There is no god.
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
There is no god.
>>681990685
That is correct.
>>681990685
What's your point?
>>681990685
Let's rephrase that. You believe there is not a god.
>>681991213
this
Huh, that's a suprise, I though you were still a theist
>>681991213
Let's rephrase that. You believe there is a god
kek is the god of dubs
>>681991650
yes either you believe there is a god or you believe there isnt. You cant know there is a god or know there isnt
>>681992210
fuck off faggot agnostic
>>681990685
>There is no god.
Sure there is, little fucker cooked up this experiment and got distracted by some flashy thing or another. We've just gone to seed.
>>681992275
Im not agnostic. Im theist
>>681992275
whats wrong wih being agnostic?
with our current technology it is literally impossible to know if there is a higher being or there isnt
>>681992210
Also, you can't disprove The Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
>>681990685
word. i used to love the movie gremlins. its still ok but not the best movie I've ever seen. anyway. i met this girl who also loves the movie gremlins. she said that it reminds her of her childhood. and for some reason the mogwai really turn her on. i ask how thats possible. the mogwai have absolutely no sexual features. no rounded ass, no raised breasts, no genetalia of any type. could it possibly be the fact that they transform into those slimy green gremlins? what is it? she refused tell me. i spent many nights afterwards watching gremlins and hoping maybe to get turned on a little bit. one night i got half a chub but I've since realized that was most likely just the air conditioner. eventually i couldnt take the mystery anymore. i MUST know what turns her on about the movie gremlins, if for no other reason than i want to be able to fuck a mogwai in the comfort of my own home. why should she be able to get so turned on by gremlins but I'm not even allowed to experience it? i corner her. she backs up. scared. my slow approach has her shaking and asking, "logan, whats gotten into u?" i tell her this is the end of the line. she must tell me why gremlins makes her pussy drip. here and now is the time or she will die by my average sized cock. I can tell that she's finally about to tell me, she's finally about to break. she takes a deep breath and dramatic music begins to play from the lunch room loud speakers across from mrs. shabotski's 5th grade class ( this was the song: http://youtu.be/dPiEVyd3-4k ) above the dulcid tones she tells me the thing i swore never to repeat. but i will tell it to you hear bros. i will tell it to you from my death bed. i will tell you the sexiest thing I've ever heard. that girl lets the real life gizmo live in her pussy. shit gets wild after midnight.
>>681992551
so spaghetti monster then?
>>681990685
Yeah!
We are all just image postings in God's /b/ board in the super-universe. Pray that our thread won't hit the image limit and 404s...
>>681992705
I dont claim to be able to but the invisible pink unicorn is a logical impossibility
>>681992723
lol maybe
>>681992916
how?
enlighten me
>>681992916
And 'god' isn't? Try again.
>>681990685
There is a god
see god loves you and has a plan for everyone.
Miracles happen every day if you pray.
I have provided a pic for proof, now praise the lord.
>>681993125
Nope not at all. Prove me otherwise
>>681993211
>trying to shift the burden of proof
Haha, come on, man...
>>681992965
THIS
so we are at the lol maybe level, so stupid
It doesn't really matter too much whether or not a god exists. It's about the positive cultural impacts Christianity has.
>>681993069
If its pink, its visible and reflects light at a certain wavelength.
If its visible it cant be invisible.
There can be no such thing that is both pink and invisible.
Even if it isnt a logical impossibility, it doesnt reduce my epidemiological claim
>>681993323
>not knowing skite about epistemology
>>681990685
No! The god is everywhere. There is enough archeological evidence to prove that the flood really happened as stated in the bible. Why don't you believe?
>>681993456
and tell me how god being all powerful is logical please
>>681993310
Youre claiming that God is a logical impossibility. Thats a claim that requires proof.
I cant prove that God is a logical possibility because that would involve me explaining why literally any reason to suspect that God is logically impossible is invalid which is a supertask.
Do you even logic?
>>681993584
Because you dont even prove your "Archeological Evidence" without a bible site
>>681993646
refer to this >>681993697
My heart is heavy. This cause offers no respite, but my body grows tired and weak.
