Prove God exists.
Hardmode: Do not use the Bible as a reference.
>>67805211
Go.
>>67805211
https://youtube.com/watch?v=A0iDNLxmWVM
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z0tyVdnIU9A
>>67805211
why
>>67805211
Thor creates lightning.
well he doesn't not exist
>atheists btfo
>prove god exists
because i say so
>>67805211
Trying to understand the universe without accepting the existance of God is hard. It would imply that, for example, small particles (atoms) formed into more complex molecules and those molecules formed into life and created the complex functions of the human body for no reason. Also, how was the universe created? The big bang theory is flawed as it implies that the nothingness exploded and that created everything for no apparent reason. I personally believe in the existance of God as i have seen his work firsthand
(My friends uncle had blood cancer, and doctors said there was little hope for him, but then his all his family prayed for him at the church and a few days later he had made a huge recovery)
>>67805211
>atheists think this happened on accident
find me an alternative
>>67806097
>I don't understand basic science so I'm going to make shit up to fill the gaps
>everything created from nothing with no help
Ok
>>67806049
such a pimp
>>67805211
God does not need to be proven.
He needs to be realized.
God is self-evident.
>>67806195
>jesus
>brown
>>67805211
Prove God doesn't exist.
Protip: you can't
>>67806197
RARE
A
R
E
yes, i personally dont know everything about science, neither do scientists. To accept that the nothingness exploed and created everything goes against the laws of thermodynamics.
>>67805211
How do you explain elephants and birds then?
>>67806377
>neither do scientists
scientists know 1%
you know less than 0.1%.
don't make shit up to fill that 1% you cuck
Don't need to. Belief in the existence of a deity is an act of faith. We can never know if one or more exists or doesn't exist.
As it is not something that can be falsified, trying to equate it with scientific inquiry is dishonest and subversive. Common for the Judeo-Marxist atheists who unironically believe in aliens despite there being quite literally no evidence for something that is falsifiable.
>>67805211
Prove He doesn't
chances of universe forming by chance to have conditions to support life (as we know it) are nearly 0
>>67805211
he sent us his Trump
atheists btfo
>>67805211
Unmoved mover
The physical Universe is in movement.
Nothing can physically be in motion without being set in motion by something else.
There exists something outside of the Universe that sets it in motion.
Call it God if you will. There exists some sort of infinite or divine immaterial nonphysical something that is separate and immeasurable from the physical universe.
It's nature beyond that is not discernible due to its nonphysicality and its infinite nature.
>>67806758
You're a faggot.
Prove you aren't.
>>67806042
right answer.
>>67806575
Always makes me chuckle.
>>67805211
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXlBCZ_5OYw
>>67806845
also right answer
Praise Kek
>>67806865
this.
>>67806887
why so mad bro
did God fucked your girl
>>67806049
This is the exact opposite of a hoverhand.
>>67805211
>Prove God exists.
>>67805211
have a look around you and view god in his creation, he will show his majesty to you if you open your eyes.
"Indeed, for those who do not believe in the Hereafter, We have made pleasing to them their deeds, so they wander blindly. Those are the ones for whom there will be the worst of punishment, and in the Hereafter they are the greatest losers.And indeed, [O Muhammad], you receive the Qur'an from one Wise and Knowing."
The Quran 27:4-6
>>67806197
rare
>>67806810
Lets take that for a test we need 1 billion people to smash rocks togheter one year long if life does not start to exist we have proof of god
>>67806887
You're a shitskin.
Oh wait there's no need to prove that.
>>67805211
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesús_Navas
>>67805211
No
You can't tell me what to do
religion is based on faith, not evidence
>>67806865
>Nothing can physically be in motion without being set in motion by something else.
[citation needed]
>There exists something outside of the Universe that sets it in motion.
[citation needed]
>>67806377
>>67806097
Everyone with more than grade school knowledge of science knows that "nothingness" didn't explode to become the universe.
Everyone with college level education should know that atoms don't form into molecules for no reason, nor did humans arise randomly.
Also, nice confirmation bias when someone got cured from a curable form of cancer. Imagine if people claimed it was God every time someone recovered from a disease. What then about the people who don't recover? Do you think God made a special exception for your friend's uncle just because you prayed for him, while thousands of innocent children die of the same disease all the time despite people praying for them just as much?
In short, you're retarded.
>>67805211
Prove your hand is attached to your arm.
>>67807361
>You're a shitskin.
Actually you need to.
How's logic working out for you?
>>67807632
Nobody assumes that though
>>67807365
> ability to run at opposing defenders
wow, why doesn't he run past them?
>>67807819
He's trying to scare them
Running past someone isn't scary
>>67807810
>complains about logic
>you need to
Can you use proper grammar?
Here he is
>>67805211
>Prove God exists.
Because Donald Trump does.
>>67806097
>nothingness
Big Bang implies all matter was in a single place at some point. "All" sounds very much unlike "nothing".
>trying to understand... is hard
Is that an argument?
>Muh feels cancer story
I had a dog who recovered from cancer as well, nobody prayed for her. We just cuddled and treated her well. Surprise surprise, endorphins are great, and so is the placebo effect.
>>67807632
>Everyone with college level education should know that atoms don't form into molecules for no reason, nor did humans arise randomly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJoOhbf3_Ts
>>67805211
One time when I was 7 my cereal bowl moved on its own.
>>67805211
i am a tall white man born in america
checkmate, shitskins
>>67805211
Can I cite the vast majority of Western Philosophy? It is no surprise that those who deny the first cause for existence lose all purpose and direction to their own existence
>>67807632
yeah things like that are weird
the other day i was seeing a gif posted in /v/ of a dude shitting on a baby
why the poor baby deserve that? why does he allow that?
>>67806097
>The big bang theory is flawed as it implies that the nothingness exploded
Nope. The Big Bang has not, will not, and never has implied "nothingness exploded". It posits that there was a singularity that rapidly-expanded for reasons unknown now and forever.
>>67808023
>Big Bang implies all matter was in a single place at some point.
pics or didnt happen
>>67805211
Objective morality exists, therefore, God exists.
>>67805211
One day, as he slept in a cave, he dreamed that he saw his own body sleeping. He came out of the cave on the night of the new moon. The sky was clear, and he could see millions of stars. Then something happened inside of him that transformed his life forever. He looked at his hands, he felt his body, and heart his own voice say, “I am made of light. I am made of stars.”
He looked at the stars again, and he realized that it’s not the stars that create light, but rather light that creates the stars. “Everything is made of light,” he said, “and the space in between isn’t empty.” And he knew that everything that exists is one living being, and that light is the messenger of life, because it is alive and contains all information.
Then he realized that although he was made of stars, he was not those stars. “I am in between the stars,” he thought. So he called the stars the tonal and the light between the stars the nagual, and he knew that what created harmony and space between the two is Life or Intent. Without Life, the tonal and nagual could not exist. Life is the force of the absolute, the supreme, the Creator who creates everything.
This is what he discovered: Everything in existence is a manifestation of the one living being we call God. Everything is God. And he came to the conclusion that human perception is merely light perceiving light. He also saw that matter is a mirror — everything is a mirror that reflects the light and creates images of that light — and the world of illusion, the Dream, is just like smoke which doesn’t allow us to see what we really are. “The real us is pure love, pure light, “he said.
>>67805211
The Burden of Proof is on you to prove there is no God.
>>67805211
Life on planet earth seems like the product of intelligent life in my view.
>>67808278
>Objective morality exists
proof?
>>67806497
God made everything perfect, that's why the Jews/snake try an corrupt everything, specially by injecting black peoples dicks with fat, gelquing or using other methods to sterilize them. God wants us to experience the best thing there is in this world, a marriage between to virgins, I saw him, many others have throughout time as well, it's called Ezekiel's vision
>>67808275
It's a theory, just a story that goes well with what little we know.
