray theists as ignorant, it will mean my blind faith is correct!
>>34104991
>You are just using ad hominems.
You have zero arguments, I knew it. You are attention whoring, you are just another generic fedora trying to push your atheist religion.
>>34105040
I believe in lots of things, but a god isn't one of them.
It's pretty simple m8.
>>34104960
>Or you could use a different brand of bullshit.
Okay now we can go somewhere from here
What makes you think Christianity is bullshit? "We don't know" is only an honest answer out of ignorance.
>>34105106
But you are ignorant. You're demonstrating it.
You state the universe "has" to have a creator, then use ad hominens on anyone calling you out on this.
>>34105040
>It must be a belief since atheists are so fucking terrified of being labeled as believing in something.
Not him but, I'm an atheist. And I have alot of beliefs. I'm a classical liberal for example, which implies certain beliefs about humanity.
But atheism is not a belief. It is the rejection of belief in deities.
>>34105083
nobody on this board, not even theists, believe there is concrete evidence for God
>>34105116
My entire first two posts were arguments you fucking troll.
6 million/ never forget made me reply you faggot
>>34104232
>it's only a matter of time before it happens to your god too, until it won't even have the room to be a "prime mover".
Attempting to provide evidence of what happened before the fact, after the fact.
Example:
I spilled a soda on the table before you walked into the room. I clearly saw myself spill this soda, yet you're attempting to state that this soda spilled itself.
To restate.
God caused all reality. God sees and saw Himself cause and sustain reality. You're attempting to disprove what He has experience and evidence of while in what He has caused.
>>34105160
Because we are ignorant about these things. Obviously. That's why people turn to faith to try and explain it.
>>34104960
>>The universe needs to be created by something
>According to what exactly? Creation implies intent. You have no reason to believe that.
Because our universe is bound by it's own laws of physics. Again, more silly shit. The universe being constructed the way it is, is less likely than you winning the jackpot every single time for a quadrillion millenniums.
Saying an unintelligent process without intent did it is infinitely more retarded than believing a creator with intent did it.
>>34105219
>>God caused all reality. God sees and saw Himself cause and sustain reality.
what are you basing this on?
>>34105219
>God caused all reality. God sees and saw Himself cause and sustain reality. You're attempting to disprove what He has experience and evidence of while in what He has caused.
Please provide evidence of this, assertions=/= fact
>What objective evidence do we have for the existence of a deity?
The universe you self righteous fuck. You have no knowledge of the unseen (what happened before the big bang and what happens after death), yet you still claim intellectual superiority. This is how deluded people like you are.
>Objective/empirical evidence?
The universe as a primary example. You can certainly believe that all of it, with its laws and functions, just randomly happened to come existence from absolutely nothing just for the sake of it, but I won't because that's fucking retarded.
>no prophet was ever granted serious evidence by the God/gods he spoke on behalf of
You mean like Musa who split the sea and Mohammed who ascended to the heavens?
>The religious sometimes argue that their God will not prove its existence beyond a doubt because that would rob humans of their free will
But he has - countless times in the past through the miracle of the Prophets. But you don't need miracles (even though the Quran is one in of itself) to come to believe in God - science will do that for you. The more scientific evidence of the universe we've uncovered, the more faithful I've grown. Because to believe such a beautifully complex universe just popped up out of nothing just because is illogical. And you won't convince me with your pseudo
intellect otherwise.
>>34105289
>less likely than you winning the jackpot every single time for a quadrillion millenniums.
I asked last time, but you ignored me. Source/calculations on those numbers please.
What set of universes are you basing these statistics on?
>>34105183
>But atheism is not a belief. It is the rejection of belief in deities.
Holy shit, these niggas are serious!
>>34105203
>My entire first two posts were arguments you fucking troll.
You have nothing, fedoro. Absolutely nothing. A positivist, narrow and closed minded view of things. Just like the "religious" people you despise. You are every fedora ever, nothing new, just parroting what you heard in school.
>>34105347
>from absolutely nothing
but theists are the ones that believe that, not athiests
>>34105347
>The universe as a primary example. You can certainly believe that all of it, with its laws and functions, just randomly happened to come existence from absolutely nothing just for the sake of it, but I won't because that's fucking retarded.
I refuse to believe people still seriously use that piss-poor argument.
>>34105309
The sweet science of deductiooooooooooon!
>>34105219
you can't know any of that
>>34105281
and I would argue that we aren't as ignorant as you think.
>>34099257
Reminder that Christianity is a sandnigger religion.
Reminder that you follow the turd that is the religion of the Jews, with a cherry on top.
If you are so sure of your atheism. Why do you need our approval of your ideas?
>>34104550
>A God would not be exempt from this.
That's false. It is entirely coherent that in that example, God can cause the entire chain to form wherein He proceeds from it.
Example. A -> B ->Z, Z is God and A only exists because God caused it to happen when He emerged as Z.
Non-linear Causality.
>>34105371
Atheists are only religious with one of the less common definitions: devotion to a particular cause. Beliefs are real, we have belief and we use it, usually, if we're intelligent, for rational reasons.
Do you believe God doesn't exist?
I'm the only Atheist in this thread who can prove God is stupidity. No disproof needed, just rationality.
>>34099257
>>34099325
All that euphoria
>>34105354
The chances of the universe being the way it is is 1 in 10^15 power.
>>34105467
Please go on.
>>34102382
>tfw god used to be a plural word
Christians confirmed for Idiocracy-tier.
>>34105347
>The universe you self righteous fuck. You have no knowledge of the unseen (what happened before the big bang and what happens after death), yet you still claim intellectual superiority. This is how deluded people like you are.
You're deluded, I don't claim to know what or how it happened, you do.