I look down at my hand. It is swollen from years of carrying this weight upon myself. The weight of knowing I am the only barrier between the future of humanity and the wretched, corrupting nature of religious thought. But looking deeper I see something more. In my hands I carry the very essence of the Universe. I exist not because of the will of a man in the sky, but by the majesty and wonder of the Universe.
I rise from my chair, my body illuminated by the light of my monitor. Putting on my fedora, I give one last tip to the fine life I've lived. As the pain shoots through my arm, I bask in the glory that is my own existence and intelligence.
In this moment, I am euphoric. In this moment, I transcend.
>>681993697
You arent going to win the game of proof without staking a claim. What happened to that logic?
>>681993381
> positive cultural impacts
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
>>681993790
refer to this>>681993381
>>681990685
same thread
>>681993697
There is no logical argument for a 'god' - everyone who has tried falls in to a fallacy.
Are you saying there is a 'god'? Hm?
>>681993862
I dont claim that God exists tho. You claim He cant. Therefore you should have reason to make such a claim
>>681994020
Oh thats easy. Its called the scientific method. You know, the method we use to prove everything else?
>>681993975
There is no logical argument against God either.
We're at a stalemate. Congrats
>>681993884
Interesting argument, really brings a lot to the table.
>>681994110
Alright show me how your scientific method shows that God cant exist. I dont claim that God exists so there is no burden of proof on my account
>>681994174
What? Both of those are mine lol
>>681994302
EXACTLY. You think one unprovable hypothesis is impossible but the other isn't.
>>681994020
Cut the crap faggot and let's be honest you say"I don't claim that God exists tho" yet it's obvious you still believe in the fairytale. If you're afraid to defend your position you might want to re-evaluate your beliefs
>>681994416
Well the invisible pink unicorn is a logical impossibility and i can show it so .....
>>681994512
No you can't. It's invisible.
>>681994235
Step 1: Make an observation.
Do you see god? or just think its possible. If its just possible, its move to step 2. Is it able to find a pattern. Nope. No pattern available. God doesnt draw in straight lines, its only mishaps and chaos in the universe. Planets and comets colliding at random, shifting fields. Name the pattern.
>>681994115
You're right. So let's just default believe in God anyway becuase I'm retard right?
>>681994422
I have reasons for believing in God, in the same way you believe that you arent some preprogrammed computer system or that outside world exists or that you have a body. You should read some Descartes or Kant. Its part of the human psychology to believe certain indiscernibles and you are no exception.
you be posting in a troll thread
>>681994581
But is pink, so its also visible lol
>>681994826
It's only pink when you aren't looking at it
>>681994733
There was claims in the bible that were not true to scientific policies back then but follow the ones believe in now.
>>681994733
If you tried to introduce quantum mechanics to an ancient Greek scholar he would probably ridicule you. How could something that is possibly noncausal exist in an ostensibly causal world. Your pattern idea is a good start but patterns are based to heavily on expectations to provide any solid scientific value
>>681994876
>>681994826
shut the fuck up.
>>681990685
After all the shitposting
all the annoying pisspoor threads...
you finally come to this conclusion?
THANK YOU! you fucking fagget
>>681990685
"There is no god."
-fool
>>681995091
I thought they were interesting.
>>681994769
You believe you exist or that the world around you does. You believe a lot of things you have no epistemological reason to believe. Welcome to psychology
>>681994991
Yeah thats what I would say to if I wanted to keep my followers. That and give 10% to the church
God is real if I get dubs
>>681995172
about as interesting as a catholic funeral...
>>681995192
moronic rambling
>>681995323
Ill take that as your intellectual surrender lol
I hate atheists and theists both of them think they're superior to the other
>>681993584
Only at the creation museum and the new noah's ark park. There is no peer-reviewed archological evidence for a great flood.
>>681995279
Well youre here arent you lol
>>681990685
Aren't you always having an arguments with atheists?
Did you finally figure out that god isn't real?
>>681995073
What's the name of that meme? Pious pigeon?
>>681995410
intellectual and lol on the same line. gg
>>681995238
Primarily, in my belief, the existence of deity does not matter. Rather what does matter is the policies set forth by the religion.