It just happens to be the less shitty story around.
>>67808387
Explain further.
>>67808054
There is so much stupidity and misinformation in this video, I won't even bother with it. The 50% dislike bar should speak for itself.
>>67808361
WE are God.
>>67807558
>[Citation 1]
100% of observations of the physical universe. action/event/movement has a cause. Everything has a cause.
>[Citation 2]
The conclusion to the syllogism:
Everything in motion must be set in motion by something other than itself
The Universe is in motion
Therefore the Universe was set in motion by something other than itself
Try to into logic, my Bulgarian friend. You live close enough to Greece that you must have at least heard of the Philosopher by now.
>>67805211
I'm not a bible thumper.
I only have purely anecdotal evidence that can't be reproduced in any scientific way. But that anecdotal evidence is enough for me. Too many coincidences, too many lucky breaks.
>>67807897
oy vey dis is problematic, why are the denfenders trying to deny they're fellow humans access to they're land... oy vey no borders!!
>>67808475
Life doesn't come from nothing. While I disagree with the bible or the church's view on God, I do agree that God in the sense of a superior being of superior mind exists. Now, a person would ask themselves, why would this superior being create life as we know it, whats its purpose? To play Civ with planets? To look at us or laugh, what? Then you go and see Boston Dynamics videos. The universe is so vast and so big that an all-powerful being not existing doesn't seem likely.
Some people seem to be misrepresenting the core idea of the Big Bang Theory.
The core idea of the Big Bang Theory is as follows -
The universe was in an extremely hot, and dense state 13.8 billion years ago. It then expanded.
Whether, or not the universe began in any sense is still up to science, and why it expanded is still up to science. The standard explanation is that it expanded because a metastable vacuum decayed, thereby releasing enough negative pressure to expand the universe (space), and eventually enough matter to form all the matter we see today.
>>67808361
This is literally the kind of stuff my friend said before he was admitted to a mental hospital with severe schizophrenia.
>>67808361
oh wow, praise gaya and stuffs fellow homosexual cuk
>>67808757
You don't need to be a scientist. Thinking scientific realism as the end-all of epistemology is as dogmatic as an Islamist eschewing all science for religion
>>67806575
do that randomly millions of times and you'll geta picture that looks exactly like a fucking squirrel.
or in the case of christcucks exactly like the crying Madonna.
>>67805211
Atheists try to say that everything in this world is random. Not everything is just random chance. Look at the laws of physics, for one. God created those. If not him, who? Nobody - it had to be God.
>>67805211
You can't think of things that don't exist.
By denying gods presence you are affirming that there IS something that is able to be denied.
All conceptual reality is fragmented from actual realities.
For example try and think of a creature, monster or animal that has never been discovered. You can't come up with anything that's not an amalgamation of other animals/animal parts.
Same reason why we can't dream of people we've never seen before or imagine a color that doesn't exist.
God may not exist in the traditional sense of a beaded white man living in the clouds but in order to even process that concept, a higher power must exist.
I don't necessarily prescribe to this concept it's just the best argument I've heard.
>>67809131
Actually everything in the world is random and that's how I explain God to myself.
>>67808229
>It posits that there was a singularity that rapidly-expanded for reasons unknown now and forever.
Right, so instead of nothing exploding, it was a black hole that exploded. Makes perfect sense, they explode all the time.
>>67806243
Who-ho-ho! Yes.
>>67809177
>You can't think of things that don't exist.
I'll take what is creativity for 500
>>67809271
Open a physics textbook. You clearly are not educated enough to think deeply about this topic. Come back once you are educated.
>>67809016
>Life doesn't come from nothing
Nothing really says it doesn't; also, you just don't know a process that would cause it to form naturally. That's not "nothing".
The process from pure chemicals to DNA is not fully understood but we're getting there.
http://scitechdaily.com/new-evidence-on-the-origins-of-life-on-earth/
Your whole argument is "it just can't be all a huge coincidence!". Sure, it would be nice, but if you stick to evidence, so far we can't tell if there is (or not) a God. We can see a system that works on its own for the most part, and some things (like the famous dark matter) are not understood. Maybe dark matter is God.
>>67809286
A leading theory is that this does in fact happen all the time, retard. Every black hole could be the creator of a new universe on the "other side", with ours just being one out of an endless number of universes.
>>67808669
Quantum fluctuations appear to not have causes.
>>67806097
The universe is a zero sum.
>>67809129
lol being this stupid
>>67809598
or not
"Timaeus begins with a distinction between the physical world, and the eternal world. The physical one is the world which changes and perishes: therefore it is the object of opinion and unreasoned sensation. The eternal one never changes: therefore it is apprehended by reason.
"The speeches about the two worlds are conditioned by the different nature of their objects. Indeed, "a description of what is changeless, fixed and clearly intelligible will be changeless and fixed," while a description of what changes and is likely, will also change and be just likely. "As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief". Therefore, in a description of the physical world, one "should not look for anything more than a likely story".
"Timaeus suggests that since nothing "becomes or changes" without cause, then the cause of the universe must be a demiurge or a god, a figure Timaeus refers to as the father and maker of the universe. And since the universe is fair, the demiurge must have looked to the eternal model to make it, and not to the perishable one . Hence, using the eternal and perfect world of "forms" or ideals as a template, he set about creating our world, which formerly only existed in a state of disorder."
>>67809598
It's not a leading theory, not even a scientific theory, more like a hypothesis.
>>67809177
>By denying gods presence you are affirming that there IS something that is able to be denied.
hahah 7/10
>>67809177
>You can't think of things that don't exist.
You can't think of things that you can't think of, is what you're actually saying.
God could be the word you use to refer to an entity composed of certain characteristics such as Allmighty, Omnipresent, etc. You can imagine such traits because you know of the ideas of Power and Presence, and simply magnify them.
If you use this argument, you're also able to think of nonexistence by the mere fact of using the word.
>>67808669
>a bunch of buzzwords
>muh great mental gymnastics aka philosophy
great proof, it sure convinced me
You never addressed the issue that there have never been observations of an object that is not in motion, yet you assume that there have been such objects, because it helps your narrative. You also assumed that such objects(that have never been proven to exist) were set in motion not by some natural force, but by some miracle magic conscience? organism? nice old man?
>>67809624
Pardon the 18th century slang, but how folly to speak of such matters so trivially
As if you would ever understand the level of mathematics involved
That's all you fedoras are. Fucking popscience regurgitators
>>67809368
The argument goes that everything you "creatively imagine" is just some sort of chimera of other things which do or have existed, which you have combined with other already existing things. example: pegasus doesn't exist but horses and birds do, thus I imagine a pegasus.
That or you have taken a real thing and through abstract comparison created something that is an exagerated version. Example: Hercules doesn't exist but strong men do, thus i imagine an infinitely strong man
Not sure how well this argument holds up, since what attributes anyone can ascribe to god have names exactly because they are real attributes, and thus God is just the infinite Hercules version of those attributes.
>>67809900
>using metaphysics to explain reality
Sorry fampai, you're disqualified by default. Metaphysics never gave a good explanation for a natural fenomenon.
>>67809368
Creativity allows you take pieces from existing realities and mash them together into new one.
Perhaps if we were able to broaden our perspective or inherent senses we would be able to discover things that are new to us. Similar to how certain animals or genetic mutations allow people to see more or less colors.
However having the ability to notice new things doesn't mean they weren't there originally.
>>67809597
We'll see.
Atheists argument is just the opposite. Even if life can come up from itself, that doesn't mean it should or there are beings who can't make it, isn't that right? Why I personally believe in God? Cause I don't know better. What's outside the visible universe? Who or what created the universe? If the universe starts and ends, what was before it, what will be after it?
