ITT we prove god
Where's Scientology?
>>76536274
have you searched here?
>>76536274
That's a cult anon, not a religion.
>>76535877
Witnessed
>pantheon of pantheons
>memetic pantheon
Kek wills it
>>76535877
Kek needs to be added
>>76536888
my trips speak the truth
>>76536922
Kek blessed me
>>76535877
>Zoroastrianism is older than Judaism.
Really?
>>76536888
Witnessed
Kek is new King of Gods
Can't prove God, nobody can, but I can devil's advocate on his behalf.
First of, the existence or non existance of God is an unprovable assertion, so the only logical position is "I don't know"
Now some may wish to look at the slight evidence in God's favor. Most importantly everything in existence as we know it operates by cause and effect, since the universe is here, we must assume a cause, and that cause, however it might work, has the powers of a "God"
>>76536888
ITT we prove God / Kek
>>76536977
Yes really. Apparently it's one of the oldest religions in the world, along with Hinduism.
>>76537188
a
fucking
leaf
>>76536698
Where is ASTROCISM: THE TRUE RELIGION
OF THE SLOVENE PEOPLE?
>>76535877
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPCCc1vPFFo
this video always gets me thinking about god
>>76535877
>>76536888
>>76536977
>>76537070
>>76537188
Keks will is strong in this thread
>>76535877
If you want to prove god, you first have to define god.
>>76537070
If the next post gets dubs, Kek exists.
>>76536977
How do you not know this
Zoroastrianism directly influenced judaism as well as christianity
>>76537562
Kek is with us
>>76536698
If you want to make it to the inbox folder and then I will be a good time to get back to the next few months ago but I don't think I will be a bit more about the possibility
>>76537562
kek undoes this prophecy.
>>76537562
Does he exist?
>>76536986
Oh, sorry I expected actual discussion my bad
Dubs get
>>76537562
There is an omnipotent figure which created this plane of existence where we currently live in.
I dedicate any doubles for Kek believers
>>76537697
Yeah, check 'em.
>>76537737
off by one
>>76537737
>not dedicating it to Kek directly
>>76537436
a being that have unlimited power and knowledge that was never created and has no beginning or end.
>>76537772
So close
Fucking retards, his name is Pepe not Kek
>germanic with slavic kolovrat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Slavic
>>76537973
It's Kek or Kuk.
>>76537913
Kek is truly with us. Soon, we'll see some GREAT digits.
>>76535877
up your ass
>>76537973
Modern name is pepe, old name is kek - Check em
>>76538077
KEK WILLS IT
>>76538077
what a godly fine ass that is
>>76535877
get the updated version pleb
allah akbar ramadan mubarek
Done
>>76538049
Kek is the God of Darkness
His wife Kukett is the serpent God of Illumination
>>76538349
Kek is the bringer of light
>>76537639
Nigga, the fuck you just say?
If god exists, this post will end in doubles.
>>76538877
KEK EXISTS
>>76537562
We already know kek exists, this was just a test of faith.
>>76538252
That's better! I was just going to complain about all the things the first one got wrong.
>>76538436
He is Lord of Chaos who dwells beneath the Waters of Reality where the False Fires of Kucketts Illumination cannot reach.
>>76539531
>>76538349
>not getting digits
Are you sure you're a Klergy?
>>76538944
PRAISE BE TO KEK
Remember anons, kek works by not giving thought to the intention
>>76538877
Wow I guess I'm blessed then.
I pray to kek to bless me once more.
>>76539746
You're very right, that should be written in the Book ov Kek.
Kek is satanic. Repent
>>76539687
I only meme the memes that were memed before me.
Though I speak for Kek
He doesn't always speak through me.
>>76540602
Yeah, I can see that
>>76539746
I don't want dubs
Something exists. Something cannot become nothing, and nothing cannot become something. Hence something must exist eternally. I have direct knowledge that my consciousness exists, hence my consciousness must exist in some form forever.
Either the universe has no cause, it has an external cause, or it is self-caused. Anything that can causally interact with reality is a part of reality. Thus the cause of the universe cannot be external.
The question one must ask then is, is there a reason for existence? If so, the self-caused universe is the explanation. Otherwise it is acausal. Given the choice between two equally likely hypotheses, one of which makes me feel good and the other one makes me feel bad, I choose to believe that there is a reason for existence, the universe is self-caused, and all of existence is a holographic representation of "god." The All is in all, and all is in The All.
>>76540918
because kek
>>76538083
I want to point out kek is lol in a World of Warcraft faction.
>>76541457
>listening to knowyourmeme
Kill yourself
>>76541546
>my image board religion was founded in ironic video game commentary
>>76540918
>Something exists.
Okay so far
>Something cannot become nothing, and nothing cannot become something.
And here's where you go off the tracks, because how do you know this? Have you even defined what 'something' and 'nothing' are, what their properties are, etc., and how have you tested this? Is this even testable in the first place?
>>76541814
Can something with the property "existence" have that property become "non-existence," or vice-versa?
Read Parmenides, literally first work of metaphysics nigga.