>>681994784
All my "beliefs" are founded through the only means of understanding the natural world which is of course science. Now unless you present me alternative way of doing such. Your God has not and never will be apart of the that method.
>>681990685
fuck off op god helped me during a very dificult time in my life and mohammed, peace be upon him, is his porophet.
if you dont realize this you are quite frankly retarded
https://youtu.be/4rg8innCuN4
>>681995067
Yes exactly, thats the point of finding patterns. If the process can happen over and over again, you can prove its existence. Humans are naturally prone to find patterns so in the process of learning about one item, more questions arise from the other noticeable consequences
>>681995572
haha thats your response?
>>681995498
Pigeon meme
>>681995620
Then thats not really a religion is it? More like a way of life.
re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
>>681995735
Haha, is that your response?
>>681995659
Hell even science is grounded on beliefs that what we observe we can trust. In the end, we dont know. We're trapped in a subjective experience
>>681995732
Any any case, how does the lack of a certain kind of pattern determine Gods ontological status?
>>681995959
Yes something you can prove over and over again is a belief.... Did you think before posting this?
>>681996065
more retarded ramblings
>>681996075
What if i told you that you live in the matrix. Could you prove you dont?
That there is no god is one of the great things about the universe. I don't know why everyone wants the universe to be ruled by and have been created by an "ego", I don't know why everyone wants the ego to be the whole of existence. It goes beyond un-Copernican into just being so fucking self-centered it's obviously incorrect and really, it's extremely angsty. Like for real, god is the wussiest shit, you hate being alone that badly?
Frankly every problem I've ever had in life beyond a few scrapes and bruises from falling down has been the direct result of interaction with people and their egos. Why you'd want entire universe to be that shitty is just beyond me. It's possibly the best fact in the universe that said universe wasn't created and cannot be defined by some asshole.
>>681996065
You said prove how god doesnt exist using the scientific method, my reasoning why god cant exist.
>>681996157
Please enlighten me as to what Im misunderstanding.
>>681996200
All you would be doing is shifting the burden of proof. Not a good argument
>>681996200
yes, now stop asking nonsense questions in an attempt to make yourself look smart. You are dumb fucker posting in the number one troll thread.
>>681996257
So because certain patterns that you think must be associated with Gods existence dont exist, God must not exist? Forgive me if i misunderstand but Im not seeing how you can make this leap.
>>681995904
So if I follow the moral teachings of the bible that is not practicing a religion. If we're debating about philosophy you should refrain from using definitions in your arguments. Definitions can have multiple interpretations.
>>681990685
Feels good to hear.
Like warm summer on a porch with a beer.
>>681996379
So you cant prove you dont exist in the matrix is what youre saying?
>>681996468
wow you are dumb
>>681996436
Lol if Im dumb, you must be even more so given how upset im making you
>>681996453
Look at the scientific method and stop circle jerking. Prove how he exist just like everything else in the world. I have already proven otherwise.
>>681996535
Nope. Not the one making the claim.
>>681996638
LOL, if I'm dumb you must be even more so, given how upset I am making you.
>>681996607
Instead of giving me a claim and evidence you give me, "wow you're dum." People on this website are actually cretins.
>>681996468
Religion only has one definition. Unless you can find another without the word god in it. Please send your link as well.
>>681996706
You havent proven he doesnt exist lol because you cant. If it was possible a real scientist wouldve actually done so. Please explain to me how you destroyed Gods ontological status because that is worthy of an award
>>681996913
you are on this website you retarded fish frog
>>681996771
The only claim that ive made is that God is logically possible. You seem to suggest He doesnt exist. The burden of proof is on you.
>>681990685
Why are there even any more posts?
/thread
>>681995959
I just don't understand you people, let's bring it back to my original post. You admitted "I do not claim God exists", which one might conclude that there is a reason you DON'T claim he does exist? What might that reason be and why then do you still believe in that which you apparently are hesitant to defend.
>>681996898
wait are you the guy mocking me by copying my posts? You must be really mad that i shattered your ego lol
>>681996991
Sure I did, you are back to the burden of proof. If you can see it, if you cant test it, if you cant gather data, then how can this possibly exist? Because someone else told you so? Oh lets see how they found out then.