>>67809447
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rIy0xY99a0
>>67810073
This guy gets it.
Maybe I'm just not explaining it well enough.
>>67806166
Looks mexican. Say hola to Sanchez your savior! Now on toast!
>>67810150
And having the ability to mash traits together into a new one does not mean it did exist before. Whether a unicorn has or not parts of other animals is irrelevant because it still doesn't exist.
>>67805211
NASA figured out how to listen to the sounds of each planet.
Earth is the only planet that is calm and relaxing - all others are straight out of sci fi horror movies.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-MmWeZHsQzs
>>67810043
>make a point
>oh well you don't really understand w-what you're saying you stupid fedora!
>>67810124
Define "good"
>>67805211
All possibilities exist in quantum theory so a universe in which God exists exists, and since God is omnipresent he can transcend all realities and is therefore present in this one.
>>67810515
saying Quantum fluctuations is not making a point
>>67810073
I can think of a few things that have been invented creatively.
Symbols
Space ships
Boxes
Wheel
Ships
>>67806758
The burden of proof is on the positive claim you retard.
Prove that invisible space cats don't visit the earth and eat lava from volcanos
>your retarded logic
>>67810515
Do you though?
Explain this >>67809624 with mathematics
So that I know you didn't just google it
>>67810043
I'm a senior undergrad for theoretical physics and I believe in Deism on the basis of the simulation hypothesis. Knowing the math doesn't make me any less retarded.
>>67810534
No, I'll define "good explanation".
An explanation that allows you to predict future events reliably. More than 99% of reliability at least.
>>67810589
Quantum theory explains small-scale phenomena of the physical world, it does not include spiritual ideas.
>>67809948
>Where is my concrete measurable physical proof of what is strictly defined to be immaterial and immeasurable?!?
moron. of course it's a thought experiment, exactly because it is not physically provable. Do you not understand why people call it "faith" in god?
If you remember I never described the Immaterial force called "god" by anything other than as the cause of the universe. >>67806865
>It's nature beyond that is not discernible due to its nonphysicality and its infinite nature.
Everything else you just spouted off is your insecure projection with the logical proof that the physical Universe is caused by something other than the physical Universe.
>buzzwords
If you don't understand commonly used words or are so simpleminded that you attribute them no meaning, then I suggest you don't pretend to condescend those who do. It only makes you look more foolish.
>>67805211
Why should I? I'll just be made fun of for my beliefs.
>>67810534
The opposite of "bad"
Believing in god for me is as hard as believing that i exist because of billions of years of random events.
I dont understand atheist when they cant wrap their head around the possibility of a god but they are so ok with every fucking thing that ever happened being just random.
>>67810779
>Knowing the math doesn't make me any less retarded
It doesn't? Fuck, even I'm not that humble
>>67810661
You took what I said out of context.
>>67810897
>:^)
>>67810997
sorry my bad
>>67810941
On a scale of 1 to 10, how fucking stupid does it sound to say that we're probably living in a simulation created by some higher being? Even with math backing it up, it still sounds pretty fucking stupid. So I just preface it with calling myself a retard before anyone else gets to it. Saves them the trouble.
>>67805211
Watch Ancient Aliens. Tons and tons of historical evidence.
>>67808367
You've got it backwards dipshit. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the positive claim.
Prove that invisible space cats don't visit the earth and feed on lava inside volcanos. LOLOLOL YOU CAN'T
>literally how retarded you are
>>67809598
Occam's Razor?
>>67810727
Not relevant to the subject of the thread. Also I'm using my phone, so I can't post the necessary symbols needed to explain it.
>>67805211
I don't have to prove anything. Its not something you can prove but rather something you can feel.
I live happy. How about you? You get satisfaction from putting others down and you believe yourself to be better/over them. Yet every night you go to sleep with the same bitter and lonely feeling.
Source? Every athiest is the same.
>>67810832
Give an example. Also how are you calculating this 99% reliability?
>>67810877
>because it is not physically provable
Then the question of existence cannot be applied to it, end of story. God is just an idea and not an actual entity.
>>67805211
St. Thomas Aquinas, look him up.
>>67805211
Aquinas' argument from motion
>>67810679
All of these things come from things that people observed in nature or pieced together from other things.
The wheel was probably invented because some dumb fuck cave man saw a rock rolling the down the hill and thought "well fuck isn't that an efficient way to move something"
So on and so forth with the other examples.
>>67811500
>wheel was probably invented
thats a nice scientific method right there
>>67811115
You're attacking yourself with a fallacy, for nothing
Just because it sounds ridiculous, doesn't in any way make it false
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
Physics is applied mathematics. You wouldn't think of its conclusions so disparagingly, would you? They're based in axioms just as well
>>67811296
Number of times that you could predict an event versus number of times that the outcome was not what you expected.
GPS takes relativity into account. An unexpected outcome is every time it fucks up even though the formula was correct, the satellite didn't malfunction, and nobody forgot to calculate another event that could have interfered.
So far it seems to be fine.
A simpler one: fire burns wood, as long as it's dry and you have enough oxygen. Every time you put fire to dry wood and it doesn't burn is a failure of your hypothesis.
>>67806049
Dat short-haired one tho!
>>67805211
Only after you prove that we exist.
>>67811745
burning a piece of wood is not predicting the future man, that's like common sense
>>67810679
Do I really need to break down the ways you can refine those ideas down to real observable reality?
>Symbols
Symbols are just writings/drawings which obviously stand to represent something. The earliest writings were pictorial symbols and drawings of real things like the sun, man, animals, whatever. This was refined with along the Hercules line of reasoning to represent other things.
If you're referring to a symbol without a meaning, then it isn't a symbol. It's just a drawing, and since other drawings exist, it is possible to rearrange existing ideas/concepts of drawings into yours.
>Space Ships
Space Exists. Ships exist. I just chimera'd a ship that now sails through space.
>Boxes
You serious? Holes exist in the ground. Water fills them up. Wish I could take the hole that holds muh water around with me. Hey, I'll use this goat's bladder I just found to do that. Now I wish I had a harder version made out of those rocks I see over there. >Box now exists.
>Wheel
Rocks exist. Some rocks are round and roll down hills. hmmmm...
>Ships
Wood exists and sometimes it floats on the water. Now I have a primitive canoe. I'm tired of paddling. Wind blows things. Maybe it can blow my canoe. >SHIP
This is not hard, and its all post-facto analysis, so it's not very convincing.
>>67811935
I don't believe that people exist.
>>67805211
God exists because of innate morality. Conditioning doesn't account for it on a humanity-wide level.
>>67812210
Define "morality"
>>67811745
How many times would you test it? By saying that the event will happen every single time in the future, you're attempting to circumvent the problem of induction
Science (or better said the laws of nature that it abduces) is filling in the gaps in the same way as a god of the gaps. Only in the opposite direction
>>67805211
Occam's Razor. The simplest solution is usually the right solution. God is the simplest solution to "why does life exist"
>>67810877
> a thought experiment, exactly because it is not physically provable
that just means YOU have no proof and are just using mental gymnastics to justify your faulty logic
>Do you not understand why people call it "faith" in god?
again, you have no proof, and you are shitposting in a thread that specifically asked for proof, not mindless drivel
>If you remember I never described the Immaterial force called "god" by anything other than as the cause of the universe.
>I don't understand something, so it must be GOD!
Also calling someone stupid and insecure, while you are the one posting bullshit is just pathetic. In any case /lit/ faggot, please go, and stay go.
>>67808387
Said the creature that breathes through its food tube.
>>67811330
Never said God was an entity.
I just said the physical Universe Exists because something that is not the physical Universe, ergo not any sort of describable entity which need not follow any of the rules of our Universe, caused our Universe to exist.