>The universe as a primary example. You can certainly believe that all of it, with its laws and functions, just randomly happened to come existence from absolutely nothing just for the sake of it, but I won't because that's fucking retarded.
There was a peer reviewed study that proves if the constants were a roll of the dice it isn't all that unlikely the universe could support life. Lurk more.
>You mean like Musa who split the sea and Mohammed who ascended to the heavens?
You have to take on faith that that shit actually happened you retard, saying miracles happened isn't proof they happened.
>But he has - countless times in the past through the miracle of the Prophets
Which I have to trust aren't lies/delusions/fantasies
> evidence of the universe we've uncovered, the more faithful I've grown.
Take your anecdotal evidence and shove it up your ass
> Because to believe such a beautifully complex universe just popped up out of nothing just because is illogical. And you won't convince me with your pseudo intellect
Psuedo-intellect is better than a complete absence of it. I am not claiming (believing) knowledge on the origins of the universe, I AM NOT making claims, I am merely saying yours (as a theist) are not proven or logical
>>34105394
explain further
>>34105521
Source/calculations on those numbers please.
What set of universes are you basing these statistics on?
The universe began to exist.
Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Since we are "internal" to the universe and did not proceed it, that cause could not have been any one of us or any life that has ever existed within the universe.
The cause of the universe was not anything of matter, energy, space or time as these came into existence at the point of the Big Bang.
Therefore, the cause of the universe transcends the universe.
>>34099257
Why are you so mad, brah?
It's Ok for some people to believe differently than you.
Someone accusing you of living in sin is offensive, but it does you no actual harm. Unless you believe the SJW shtick that words are as harmful as physical violence. I've had fools tell me I'm going to burn in hell, I laughed at them. It was funny. I don't even remember their name anymore, it had no bearing on my life after that brief moment.
All the religious impact on modern science amounts to nothing. All the objections to using aborted fetuses for genetic research was circumvented almost immediately, as will the next round of objections.
>>34105388
More ad hominems. I'm assuming you're a troll and not retarded.
"Close-minded" is not an argument, it's an adjective you idiot.
>>34105083
>When will retards finally realize that there will never be evidence for God?
>And I'm not even an atheist.
The prophets and their prophecies which came true.
Christ and His miracles.
Christ's resurrection.
>>34105583
I actually don't have the source, but I'll look it up fer you m8
>>34099257
*tips fedora
>>34105627
>The prophets and their prophecies which came true.
>Christ and His miracles.
>Christ's resurrection.
But the proof that these actually happened has to be accepted on faith in the religious sense of the term which is in spite or in absence of proof/evidence.
>>34105652
Google sophistry
Instead of providing a counter argument you're basically rolling your eyes which is supposed to compel the masses into thinking you're so beyond my facile/childish capacity. Protip: you're not
>>34105309
>what are you basing this on?
I can very well say that you never had a 5th birthday. As in you didn't go past the age of 5.
And that would be as false in your case as it would be to assert that God didn't create and sustain existence.
The simple fact is that there's something here, a reality.
The simple fact that there is a reality is evidence of God.
>>34105467
only because you want to be right
>Atheists still falling for the same old tricks.
The fedora thing must really get to them.
Nobody is actually properly religious here. Most claim they are because 'muh heritage' without acknowledging that Christianity has a heritage of sand-niggers and Jews.
Pretty much everyone is retarded in these threads.
>>34105720
No it's not; faith in a cause is a rational belief, by no means does this have to be God.
>>34105548
athiests believe in a natural universe, theists in a created one
literally "something made from thin air"
>>34105782
>I'm going to make a bullshit claim
>I speak for everyone btw
>>34105317
see>>34105720
>>34105718
>But the proof that these actually happened has to be accepted on faith in the religious sense of the term which is in spite or in absence of proof/evidence.
And the same can be said for all history. People weren't there to personally witness the events of the past. If you say there are historical records, I'll bring up the Bible.
The same can also be said for *every* single scientific theory that you yourself did not test.
You accept them on the basis of faith that the person who conducted those experiments are telling the truth.
How could God take the time to speak to create the universe if time didn't exist before the universe?
Checkmate, theists.
>>34105627
none of those happened
>>34105484
Reminder how Christianity dragged the white race out of the bog and took us to the moon.
Reminder how societies with strong Christian beliefs are too hard for 'joos' mudslimes, commies, nazis" to control.
Reminder that Jesus hated the Jews and the Jews hated Jesus.
Reminder the more whites become less Christian the more they are controlled by shitskins, jews, fags and commies etc etc etc.
> White atheist why do you hate the one and only thing that has been beneficial to the white race and always kept it free.
>>34105856
Because God doesn't experience spacetime of our universe?
>>34105720
So there's no evidence. Got it.
That bullshit copout answer won't cut it. "God is real, I can proof it. Stuff exists! Therefore God"
>>34105827
Of course the tripshit would be legit retarded.
You think God is real and stuff, but why is your only support for God, religion, if God was real, or useful, surely we could support it with science?
If you know God, why can you not write the bible yourself (obviously without copying it word for word). The writers of the bible, to create such a, celebrated as, 'work of perfection', must have known God to some extent to write his word, perfectly. If the bible is the word of God, where did it come from, and why can we not record this word ourselves (without the bible).
Checkmate... Again.
>>34105900
So there is another universe with spacetime that God lives in?
Who created that one?
>>34105834
>You accept them on the basis of faith that the person who conducted those experiments are telling the truth.
The difference is the scientific method puts "repeated demonstrations" at the height of crediblty. If OTHERS can't recreate your experiment results, it won't become a theory.
Unless you thought everyone just took your word for it before approving these things?