As a Scientologist, I will see you all in court
>>681997143
I dont claim He exists because i have no proof in the same way someone who claims he doesnt exist has no proof. Im only defending logical integrity
>>681997220
The only thing making me mad is your lack of education. Do you know what a comma is? Or maybe a capital letter. No, I didn't think so.
>>681997377
Then "logically" say how he could exist.
>>681997232
Lets go back to my example of ancient Greece. Im an ancient Greek and i propose the existence of subatomic particles. I cant see it or test it. Do they exist? According to you, they dont
>>681996935
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion
There is not a lot of definitions in linguistics that only have one definition. Especially in philosophy.
>>681997395
>responds by criticizing grammar
this is really rich
>>681997532
You understand that impossible right? refer to >>681993697
>>681997623
Tony Two Forks. A three year old meme. Newfeg
>>681997799
WOW I JUST LOVE MEMES.
>>681997861
His Name is Travis. He has Two knives.
>>681997669
Why do you think I was copying your posts? You may no have noticed I corrected them for you. I like to help children like yourself learn how to write. Every reply to you has been "criticizing grammer", you absolute dolt.
Moreover, you don't even post pics.
>>681997774
Then thats how you can prove otherwise. Its not that hard but some how you got caught up in "What if." Your post was picked apart and a horrible reference
>>681996706
>>681994733
I'm not trying to say that the scientific method is wrong. But it is necessary to reminds that the scientific method isn't a tool to prove claims but only a method to refine our prediction of phenomenas.
There is not such thing as proof into the scientific method, just refinement.
>>681992706
What the fuck
>>681997562
This may be the worst argument ever. A country that exist today, couldnt of existed in the past.
>>681997799
i are newfug, I not no how tri fourz
>>681998039
So rather than respond to my criticisms, you correct my grammar? Yup Im done responding to you
>>681990685
My arm kind of hurts.
>>681998188
success :D goodbye anon
>>681998108
"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."
You really need to learn to look things up before you post about them. Through the scientific method, shows proof. Hence repeating the process over and over again, getting the same results.
>>681998050
What are you saying. The only way to prove Gods logical possibility is to disprove every suspicion that He is logically impossible. There are literally infinite ways to do that. Literally all you have to do is provide me one nonrefutable argument for his nonexistence, literally only onw. Which is the easier task?
>>681998135
What are you talking about?
>>681990685
So fucking what?
nor are you an interesting individual,
nor will you make a significant impact on the world,
to be cliche.....
"you are not a beautiful and unique snow flake,
you are the same decaying organic matter as everything else....we are part of the same compost heap,
know, not fear.....know that someday you will die.... until you realize this...you are useless..."
>>681998489
So you are throwing out the unicorn theory now? This is really scraping at the bottom of the bucket for saying "anything is possible". How about that for ONE reason. You might be able to think about it, but if you cannot prove that claim, it is false until proven otherwise.
>>681998370
Ok, go learn about the difference beetwen DEDUCTION and INDUCTION. Then how this is related to the notion of PROOF.
Then finally u'll understand that the scientific method doesn't prove anything. It allow us to refine our prediction untill this prediction as been shown to be false or incomplete.
There is no proof with emprical experiment (aka INDUCTION).
Proof only exist with logic (aka DEDUCTION)
>>681998579
If you teach that greek long enough, you can show them with modern day machinery. If you are going in the past, you must be able to take that person to the future. Gonna move the field goals now?
>>681998780
refer to >>681997562
Youre making the mistake of logical positivism. If you arent familiar with epistemologic project of the early twentieth century, youre making the grave mistake of confusing the verfication method of some entity with its ontological status.
>>681997377
"because i have no proof" you do realize you just admitted (to yourself) I might add that:
A) I have no evidence that god(s) exist
B)I have no way of *knowing* god(s) CAN exist
C)I'm a logical human being who tries to believe in as many "true" things that are within my reason, *knowledge*, observations & experiments etc. made through science and philosophy.