Prove the existence of your consciousness to me.
Pro-tip, you can't. Nothing you can do can prove to me beyond any shade of doubt that you exist as more than an automaton or a figment of my imagination and that you have the same or similar flicker of experience that I do. It's all an act of faith at some level.
>>67812333
Morality is a subjective set of limits and parameters that shape our behaviour
Innate morality is a Universal aversion to certain actions, or a 'humanity wide' acceptance that they are wrong.
>>67805211
I have faith in him.
>>67812450
The idea of God arguably requires more extraneous assumptions than say, modern explanations coming from biochemistry, so no.
>>67812450
>"Occam's razor proves god"
>He actually believes this
>>67811694
Fair enough. Let me expand upon the idea behind it a little anyway, if anyone cares:
1.) Do you believe in the possibility of extraterrestrial life?
2.) Do you believe in the possibility of this life becoming as intelligent as or surpassing human intelligence and technology? (Not necessarily galaxy colonizing super societies; just a bit ahead of us in relative scope)
If there was such a society more advanced than us, or even if time could be viewed as an extra dimension where one could flow back and forth in the direction of time such as one flows along X, Y, and Z axes, consider the following:
Species X(or humans) develop technology equivalent to or greater than our own adaptive AI.
Species X(or humans) develop computing power great enough such that they could simulate the beginnings of the universe as they understand it, or even compute the entire universe at an accelerated rate(may not be possible, I'll come back to this later.)
If both condition A of advanced AI and condition B of universal simulation could be met, it's entirely possible to combine the two into a functioning universe with consciousness and all - think hyperrealistic SIMS or something of the sort.
If any one species in any solar system in any galaxy in any possible universe with our laws of physics went on to develop AT LEAST 2 of these simulations, you have a greater chance of living in a simulation than you do the "real" universe.
But that's just the surface layer. Many humans buy and play SIMS games for fun. A popular game: SIMS 4 sold the least amount of copies at 1.7 million.
If this species had similar culture to us, we can assume this simulation would become a game, and we can say around 1.7 million copies were sold. Your chances of being in the "real" universe are now 1/7,000,003. And this is just if ONE species in any galaxy in any possible universe or timeframe/worldline were to develop such a system of technology(PS, we're not too far off from that today.)
>>67812877
Occam's razor: nothing exists.
>>67812029
Bro first bump for typing more than my lazy wheel concept
>>67805211
The existence of the universe is supernatural.
my dubs say so
>>67805211
I'm a le edgy atheist but surely the point of God is that there is no evidence, you just believe. Otherwise it isn't a faith.
>>67812029
Why is "observable" your criteria? You can't even confirm your senses correspond to real objects.
>>67812852
Then I would have to say that there is no innate morality, given that there are, and were cultures that differed in their versions to things.
>>67806049
I'm a Randlet but god damn Trump is such an Alpha
>>67813314
ooh my trips say yes
>>67812972
Perfectly possible. All you have to do is to await for evidence of your premises and then your reasoning would follow
Although it does depend on what you define evidence as
>>67812972
Now back to the "may not be possible, back to that later" passage. Many skeptics of the idea dismiss it with "well wouldn't there just be infinite replications if it's possible to have it happen once, thus nullifying the entire hypothesis since infinities do not occur in nature?"
Well, that's not what would happen. It is, after all, a simulation. There would eventually be a "data cap," if you will.
Imagine: Create a desktop folder. Open it, create a script that makes every folder inside open 10 folders, then repeat. Eventually you'll have a folder with X amount of subfolders ad infinitum, and your computer would crash. Except we're not dumb enough to just brick a computer that way. We get the "insufficient data" warning. This "insufficient data" failsafe in such a simulation world would be requiring every further simulation so many sublayers down to require more energy to compute and sustain than can be found in their respective universes. Crisis averted, that universe is the last simulation in the subfolder. That civilization cannot create another simulation. Imagine, requiring a chain of black holes and quasars being needed in order to power your computer. It would be a smaller scale version of this.
I probably missed a lot of important "Well wait how the fuck would that work?" details, so if you're confused please feel free to ask away, I'll answer to the best of my ability. As I said though, I'm still just a retarded undergrad.
>>67812817
>I just said the physical Universe Exists because something that is not the physical Universe, ergo not any sort of describable entity which need not follow any of the rules of our Universe, caused our Universe to exist.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
>Prove the existence of your consciousness to me.
You are a stupid faggot. There, I read your bullshit, and using my a conscience, I got sufficient proof of your stupid faggotry. Of course, you might argue that this post is just a figment of your imagination. But then an uncomfortable question arrises. What is your subconsciousness trying to tell you?
there
>>67813380
I cannot confirm what I observe is real, and yet I observe things. So long as I continue observing, I will continue trying to make sense of them, name them, and imagine new things based off of them.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
>>67805211
>mudshit rampaging all over the globe
>ppl swollow this shit
There is no god.
>>67813645
>im laffin at ya, this prove my point
>>67813621
Pretty much whatever evidence we could currently uncover would have to come from CERN, LIGO, or some other Gwave detector. Gravitational waves actually doubled our capacity to observe and practice astronomy, since now we have a second spectrum to measure with outside of the light spectrum.
We'll have to wait and see if anything pans out though. That's why I said I'm a proponent of Deism, since currently we can't know for sure, but there is somewhat significant evidence in favor of some sort of "creator," albeit not the typical definition of God.
>>67813739
"Continue trying to make sense of them" is a different thing than simply operating as if they were real and axiomatically making that your criteria for believing in anything at all.
>>67813645
You're just being dismissive anon. The other guy has a point. The creator of a game does not necessarily have to obey the rules of said game.
>>67805211
What do you think God is?
>prove God exists
Nigger there's a fucking tonne of stuff out there. Why would you not check it yourself?
I don't believe you even want proof. If you did, you would ask for it. Nobody can make someone change their mind. Humans don't like being wrong, after all, which is why you will also probably deny that you didn't come to be convinced.
>>67813871
>>67813621
>>67812972
OH FUCK I totally forgot: Professor James Gated, Ph.D Theoretical Physicist. "Adinkra Symbols." They can quite literally be interpreted as elementary computer coding at the foundation of reality. This is a pretty massive fucking chunk to leave out of the "we live in a simulation" evidence block, thus further cementing the notion that I am in fact retarded.
>>67805211
We are contained within the consciousness of God. Can I prove it, well, I'm the God of my consciousness, I don't have complete control over it, but I do to an extent, control my life. I think Humans aren't the first beings to develop consciousness, I think it is a cycle, wherein we will one day, with the help of AI, become Gods of our own.
>>67813671
So you're saying just because things have a nature there is a god? Those could be very unrelated.
>>67814222
Gates* I'm tired of typos damn it.
>>67813996
>>67813836
alright, prove that is the case with our universe, without >muh thought experiment that I like
>>67813902
>Someone who speaks my language
You just got my pussy wet mate
>>67814354
prove it's not the case
>>67814222
Dude, stop feeling sorry for yourself. It's all right
>>67805211
The existence of God is not something that can be tested due to the nature of omnipotence. So it's pointless to debate it.
I flip a coin and if it's heads I say I believe in God, tails I don't.
>coin flips aren't exactly 50/50?
True but I can't be bothered to find anything better.
>>67814354
It can't be directly proved by the very nature of Deism, because the whole premise is that the entity referred to as God cannot be interacted with. I'll concede that from an argumentative standpoint that's a bullshit "safe zone" tactic, so no need to call me out on it. But I just made a big ass series of posts in support of Simulation Hypothesis, so just highlight my ID and read them. They're fairly recent, but I don't want to keep samefagging myself by highlighting my posts and padding my replies.
>>67805211
Time and motion are inexpiable impossibilities, so some higher power must be destroying the universe and recreating it slightly differently at every instant to simulate time and motion.