>testable
>expecting empirical evidence for a metaphysical statement
top jej
>>76542248
Again, I have no way of knowing this, because you didn't define anything in your claim. Nor did you give me a proper way to independently test this, which makes your claim completely meaningless
>>76541752
A Meme
>feels X man
Named after a Meme
>Kek
Crowned King of the Meme Pantheon
>Poseidon, Based Baal, Winter-chan
Pol is where good things come to die, and are Reborn
>>76542428
The shills have straied this thread from the path of kek. The digits have abandoned us. Kek is no longer belssing this thread.
>>76542428
Nonexistence by definition does not exist. Existence by definition contains that which does exist. If something does exist, it cannot not exist, which necessarily precludes changing to nonexistence. Form can change, but destruction is impossible.
This is a rationalist statement, again, expecting empirical evidence for metaphysical statements is bonkers. By expecting to be able to "test" everything, you are operating under some strange scientific epistemology (which is self-defeating btw). Rational truths are the only ones one can know with certainty to be true, "you can't know nuffin" else. What are you, some filthy materialist or something? Start with the Greeks.
>>76535877
>BCE
>CE
You can fuck off right now.
>>76536482
>Păcătos
>>76535877
ITT we fail at TT's task.
>>76536986
>we don't know how the universe was made, so it must have been God's work.
>we don't know how the Sun works, so it must be an eagle-headed god, riding a little ship across the sky with a fireball in it.
I've expected better reasoning than this.
>>76545471
>we how what science says about how the universe was made, so it can't* have been God's work.
>we how the Sun works according to a theory, so there will never be any additional evidence to disprove it
>>76535877
Your dubs prove Kek
>>76545690
I was trying to compare his reasoning to that of the ancient Egyptians (or any ancient civilization for that matter). When they couldn't explain something, they simply attributed it to something supernatural, and that was it.
I didn't want to say that we don't know how our universe was created, nor that the current theory is irrefutably true, because that's the whole point of science: if we find a theory that can better explain a phenomena, we simply ditch the previous one.
>>76546279
You're never gonna stop ditching theories my Asian friend
Let me know when science found the truth
>Protip: It can never do it
>>76546559
At least science is open to new ideas. When people found out that the Earth is revolving around the Sun, and not the other way around, or when they found bones more than 8'000 years old, they simply accepted these facts.
Well... "simply" may not be the right word to use, because the church had a lot more power back then, and it wanted to protect the credibility of their holy book, but you get the idea.
>>76535877
Look no further.
Here I am.
Ask me anything you want, but no wishes.
>>76535877
1. I find in my mind the notion of a perfect, omniscient God.
2. My mind could not be the source of this notion, since I am not omniscient nor perfect and therefore could not conceive it alone.
3. The notion must have come from outide of my mind
4. The notion must have came from a likewise perfect and omniscient God
5. God exists
>>76547185
>At least science is open to new ideas
A witchdoctor is open to new ideas, a drug addict is open to new ideas
Doesn't mean it wouldn't be just bullshit
>they simply accepted these as* facts.
ftfy
>>76535877
Been looking for this chart for one year. Thanks OP.
>>76547759
What are you trying to achieve with that false equivalency?
>Doesn't mean it wouldn't be just bullshit
What is the guarantee of the Bible being genuine, and why is it a more reliable source, than thousands of year of research?
Another thing I'd really like to know is if there is an omnipotent, omnipresent being, then why is it so concerned about the little problems of the billions of beings living on this tiny piece of dust?
>>76547231
helo
>>76548418
Why are you changing the subject? Are we done talking about how science works?
>>76548899
Done. Now answer me.
>>76549549
That chart doesn't say anything about whether it ever shows truth
>What is the guarantee of the Bible being genuine,
God
>and why is it a more reliable source, than thousands of year of research?
It claims to have been inspired by a being with infinite (as opposed to millennia-old) knowledge
>Another thing I'd really like to know is if there is an omnipotent, omnipresent being, then why is it so concerned about the little problems of the billions of beings living on this tiny piece of dust?
He loves us
>>76550059
>It claims to have been inspired by a being with infinite (as opposed to millennia-old) knowledge
And can you prove THIS any better, than science can prove its theories?
>>76545471
You didn't read my words and leapt to assumptions. Try again.
>>76550551
It all depends on what you mean by proof
>>76550597
>the bible says there is a god, and it's true, because it was written by God
circular reasoning much?
>>76550946
I for one don't believe God exists because it said so in the Bible
>>76550824
Well, if we accept a book written thousands of years ago as proof, just because a large number of people claim that it was written by God, then we didn't set the bar too high.
>>76551157
Then what is your reason? I'd truly like to know. Did you have something what people would call a "spiritual experience"? If so, could you describe it?
>>76551342
I don't think the Bible proves God
Some people consider the universe as proof of God, in the same indirect way gravitational waves would be proof of dark matter
>>76551572
I believe God exists because without Him there could never be truth and knowledge
>>76551712
How so?
>>76550946
Nowhere in my statement did I mention the bible, or the christain version of God, try again.