If C describes you (as I should hope so) then if you are what you say you are "defending logical integrity" you should not be believing in a god you have no means of *knowing* exists
>>681999007
refer to the second part of >>681999019
>>681999019
moar ramblings please
>>681999125
Error on B) I know God can exist, if I know there is no reason he cant.
>>681998880
Just keep grasping more and more at straws are we. If two people are tasked with making a house and one has the house to prove it but the other is forever envisioning the house. Who ended up completing the task. Your deduction point is worthless because of the logic you are bringing to the table. If its only a thought, then it stays a thought.
This shit gets a catch every time why do you faggots respond?
>>681996200
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon
"The evil demon, also known as evil genius, and occasionally as malicious demon or genius malignus, is a concept in Cartesian philosophy. In his 1641 Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes hypothesized the existence of an evil demon, a personification who is "as clever and deceitful as he is powerful, who has directed his entire effort to misleading me." The evil demon presents a complete illusion of an external world, including other minds, to Descartes' senses, where there is no such external world in existence. The evil genius also presents to Descartes' senses a complete illusion of his own body, including all bodily sensations. Some Cartesian scholars opine that the demon is also omnipotent, and thus capable of altering mathematics and the fundamentals of logic, though omnipotence of the evil demon would be contrary to Descartes' hypothesis, as he rebuked accusations of the evil demon having omnipotence.[1][2]"
>>681999159
>>681999277
you just don't stop, do you?
>>681999019
And yet you can prove where the mistake is, nor can you prove why a thought is more than just a thought.
>>681999234
This dipshit again. Its obvious youre still in highschool or have no college education. Perhaps youre simply outside of your domain
>>681999507
you're
>>681999507
Try actually using logic behind your post. Prove god logically exists. If thats what you keep falling back to, should not be hard.
People have been debating the existence of a deity since before the ancient Greeks.
But I'm sure you autists are going to settle it in this thread, or the next one, or the next one, or the next one...
>>681999475
Not really.
>>681999424
Yeah thats exactly my point. Try as he did, Descarted couldnt disprove the skepticism
>>681999595
You haven't been to high school, have you?
>>681999596
Prove he doesnt. I already told you all I make no claim that I can prove he exists. But a thing is logically possible unless proven otherwise for the reasons Ive mentioned several times in this thread
Where the hell is the picture in the OP from?
>>681999839
never ending story...get it?
Moot is God!
>>681999596
Also you misunderstand my argument entirely. I have not once used "logically existence ". What does that even mean?
>>681999809
Alright. I take that as conceding given that you said its logically possible but unable to say how. If you are unable to do anything besides shift the burden, you are not worth arguing.
>>681999345
I didn't really get you point.
I was just enlighting the fact that throwing the "scientific method" card to discuss about proving/disproving god were pointless.
>>681999809
You sir are very wise
>>681990685
I think God just saw the world and killed himself out of shame over his shit creation
>>681991213
>>681992210
Let's rephrase that. You dont believe there is a god.
>>682000087
Are you dense? From the beginning, my point has been
>I make no claim to able to prove Gods existence
Why would you argue me if you understood that my only argument was to disprove absolute doubt?
Since the existence of a God can't be proved or disproved, wouldn't it be more logical to believe there is one?
>>682000194
Thanks man
If there was a god hebis sadistic as fuck look at all the hunger wars torture and much more
>>682000084
>>682000087
Its not worth arguing with this anon. He is just repeating the same thing over and over. "mistake of logical positivism." get real man. Say why if its a mistake
>>682000363
why ? If a god exists, would we have mercy for u if u think this way ?
>>681992210
>You cant know there is a god or know there isnt
That's a truth claim, which doesn't sound like true agnosticism. How do you know that one can't know?
>>682000187
Ok whats your proof otherwise. Thoughts?
Retarded thread for retards that like to get trolled hard.
>>682000503
Hnngggggg. The only reason its not worth arguing with me is that you have little knowledge on the subject at all. Its like trying to debate phyics with a physicist
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism
Quine completely dismantles that batshit argument you tards keep using
>>682000465
1/10
Wouldn't there also be a counterpart to God
Ie devil
>>682000359
>In the end, we dont know
Yeah, I'm saying why you can say he doesnt exist. Thats what we are arguing about.