There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a deity. People who claim otherwise are delusional. Believe in God if you want to, but remember that you are only believing in him because of faith. Having faith in something doesn't make it truthful.
>>67813471
faggots
check these quints
>>67814465
>what is burden of proof
I'm not the one making wild claims on shit. OP was specifically asking for PROOF. He did not ask for speculations, beliefs or fantasies. Is it that hard to say "I have no proof?".
>>67814660
>It can't be directly proved
Thank you.
>>67805211
I invoke every other religious text and tradition.
>>67808469
Jesus was Jewish.
>>67814737
>absolutely no evidence
The fact that we exist and we have not definitively proved why is evidence on its own. It's God of the Gaps, but it's still a large enough gap that no empiricist of sound mind can claim that the need for some sort of creator(I'm not advocating a conscious being here. Just some sort of "spark") is totally out of the picture yet.
>>67814828
>Is it that hard to say "I have no proof?".
i can say the same with your proofs brah
>>67814925
Why be an empiricist in the first place?
>>67813902
>"Continue trying to make sense of them" is a different thing than simply operating as if they were real and axiomatically making that your criteria for believing in anything at all.
Hmm I think I understand. Yes. I stand by that. I cannot prove what I observe exists as more than a projection of my consciousness, I can only prove my consciousness, and that only to myself.
However I realize it is pointless to me, to just not interact with what I am presented, and simply reject it for two reasons: (1) That seems boring to me; and (2) If I'm wrong and this is real, I will suffer the consequences: starvation, death, etc. (similar to Pascal's Wager but for this existence, not the afterlife).
Therefore I participate with what I observe to be my recurring consistent observable reality, and call it "real life," as opposed to altered states such as dreams or intoxicated states which I find much less reliable and consistent in my observations (although that doesn't make them definitely not real, because they are similarly observable to me).
Tl;Dr: I operate in real life on the basis of faith that it is real, and fear of being wrong and prematurely ending my life or experiencing pains which I have observed following the wrong choices.
>>67814925
>The fact that we exist and we have not definitively proved why is evidence on its own.
I'd like to introduce you to this scientific discovery for why humans and life as we know it exists. It's called evolution.
>>67815007
Exactly. Rationalist master race here
>>67806097
>no reason
>no reason
>LMAO DUDE EVOLUTION IS RANDOM LMAO
REEEEEEEEEEEE
TAKE A FUCKING HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY CLASS YOU CRETIN
>>67814983
I never claimed I have such proof. I never claimed that God does or does not exist. My only claim was that the specific anon was posting wild shit.
>>67805211
Miracles don't exist
>>67814759
Your fucking "squirts" wont mean shit here, fag. Fuck off and kill your self.
Song, bitch, just for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-GfgEjb0qE
It would be foolish to think that we're not the creation of an intelligent being. But that doesn't necessarily mean that their existence has been understood yet.
It's like explaining the laws of physics to an ant colony. They don't even know what a human is.
I won't say god exists, but angels exist. I've been saved three times that I can recall by angels
>>67815007
I can't speak for anyone but myself here, but I personally would rather know and understand how things actually work than give up early and seek refuge in some sort of preconceived notion or belief system. The reality that there very well may be no point to existence and no afterlife is a harsh one, but I would prefer to know why exactly that is than comfort myself with the idea that there's something greater beyond. Even though living a life of comfort for my short time here would probably be more enjoyable, I'd much rather see and believe whatever harsh reality turns out to be the truth.
>>67815032
You can do whatever you'd like while maintaining the very real skepticism you can't escape from - there's nothing that prevents you from having doubt yet still acting or thinking what you'd like about anything else.
I don't understand why people feel so compelled to make empiricist/physicalist axiomatic commitments.
>>67805211
>https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z0tyVdnIU9A [Embed]
pee in my butthole
Protip:you can ;)
>>67805211
Prove God doesn't exist : )
t. Agnostic
>>67815322
You can seek truth without making empiricist assumptions.
>>67815286
No, it's foolish to deny evolution. There is as much proof of a God as there is of leprechauns, Santa, and pixies.
>>67811134
Cry more atheist.
>muh burden of proof is always on le positive claim!
You're dodging. You make an extreme claim, prepare to put out results. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense you retarded shit.
>>67815161
Brexit! Now!
>>67815286
>It would be foolish to think that we're not the creation of an intelligent being
Okay, I'll bite: Why?
>>67805211
God do exist!
How else do you explain this
>>67805211
Contingency.
>>67815146
Go back further dudebro. How did the Earth form? Then solar system, galaxy, universe. Eventually there will be something we can't answer and then the theists use that as evidence for God.
Which god?
>>67815463
>You make an extreme claim
like magic is real?
![1413558667966_wps_54_Pic_shows_The_clouds_form[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/dtfdsQZ.jpg "1413558667966 wps 54 Pic shows The clouds form[1]")
>>67805211
and this!!
If God exist, he must be an asshole. Just look around. The world we live in isn't some nice guy would create.
>>67815489
Agreed xD
>>67815146
Not just humans. The universe itself.
Also evolution doesn't account for abiogenesis, and the mechanisms by which evolution operates aren't even fully understood. Is it random mutation? Is it in the DNA? Are retroviruses primarily or partially responsible? Is it mutations that allow for adaptations or adaptations that follow the path to the mutation? I'm by no means a geneticist or biologist, and I'm not denouncing or disputing evolution in the slightest, but it's not a concrete law yet. We're still unsure of many things.
Abiogenesis most likely occurred around oceanic vents as far as we know, but we're still not certain.
>>67806166
Nice dubs.
But that is not Jesus.
That is a motherfucking demon and I did not need to sleep anyways.
>>67815612
>implying we're not doing it to ourselves
>Dinosuars
>No evidence of where the 3 crosses were
>He punishes the sinners, yet we still sin
>>67815203
what if he was right tho
>>67815432
There are no assumptions in empiricism. Empiricism by nature and definition is believing the evidence above all else and changing preexisting views upon being presented with contrary information that accounts for observations with a higher rate of success.
>>67806316
To be honest, anything that can be brought up without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Scientists don't claim something is true until they have solid proof, and even that can backfire.
I like the idea we are living in a simulation. It explains why if their is a god he does not give a fuck
>>67815518
If a magic God was able to create it, it must have been able to come into existence by itself.
Matter and energy can not be created or destroyed.
The laws of nature designed everything we see today. The laws can not be broken just like 1+1 can not be manipulated to equal anything other than 2.
Every possible design would have eventually come to be when you have an infinite amount of time. It's all about probability.
>>67815612
Mother fucker its called free will. God made world perfect put man on it and said do whatever you want nigga you free. and of course mankind said free!!!! shit les chimp out!!!!!! Les fuck up world yea!!!!!!
we invented torture we invented murder we invented mutilation we invented drugs we invented rape we humans invented tons o bullshit.
Stfu and accept that humanity itself is shit. We are simply lucky that few groups of people are not as shitty as others.
>>67815867
so we live in a limbo
>>67815518
Yes indeed
God is real
proof!
>>67815858
>there are no assumptions in empiricism
So you don't take for granted that your sensory experience corresponds to real objects?
>>67815858
You're sort of describing the scientific method there mate. Not empiricism
>>67815645
Read my last comment
>>67815645
>it's not a concrete law yet. We're still unsure of many things.
well, must have been magic!
>>67805211
Many people, scientists included use A.D and B.C
>>67805211
Prove God doesn't exist.
Hardmode: Do not use the bible as a reference.
>>67815936
God just looks on from his clouds at his computer monitor and just goes pfft fucking humans chimping out again. when will they ever learn...