>>76551879
Well we've already talked about how science can never reach truth, and would always disprove every theory that it would come up with
God is an absolute source of knowledge that would vouch for the idea of possible truth (truth that we may know as well)
>>76552108
Im arguing on behalf of god and I think your reasoning is seriously flawed man
There can be a truth to the universe without a God.
>>76552309
>There can be a truth to the universe without a God.
What is it and how could we know it?
>>76552395
We couldn't know it (in our current state anyway) and I don't know.
>>76552600
How is it possible that it exists?
>>76552395
If the only way we can find "true" things is by a being, that is perfect by definition, then we might have a problem.
And we don't have to prove everything to 100% for it to be usable in practice.
>>76552749
Because existence exists, thus there must be a way to comprehend the entirety of this universe's existence if one is intelligent enough (leagues beyond what human brains can comprehend)
>>76552915
>If the only way we can find "true" things is by a being, that is perfect by definition, then we might have a problem.
Let's define truth first. Would you accept that it's "statements that are in concordance with reality"?
How would we figure out which statements match reality and which don't?
>And we don't have to prove everything to 100% for it to be usable in practice.
Why are you talking about usable things?
>>76553134
>A = A
Existence does exist, and that is absolutely true by logic, as a tautology
>thus there must be a way to comprehend the entirety of this universe's existence
>thus
It does not follow. Just because "existence exists" doesn't necessarily mean we could know what it means or anything about it
>>76536888
KEK WILLS IT
>Baltic older than both Slavic and Germanic paganism
>The former submitted willingly to Christ
>Christians had to launch a Crusade against The Balts to submit them to Christianity
>Balts resisted to the last and then some
>Fast forward to now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeovGfNEEsk
How you can justify yourselves following a Semitic faith and on the same note talking about "saving" Europe will forever seem as total hypocrisy to me.
>>76553523
We don't know what it means, but the fact that it it exists means it's theoretically possible to understand it
>>76536986
Nobody has actually responded to my argument
>>76553815
>the fact that it it exists means it's theoretically possible to understand it
And how do we understand it truthfully?
>>76535877
>religions can and do evolve
>but the evolution itself is usually considered bullshit by them
>>76553935
Maybe because most people agree with you
>>76554211
>biological evolution
>sociocultural evolution
>>76554095
We don't. That's the point. We would have to be millions of times more intelligent to comprehend "everything"
>>76536986
>everything in existence as we know it operates by cause and effect
No. Your physics is out of date by about a century.
>>76554462
Explain
>be current year16
>tards on 4chin still asking "herr derr prove God"
There is NO proof of God. God set it up so that he can not be found through normal human means so that belief in him relies on FAITH.
When a retard asks for "evidence" they want God showing up over Jerusalem saying "I'm back bitches! YOLO!".
But that's not how God set it all up. He got the ball rolling, gave us free will, and won't interfere in any way that would be able to tell conclusively.
>>76554560
Really? You went to high school, right? Surely they teach radioactive decay and quantum mechanics there?
>>76554385
I'm not talking about comprehending everything. I'm asking how would we comprehend anything truthfully?
>>76554669
Sigh obviously we can't prove god, the point is to spark discussion.
How do you know that?
>>76535877
>Tfw there is no free will with an omnipotent god in existence
Good thing there isn't a god like that.
>>76554694
You need to elaborate to construct an argument, no 5 word answers, how does that disprove cause and effect?>>76554741
>>76535877
>evolutionary tree of relgions
Kek so many things wrong with this
>Catholicism 440
Wtf where did that number come from
And wheres Orthadox
>cult of Mithra influences Christianity
Wut?
This whole chart confuses evolution of religions and philosophical influence. It's also guess work at best. You can't make something so complicated as the history and development of all major religions into a simple flow chart.
I could go into detail about why the Western and near eastern branch is fucked up if anyone wants.
But I'm curious about the how the other branches are fucked. Anyone more familiar with Easter religions care to elaborate?
>>76554694
You need to elaborate to construct an argument, no 5 word answers, how does that disprove cause and effect?
>>76554808
>, the point is to spark discussion.
This "discussion" has been going on since the beginning of time. Since the beginning of verbal and writting communication. Since the beginning of the internet (talk.origins). Since the beginning of the www. Since the beginning of 4chan.
And yet I still see "herr derr prove God!"
>>76554926
>You need to elaborate to construct an argument, no 5 word answers, how does that disprove cause and effect?
Alright, they don't teach that.
What is the cause if the effect is spontaneous radioactive decay?
>>76554741
Sigh
Define truth
>>76554926
>>76555133
Sounds like yall are just having a simple disagreement based misunderstanding each other. Carry on though.
Pic related
>>76555133
>>76555133
"I don't know but one day we'll find out"
- every scientist ever
>>76555605
No.
I can't believe you're this uninformed. It's not even modern physics, it's literally over a hundred years old. There's no excuse.
>>76535877
By the power of these dubs I praise kek and humbly ask him to lead us
>>76555745
Not an argument. Explain.