>>682000651
You don't like watching a bunch of kids walking into a glass door that never learn?
>>682000595
If you cant know whether you can know, then you cant know lol
>>682000601
Maths : a useful and reliable thing.
btw : as i started, i'm not against the scientific method. Actually i think that's surely the best tool we have to acquire knowledge about physical phenonenas.
>>681990685
this is some b8 i don't see daily as opposed to other atheist b8s
>>682000870
You cant say he doesnt exist, precisely my point my man
>>681990685
Go home, God. You're drunk.
>>681992551
its wrong cuz u r not addressing the belief, u r addressin the knowledge, u rertard
>>682000810
>> Its like trying to debate phyics with a physicist
Hahahah thats called an incompetent physicist then. You cant even give a reason why logically.
>>681999624
It has the same conditions as proving god exists, though. To make it "possible" you have to keep adding conditions until you get something unprovable. This is merely an error that if anything very much suggests the human brain is as evolutionary science describes it; an organic computer built by evolution rather than something fundamental. We can generate questions which have no answer yet to another brain seem as if they should have an answer. It's really no different than the blind spot on your retina where your optic nerve meets your eye, a blatant design flaw and one not present in many animals. Your biology includes a computer that includes a computer which can easily generate questions with no answer in the real universe.
To this sorry state of affairs I say one thing -Hail Eris.
>>682001020
I did already, using the scientific method. There is no pattern to god. Your turn.
>>682001063
Alright my argument is as follows if you want it so badly
God can exist because there is no way he cant exist.
You want to win? Prove there is a way we know he cant exist
>>682001265
Why assume God needs to behave the way you think He should? Your move
>>681991650
If yours was a simple lack of belief you would never have made this shitty thread. The OP is clearly an affirmation.
God is a fairytale for those afraid of the dark, but Atheism is a fairytale for those afraid of the light. So sad.
>>682001266
Man I didnt think you could top a ridiculously argument like the last one but you sure did it. Instead of answering your incorrectly phrased question, let me correct that for you. God can exist... why? You went to far. Why is it not possible for god to exist.
if god doesn't exist, it would be necessary to create one
i propose it be me
>>682001466
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light." Socrates
>>682001386
I never claimed that. repeat your turn
>>681999324
Please do not refrain from answering my implied question which is why do you believe in in a entity you have no method of proving exists. In your mind where we can just conjure up and believe in deities without actually providing a way in which we know these things to actually exist and can't be used in anyway to predict or even be observed. If I then came to you tomorrow an told you about the invisible teapot in the middle of space. Would you agree my belief about the invisible teapot is justified?
>>682000904
I'm not exactly sure if anything can be known, but that's moot. Define "know" for me in your own words.
>>681999809
nope, its logically possible after proven it is
>>682000964
Explain how math proves his existence. Just because you can time processes out? How far can you go in understanding the universe just with math alone. Please prove your points
>>682001568
Respond to my argument >>682001266
Its the middle line
>>682001690
I'm another anon , but some things can be known.
i have an exemple if needed
>>682001636
You say there are no divine patterns. What does that mean?
>>682001796
Your argument isnt an argument. Its a statement you made without any rhyme or reason.
>>682001669
refer to >>681995192
>>682001903
God doesnt work with straight lines, its all chaos
>>682001908
Whats wrong with it? Please explain and in detail. I will grill you otherwise
>>682002013
Its not all chaos if it can be captured within a system of natural sciences, which it can. Chaos is subjective. You think that that it is chaotic that planets are crashing and behaving in weird ways. The ways in which they behave are not chaotic. They are describable by a good enough system of physics
>>682001620
Checkmate athiests.
>>682002093
Because you went with an assumption. Otherwise you would be able to say why god can exist in the first place. Saying its not possible for him not to exist, is an assumption unless proven otherwise. So your argument was a statement without logic or reason.
>>682001466
those afraid of the light r called photophobic. Your argument is invalid, cunt
Who gives a fuuuuck
>>682002298
Which physics are we going with here when light can be a partial and a wave without weight.
>>682002375
Wrong sir. Something can logically exist if its existing doesnt cause logical contradictions. My argument is simply that Gods existence wouldnt produce logical contradictions.