>>67815675
>using a satire meme
>being afraid of a toast
Don't know if newfag or witty troll
>>67815645
>I'm not denouncing or disputing evolution in the slightest, but it's not a concrete law yet
What are you talking about? We're seeing evolution happen in real life. The fucking superbugs are evidence.
>>67815933
>If a magic God was able to create it, it must have been able to come into existence by itself.
I don't quite understand. Are you saying God came into existence by itself or the universe? Regardless, theists claim God is not bound by logic so I give up at that point.
I don't know if someone has posted it, but there is an actual academic, logical proof for god that has yet to been refuted, as far as I know:
1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Now, granted, this doesn't actually prove the existence of capital-G God, but it does prove "an omniscient, ominpotent and perfectly good being exists" which is, generally, God.
>>67815842
Then he should be able to prove it. If not, than he's speaking out of his ass.
>>67814576
Sorry man, I've just been having a really tough time grasping supersymmetry and it's frustrating for me because this is the first time I've ever legitimately struggled with an academic topic. I'm sure I'll get it soon, but I'm just feeling like a retard at the moment because what seems like it should be something relatively simple to grasp just keeps surprising me when the math I come up with is totally bonkers compared to what it should be.
Looking back on my posts, it really does seem incredibly self deprecating and self pitying. That was not my intention at all lol.
>>67816108
damn! the bibles the best proof of that
>>67815612
>its gods fault people with free will decided to snort semen for money
>>67805211
I assume you want proof of the Abrahamic God? Or is there another you want proof of?
>>67816238
Just keep trying buddy. There's no point doing such a beautiful subject if you end up hating it
>>67816145
Creation is not evidence for a God. You are just pushing the question back further.
Who created the creator?
How would this God be able to produce something such as matter?
The answer is that if this God was able to do it, it must have been able to come to be by itself, so creation is not evidence for a God.
We KNOW matter exists, but the same can not be said about God.
>>67806575
(possibly) infinite number of years in (possibly) infinite number of chances simultaneously, one of them will eventually get it right, Maybe there was only a tiny chance of us being here, but we wouldn't be able to question it if we weren't. If we didn't exist, or if we evolved differently, we would never use our current state as an example of possibility and chance creating life. Religion oftentimes lacks perspective, but I myself would like to think of myself as an agnostic, leaning towards Christianity for the sake of communal guidance. Everything that hasn't happened can't be scrutinized, picked apart and questioned.
>>67805211
Why not pursue it yourself?
The most rewarding discoveries ive made in this realm have been through contemplative meditation and studying.
There is no silver bullet answer or gotcha to your question. Even after receiving sufficient evidence myself i still have doubts and there are always more to explore and study.
Stop being a lazy you.
>>67816385
They actually burn up quite nicely...
https://youtu.be/3euhOPf7rkg
>>67805211
Prove he doesn't faglord. Hardmode. Don't talk about the flying spaghetti monster
>>67806097
Trying to understand debt without accepting the existence of responsibility is hard.
>>67816145
Evolution itself is an observed fact, we agree here. It would be rather dumb to dispute it. What I'm saying is that we still don't fully understand HOW it works. We have a pretty good idea, but certain tests don't hold up - which in science means they're wrong. Legitimate science is a fickle bitch. The results are all awesome and cool to read, but if an experiment that we believe to be absolute truth fails even one test, it has to be revised or scrapped altogether. Evolution is one of these problems. We're never going to scrap it, but it needs constant small tweaks to become ever increasingly more precise in its predictions. Sort of like how Einstein's relativity revised Newton's laws when it came to Mercury's orbit. Newton definitely wasn't wrong, but he wasn't 100% accurate - more like 99.99999987%(not making this up, he was literally off by less than 2 dozen arcseconds per orbit cycle, which is pretty god damn good) but then Einstein came along with a tweak and bumped it to 100% accuracy.
tl;dr The ride never ends.
>>67816612
u missed the joke buddy
>>67816546
>God follow laws
[citation needed]
>>67816177
1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there isn’t a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being does not exist.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (axiom S5)
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.
>>67816546
Yes but you're assuming God needs to be created and isn't eternal. He just is, and he is omnipotent (which itself is contradictory but let's ignore that). I don't like it either but that's the theist logic.
>>67805845
>dont reference the bible
>reference a video referencing the bible
>>67813637
I like to think of it as a processing cap. With each sub simulation the processing potential decreases as it can only be a portion of the host simulation. So the cap would be defined by the processing power of the first simulation.
>>67816657
If there is no evidence for something's existence, it's illogical to assume that it exists.
>in be4 no evidence god doesn't exist
God is just as likely to exists as pixies.
>>67815986
>>67816039
Fuckin' philosophy, damn it. Yeah rationalism is probably better then. I was meaning empiricism as in "a belied based upon empirical evidence," not Locke's wordsmith fuckery.
>>67805418
ufos
>>67816530
Nah man, I love it. It's more of like when you're stuck on a Mario level because there's that big ass jump across a pit and every god damn time you almost make it, a fucking goomba falls on your head? Yeah, it's that. Game's fun as hell otherwise, but it can get pretty frustrating sometimes.
>>67805418
flat earth
>>67816887
It's illogical to believe that this being exists because there is no evidence that it exists.
God is just as likely to exist as pixies and a Santa who gives kids presents on Christmas.
>>67816901
Precisely! I'm glad my explanation made enough sense for more people to pick up on it. I'm not the greatest at explaining things in simpler terms when it comes to this stuff because I don't have a complete grasp on it myself yet. But hey, at least the message was conveyed lol. Hope you enjoyed the read.
>>67817003
What's the compelling reason to base belief on whatever empirical evidence is rather than on anything that isn't empirical evidence?
I've never heard an account of what actually constitutes evidence as opposed to not-evidence that's consistent between any two people, no matter how similar their views have been.
>>67817307
tell that to people who believe in aliens
>>67817003
>Yeah rationalism is probably better then
That's what you need to figure out for yourself fellow anon. Pass it through your judgement and patiently assess its lacks and merits
>>67817160
Well, I'm just a philosophy geek mate. If you understand string theory, you're gonna be way above the rigour it takes to know what I've studied
>>67817307
The universe is the evidence for intelligent design, i.e. God. It's a delightful unfalsifiable concept which is ultimately useless.
>>67817384
Basing it on evidence allows repeatability so others can test it themselves. It's a more useful strategy.
>>67817564
No, that is completely unrelated. Everything that has a chance of coming into existence, even if it is 1/999999999999999999, with an infinite amount of time, would have eventually come to be.
Life exists, so we know life is possible to come into existence.
>>67817946
>Basing it on evidence allows repeatability
Doesn't the problem of induction render that assumption logically junk?
>>67818035
are you saying God have not chances to exist? pf
>>67817384
>I've never heard an account of what actually constitutes evidence as opposed to not-evidence that's consistent between any two people, no matter how similar their views have been
You'd be surprised how similar the New Atheists' standards of evidence are to each other
More than in amongst cult members or actual religions
>>67817946
Watch this documentary when you have the time to. It debunks the creationist claim for there having to be a God for design and existence as we know it. It affirmed my atheism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiyrRbYNm0Q
![i-96aeca1e23ec85df1f30c2af7f84190c-Deix2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HDwgkYd.jpg "i-96aeca1e23ec85df1f30c2af7f84190c-Deix2[1]")
God is a fucking human hater!
and probably ugly as hell too!
why would he make people and later send them to the hell.
I am happy he only exists in a fairy tale book that only retarded people believe!
greetings from Holland idiot little Christians :p
>>67818134
If the universe gave birth to a higher power, this being would not be a God, by definition. I DO believe in a higher power, but not one who created the universe.
>>67805211
>unironicly being an atheist
You must be some kind of retard, God is real.
>>67809118
But the only way of thinking that is correct is to model reality as best you can.the scientific method is simply a way to logically support or disprove something,
Being intentionally inaccurate because of muh complexity of life muh you can't know it all muh fee fees is completely wrong.
>>67818168
I've talked to many of those types, and usually it's not so consistent. Even the Vienna Circle guys weren't so flaky, and I think almost all of them had personal spins on what they were willing to include or exclude as evidence or not-evidence.
>>67817767
Don't downplay philosophy. You'd be surprised at how many of the people I work alongside or intern for that can't think objectively or creatively for shit, but they'll do transseries algebraic topology in their heads for fun. They come across something where they need to think deeply and interchange possibilities or points of view in order to proceed, but instead they'll go crazy trying to wrack their brains for every equation and proof they've ever heard of. There's a reason many great scientists have also had a good bit of a background in philosophy(fuckin' Greeks man, how do they work?)
Two sides of the same coin - except the coin is a multilayered Rubik's cube. and you're colorblind. Deep thought is deeply involved in both fields, just specialized for different results.
>>67818356
why do you believe in that and not in pixies or santa?
>>67818096
Yes but it's the best we have. I prefer being pragmatic and changing our beliefs as evidence that refutes my beliefs are found.
>>67818193
Will do. Sadly I gave up on Hawkins after his Grand Designs book.
>>67811287
Better than going to sleep with a retarded fat girl who believes some random nonexistent entity is named God with a capital G. Kek.
>>67818410
It's almost always been consistent when I've encountered it
It basically boils down to scientism, naturalism, and moral relativism
With the odd occurrence of epistemological nihilists and/or (epist.) relativists
>>67818671
>it's the best we have
Best for what? It's literally viciously circular reasoning - I think the best option in regard to viciously circular reasoning is to reject it.
>>67818748
better go to sleep with my atheist boyfriend imma right
>>67816887
>3. It is possible that there isn’t a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
>4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being does not exist
This is wrong. I don't feel like explaining too hard, so I'll do it briefly. Something can only be necessary (must exist in all possible words, like math), possible (something that can exist in a world, like toast), or impossible (something paradoxical, like a 5-sided square). What the argument is stating is that because the existence of God is possible in a universe (or, not logically absurd) it must exist in all universes.
Thus, your argument is wrong because 4 does not follow from 3. It's essentially like saying "it is possible that toast does not exist." (True premise.) "Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that toast does not exist." Incorrect.
To put it simply, you can't argue that it's necessarily true that it does not exist unless you prove that it's impossible for it to exist, like a 5-sided square is impossible to exist.
>>67818654
Think of an intelligent alien civilization that eventually created technology which would allow it to have the powers of a God. Over an infinite amount of time, this is probable to happen.
Hell, it could be humans if we lasted long enough.
Pixies and Santa? Well, as far as I know, they are impossible to come into existence.
>>67818479
Cheers mate. A very nice thing to say
>>67806197
Gay flag?
>>67818844
Oh well sure. I think those are commonalities among such types. But I'm just referring to the defining of what constitutes evidence itself rather than broad views that evoke the term but don't commit to defining it. I don't see what differentiates calling an imprint in the sand that resembles the bottom of some brand of shoe evidence that such a shoe was there and calling it evidence of a space slug that flew down to the earth's surface and moved its body in such a way as to leave that print.
God is greater than everything else
What exists is greater than what does not exist
God must exist
>>67818407
The scientific method is not logic. It does use rules of logic however
It's a mix between empirical observation and the previous mentioned. But it's not an epistemology, it's a method of study
And approach to investigating what may or may not be true or false, if at all knowable
Hey guys, I’m the person who originally recorded the video of “Carl”. I have to say, I didn’t expect it to blow up like this. And now that it did, I feel a bit bad about it. let me explain...
Firstly, let me start by saying that when I uploaded the video, I knew it would piss you guys off because it portrayed “Carl” as exactly what so many of you hate: An arrogant, stuck up liberal who thinks his opinion is superior to yours even though he can’t even defend it. A “SJW” who depends on feels and not facts, and will yell whenever his opinion is challenged.
Well, it seems that’s exactly how so many people on 4chan took it. And the meme blew up. But i feel a little bit deceiving for it. The truth is, it wasn’t such a simple interaction. After Carl went “ARE YOU SERIOUS?” He started talking about how Hitler’s rise to power depended on blaming a specific group of people and promising to eliminate them from our society. He talked about the rise of fascism when the establishment fell apart, hitler manipulating, blah blah blah. He even said some stuff about the language they use. It seems like he really did his research honestly.
So, there you have it. I don’t agree with Carl. But he DID explain his reasoning. I figured people would realize this considering the video is only 4 seconds long (not nearly enough time to explain his reasoning). So yeah. Can you please stop bullying this kid? He may not support the same candidate as you do but to harass this kid for being an arrogant liberal is just dishonest. Instead of attacking him with ad hominem, we should actually focus on addressing his arguments. Otherwise we look like a bunch of insecure rednecks who will focus on attacking a person rather than their reasoning (ironically, everything we supposedly stand against)
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
>>67805418
One day you are going to die and wake up with no memory of what the fuck happened as something else. Then you'll be back here as that person making the same shitpost.
>>67806434
Your point being what?
>296 posts in
>godweenies still haven't shown objective evidence regarding the existence of a god
uppermost kek
why are godfags so pathetic?
>>67817384
I'll be quite honest with you, I'm not very good at debates. You'd probably run circles around me if this kept up for too long and went into a full debate format. Basically what I mean by empirical evidence is some sort of mathematical proof that shows that an object or system - when exposed to the same conditions and subjected to the same experiments - will consistently return the result expected and predicted by the proof. It's pretty much textbook scientific method on what constitutes a law. I do have my own personal feelings about things, I'm not a robot. But my view of the world is such that I would be capable of divorcing my personal feelings from a subject and embracing whatever the "expected result" from earlier would be, even if it's not something I would necessarily agree with from a rational or moral point of view. If something is presented that consistently challenges my beliefs, I would have no choice but to change my beliefs in the face of this new information, no matter how asinine, ridiculous, immoral, or unreasonable it may seem.
When it comes to things that cannot be directly tested and would rely more on a personal "feeling" or dictated by my morals, I would believe what I do now, but I am always open to rational discussion that would change my view of X topic, even if I don't agree with it at first and hate every bit of the information being presented to me. I'm mentally malleable. The only rigid belief that I hold is that the truth supersedes any sort of delusions I may hold, no matter how comforting the delusion may be.
This is coming from a grad physics student. Current cosmological construct is formed axiomatically WITHIN a set field. Now,the obvious question is:"Where the fuck did that "quantum foam" came from?" Nobody has a fucking clue.Bare in mind that alternative cosmologies like conformal cyclic ones are seriously lacking in any experimental and even deep theoretical backbone and this one requires a prime mover of some kind.One of the most interesting takes on the subject is digital physics,which percieves all of the universe as information based. It has its flaws,lots of them,but I like it,muh stoicism and logos niggas. Also,there is an ongoing debate about real,metaphysical questions and their possible place in physical theories.Why is this universe the way,why does it exists etc. are metaphysical questions which hold the highest order of magnitude when it comes to their implications. And fyi I have met tons of religious physicists,especially ones dabbling in high energy physics or cosmology or gravitational physics. That le atheist scientist guy who has no fucking clue about philosophy meme has to stop,seriously it has to stop. TL DR: You bitches still aint got shit on Aquinas and his thomistic metaphysics. God\universe creating mechanism is a plausible explanation especially when we take into account everything our cognitive mechanisms got from interpreting the universe.Also,stop downplaying the downright awesomness of humans,we are truly the biggest mess and joy of our universe,suck on the anthropic prinicple biatch.
>>67806810
The chance of you being born was also close to 0.