Ive studied logical formally so please try again. Show me that Gods existence would cause logical contradictions
>>682001782
Ah sorry i was unclear. Maths cannot prove that god exists or not, but math (logical) is the only provable thing.
And that makes no sense to try to prove everything else (i mean real prove : by deduction) including god. This is just a question of preference.
Everyone is trying to prove or disprove god, but that makes no sense. NO FUCKING SENSE !
>>682002633
You have yet to say how he exists. Thats the whole point and unless you can say otherwise, you are stuck on square one with a theory
>>682001852
I thought about this for a while and have concluded math might be a possibility. But let me hear your example.
>>682002633
You might as well be speaking fucking Chinese guy. Not a clue what you're on about.
>>682002600
Physics we have yet to understand. We dont know everything about the universe or how motions work. You seem to think that the physics we have now infallible and supreme when science is constantly building and replacing itself. If it is possible that there is a systemic universal way of representing the motions of all things, which there is, then its not chaotic. Chaotic would be you dropping a ball and it floating through the roof
>>681990685
/thread
>>682002723
Sure it does, god and religious zealots cost society a great deal of stress financially and physically. Getting rid of X in the equation logically will benefit everyone
>>682002955
>>682002784
Its not the whole point. As Ive said before pleanty of times, I dont claim he exists. You claim he cant.
Ill make it easy for you. All you have to do is show why Gods existence would produce logical contradictions
>>682002727
>>682002653
>>682002566
>>682002510
>>682003023
>>682002955
why does that guy keep appearing in every picture
>>682002934
Thats because youre ignorant on the subject of logic and epistemology. I dont blame you. Its just not your domain
>>682003235
if that in any way is an attempt on your part to state there is a god
your a faggot
>>682001466
>afraid of the light
Ah yeah all that discovering the secrets of the universe shit has been a total waste of time, right? Yeah, no. We're the only ones with any genuine hope for anything, we're the only ones who treat others as if they're not immortal and thus value their lives, we're the only ones who realize that morality is a precarious human structure that needs to be built up and cared for instead of it being some cosmic gift that works by magic if you just believe the right things.
We're the only ones doing any real work and you have no idea how nice we're being by letting you live on our planet.
>>682001985
Did you doge just doge my question for the second time when in this post >>682001669 I pacifically asked you not to refrain from my answering. There is clearly a question at the end of said post and unless your ability to read and comprehend mysteriously vanished withing the last five minutes you have no reason not to answer. Your ineptness says a lot about you and your beliefs. Goodbye and gg *maximum tips*
>>682003339
Its not. You misunderstood my argument entirely.
Lol i win. Who's next?
>>682003342
yeah but you had that guy in a couple pics earlier
and why is he demeaning himself sexually? He is rather ugly actualy.
>>682002914
Short one:
1. States Peano's aximoa, deducts and concludes :
a > b, b >c ==> a > c
2. Destroy the whole universe (and god if u want)
3. Create a universe with all different physic
4. redo step 1 ==> same result (even if don't fit the physic facts)
>>681990685
HAHAHAHA FUCK FINALLY
>>682003550
Imara?
>>682003462
Im arguing against at least 4 or 5 people right now. I dont have the luxury of engaging your trivial questions when there is a conclusion we can skip to
>>682003090
The only things that makes problems is the fact that ppl are trying to prove / disprove it.
Not the fact that it exists or not.
>>682003542
Travis gets around.
>>682003138
And ill refer you back to the scientific method or even further, the human standards. Humans believe that everything must have been created because they have never seen something that has not been created without an interfering force. This interfering force was called god. The argument that something has to have a creator cannot be shown. Thus we must assume that is a construct of the human imagination until proven otherwise.
>>682003677
You go tell that to the other 5k religions and try to get them to agree on one.
>>682003802
but am i wrong saying this ?
>>682003900
fap
>>682003713
>we must assume
wrongsir
in fact, we musnt assume. We should attempt to claim things only if we can prove them.
Also the "argument" youre giving is causal. One can posit the existence of a higher order without having been introduced to it.
>>682003636
can u explain ?
>>682003947
Yes for that reason