>>67817307
I think the bible is supposed to be the best evidence for God there is. The problem for some is believing this document and its sources, all stories and people being scattered throughout history and long dead or possibly fictional in the first place
>>67815587
The burden of proof is on whoever makes any claim, deal with it.
150 years ago, let's say some biologist in his spare time sits around and thinks "DNA could not POSSIBLY be a double helix for ______ reason! It's a ridiculous idea!" No one would take that seriously without experiments designed to thoroughly support his claim. The only difference with gnostic atheism claims is the subject matter isn't testable; but it doesn't matter. The claim is still invalid without evidence.
That's why the "is God real" argument is absolutely fucking moot as a philosophical point. There is no way to go about it until there is hard evidence; we will wait and see, and until then we will either individually ascribe to the faith or not. Asking "Is God real well if so then prove it haha" is nothing but a helpful way to get religious folk to shut the fuck up when they're trying to convert you. Actually, same with atheists when they claim the negative.
What is the God you are asking ?
I personally think that God being a being that is infinite may never be proven through ours finite understandings so this discussion is most probably futile.
Hey guys, I’m the person who originally recorded the video of “Carl”. I have to say, I didn’t expect it to blow up like this. And now that it did, I feel a bit bad about it. let me explain...
Firstly, let me start by saying that when I uploaded the video, I knew it would piss you guys off because it portrayed “Carl” as exactly what so many of you hate: An arrogant, stuck up liberal who thinks his opinion is superior to yours even though he can’t even defend it. A “SJW” who depends on feels and not facts, and will yell whenever his opinion is challenged.
Well, it seems that’s exactly how so many people on 4chan took it. And the meme blew up. But i feel a little bit deceiving for it. The truth is, it wasn’t such a simple interaction. After Carl went “ARE YOU SERIOUS?” He started talking about how Hitler’s rise to power depended on blaming a specific group of people and promising to eliminate them from our society. He talked about the rise of fascism when the establishment fell apart, hitler manipulating, blah blah blah. He even said some stuff about the language they use. It seems like he really did his research honestly.
So, there you have it. I don’t agree with Carl. But he DID explain his reasoning. I figured people would realize this considering the video is only 4 seconds long (not nearly enough time to explain his reasoning). So yeah. Can you please stop bullying this kid? He may not support the same candidate as you do but to harass this kid for being an arrogant liberal is just dishonest. Instead of attacking him with ad hominem, we should actually focus on addressing his arguments. Otherwise we look like a bunch of insecure rednecks who will focus on attacking a person rather than their reasoning (ironically, everything we supposedly stand against)
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
>>67805211
Prove he Doesn't.
If God exists, who created a God?
Checkmate Christfags
>>67809065
He said prove it without referencing the bible.
We are light that perceives light. We are God. Everything is God.
>>67805211
Prove your five senses are accurate
Hardmode: Do not use your five senses as a reference.
Learn about Logic and Philosophy you tool, every belief system is inherently circular. We cant escape this fact being mortal
>>67805211
god is a fact, we will prove it one day but for now trust the text book ;)
>>67819369
>But I'm just referring to the defining of what constitutes evidence itself rather than broad views that evoke the term but don't commit to defining it.
When I've asked them they've always said: Empirical observation
Then when pressed further they say verifiable empirical observation. Then replicable
Then they just say science. Science and only science is the end-all of knowledge
>I don't see what differentiates calling an imprint in the sand that resembles the bottom of some brand of shoe evidence that such a shoe was there and calling it evidence of a space slug that flew down to the earth's surface and moved its body in such a way as to leave that print.
They would say: Scientifically testing each theory out would conclusively differentiate them
But little do they now you can't probe into the past. However much you replicate what you think were the conditions for the happening
>>67819818
Prove that the evidence to prove God doesn't exist doesn't exist.
>>67819611
Mathematics are a different thing entirely, in terms of reasoning, than empirical evidence though. Mathematics function a priori and utilize purely deductive reasoning in a vacuum. Scientific inquiry can't do that - it relies at base on inductive reasoning and sensory experience or claims. Which is why the problem of induction is so terribly troubling to most empiricists who care about being consistent with logic.
It's good that you hold that base skepticism I think. It's intellectually healthy.
>>67814086
Faggot
Dont say "hurr, muh evidence is out there, search for yourself" answer the question, show us proof right now or gtfo
>protip, you can't
>>67809054
Its a passage from the four agreements. Look it up.
Some beaner tripped balls and came up with that shit. Kinda funny, but strange to think that we are light perceiving light... Inherently making us God.
>>67819599
Define objective
>>67819001
Any time man. It actually kind of irks me when I hear people admonish or berate what they deem "lesser studies" such as philosophy, arts, history, etc. simply because the job market for such jobs is not as large as their holier-than-thou prestigious STEM field. Chances are many of the people they delude themselves into believing they're above are actually much more intelligent that them, just with a different interest or outlook on life. Arts promote culture, but philosophy actually plays a rather major role in the success of most societies, yet it's so overlooked at the moment and just swept under the rug for some reason. Critical thinking is a skill that should be fostered as much as possible, yet it's typically stifled for whatever reason.
Keep doing what you're doing man. You may not feel it yourself, but you're making the world a better place for it.
>>67819938
What if a the big bang created a Divine creator.
Can you prove that didn't happen.
my God Banebdjedet exists
evidence: his appearance and name are references to a movie scene that didn't exist for another 5000 years after people started worshipping him
kike religions btfo tbqh
>>67820311
The Big Bang did create a Divine creator though. Have you ever played any video game ever where you controlled the character? Your divine intervention is what dictates that character's actions.
>>67819989
Yes I can actually, the closer we look at things the more questions it raises as to how it got there or came about. You can't prove he doesnt exist unless humanity from our small dirt ball can have all the answers. But we both know that will never happen so that proof of his non existence doesn't exist.
>>67820041
>Scientific inquiry can't do that - it relies at base on inductive reasoning and sensory experience or claims. Which is why the problem of induction is so terribly troubling to most empiricists who care about being consistent with logic.
They've just gone and called it "abductive reasoning" now. When will they realise fleeing the label will not rid them of logic?
>>67819976
Yeah, which I find isn't consistent between people. Hallucinations and the problem of induction cause too many problems for those general stances, and the specifics of what actually constitutes something being empirical as opposed to non-empirical are at base I think very confused.
>But little do they now you can't probe into the past
Yes, that seems to be a very common idea. And one people, in my experience, are *incredibly* loathe to part with. A whole lot of dogmatism occurs in regard to that subject.
An aside: Is this bait thread the first intellectual cross-disciplinary discussion we've had on /pol/ for a while? I can't actually remember the last time we made substantive posts with shitposting kept to a minimum.
>>67820170
indisputable evidence that is based on facts, free of bias and personal interpretations that confirms the existence of god
what's make me very sad is that even in death we aren't going to know the truth
>>67820293
>Keep doing what you're doing man. You may not feel it yourself, but you're making the world a better place for it.
T-thanks anon. Best of luck yourself ;_;
>>67820625
I know a good number of people who count themselves as empiricists who really do recognize the issue. I have much much more respect for them than for the scientism types who can't wrap their heads around the idea that there's something they need to grapple with for their views to be consistent.
>>67820829
>indisputable evidence that is based on facts, free of bias and personal interpretations
Is there such a thing?
Hell, I could say tautologies are such. But even I'd feel a bit like cheating for saying it
Talk about raising the bar
>>67805211
He turned me into a newt!
>>67821301
But you don't look like a newt.
![JesusOnToast2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/vSXOKVW.jpg "JesusOnToast2[1]")
![110420_cross[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/tUSy2yk.jpg "110420 cross[1]")
![godhands.jpg[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/aokkG7v.png "godhands [1]")
