>everything that exists must have a creator >God doesn't have a creator
=>God doesn't exist
Of course you can deny all that by saying that axioms are basically dogmatic pieces of rules and data. We can't prove that logical axioms are actually true and we can't prove that God is dependent to those axioms.
You need to have an unchangeable/unquestionable starting point in order to prove anything. We don't have such a point.
>>692486697 Stressing a species weeds out the chaff. Humans are not perfect. By far, and can only achieve a higher standard by destroying the garbage and focusing on the best.
If it wasn't for all those things. If, for example, humans were immortal, then they would have stopped advancing at whatever point they achieved that.
Think about it. Everything that makes us good and virtuous is a part of being in a stressful environment that breeds excellence. If there was no stress factor on the species, it would degrade to immobile, thoughtless masses of shit.
>>692485493 All scientific proofs work without a god. You are committing a burden of proof logical fallacy. The pressure isn't on athiests to prove there isnt a god, the pressure is on christians to prove he is needed.
>>692489682 You place a lot of faith in your ideology, just like Christians (who are, by far, not the only religious people on Earth).
On the subject of scientific proof. You simply do not know one way or another. The source of all the energy in the universe can not be explained in any coherent way by modern science. The best it can do is "It was always there" or "It was introduced from an even larger system"
Well, theists believe that larger system is an orderly God of some kind. There is no dichotomy between science and religion. The only perceivable dichotomies you see are ones you see from idiots who can't see the big picture and instead blindly focus on their internalized belief system.
Try to look past the armies of strawmen on either side to the core principles, and you will see that we only want the truth.
>>692489847 >>692490057 You're missing the point entirely. Where did all the energy in the universe come from? Science has no coherent answer to the question. It's all blind faith, and some people see all the order and think it's absurd to think there isn't a larger system beyond the conceivable universe.
>>692489597 That's jumping to conclusions without evidence. Also it's a good of the gaps argument. I think religion has done nearly as much good as bad and I had both a bar mitzvah and a confirmation. I can speak ivrit and even read Aramaic. I know the tanakh backwards and forwards. I'm not an atheist by choice. I just found it all to be horse shit and there is no coming back from that realization.
>>692490586 > I'm not an atheist by choice Yes you are. An Atheist believes there is no God. So you have a belief system, hopefully based on something right? In your case it seems that it is entirely a rejection of theism, right? Well, you obviously haven't looked that hard at modern science if you are so sure there is no God. A more logical answer would be to be agnostic, since you are at best, not sure.
>I just found it all to be horse shit and there is no coming back from that realization.
What realization? That you don't know the origin of the universe anymore than anyone else, but you choose to have faith that there is no God, which according to your logic would be just as absurd as believing there is one, right?
Look past the religious dogma and just look for the truth, and you'll find that mankind really doesn't know that much relative to what there is to know.
>>692491680 What are you even talking about? Did you quote the wrong post? I never said "Prove to me" I made statements of fact, which hold true.
Again: You have no idea where the energy in the universe came from. You're placing your faith in an ideology just like the people you are trying to vilify and discredit.
If you believe there is no God, then you must have some reason, right? Because the fact is that you don't know, and since you don't know, you should say you're agnostic, but instead you are choosing to say you believe there is no God.
What is that belief based on? Faith that there is no God? Well, how logical is that by your standards?
Every single one of you is a fag. can you prove that africa exist? Yes. Can you prove that energy exist? Yes. now someone prove that either god or the big bang exist/Did exist. Also agnostics are the biggest fags bc they don't have balls to say what they think or belive.
>>692486697 This is not an argument against the possibility of Gods. What about Greek Gods, Hades? Gods can be evil.
>>692487009 This is the best argument IMO against Christianity. Christians will argue >If the universe exists, then it must have had a creator But they exclude Jesus from the prerequisite. Their premise would suggest that God had a creator, thus requiring more Gods. If you can exclude God from requiring a point of creation, why does the Universe require a "Y" to have created it? Akum's Razor.
>>692487403 Do you mean to say you feel a God's presence? Which God do you feel? Jesus Christ? Because if you were born in Egypt in 2100 BC you would feel the presence of Amum and several other ancient Egyptian dieties. If you were born in Iraq you might be singing praise to Allah. The only reason you believe in Jesus Christ is because you were born here, now.
>>692485493 Which god? There's literally thousands to choose from. This question is trying to play on the concept that "The absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence". To this I say HORSE SHIT! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Also, of every mystery ever solved, god or magic has never been the answer. And there has never been a single case where something we thought initially had a natural explanation actually turned out to be the work of god.
I think what most of you "Atheists" fail to understand is that God is the unborn and unknowable. The Beginning and The End. He is not the words on paper or on your screen or irrational sermons by some cult leader. He exists beyond all of that.
What many of you have a hang up on is words and rhetoric by other humans who may have an entirely failing idea of God.
You are becoming enraged, angered, and annoyed by humans and their symbols, not by God, who is beyond human understanding. In much the same way that a starry night full of the depths and wonders on cosmic scales might seem like a black canvas pricked with light to some.
>>692492628 >I think what most of you "Atheists" fail to understand is that God is the unborn and unknowable. The Beginning and The End. He is not the words on paper or on your screen or irrational sermons by some cult leader. He exists beyond all of that. And yet you only believe that because of words in a book.
>>692492224 Well, dude, if someone really feels that they don't know, what's wrong with saying they are agnostic? Isn't that a bit better than going into atheist-rage and claiming without a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist, when that is impossible to know? It seems entirely reasonable to say "I don't know" if someone really feels they don't.
>>692489682 And yet if I go to bat with a Muslim the burden of proof is now on me to prove that he doesn't exist. I don't just get to sit on my lazy fat ass and poke holes in everything they are saying without lifting a finger to do any of the work.
You can't prove he isn't real, thank you for your admission of defeat. Good day
>>692492947 Prove that ghosts don't exist Prove that unicorns don't exist Prove that leprachauns don't exist Prove that gremlins don't exist Prove that the skies arent full of invisable pizza floating around everywhere
You can't go around asking people to prove that every possibility of everything doesn't exist. Maybe I'm not atheist because certainly I accept that I cannot prove that the skies arent full of invisible pizza that cannot be sensed or smelt or felt or eaten, although I consider it to be absurd that anyone would believe that. Although if you believe that isn't the case, then I ask you to prove it to me. OTHERWISE, YOU LOSE! I ACCEPT YOUR DEFEAT. You cannot prove the pizzas arent in the sky, therefore you must accept that it is possible.
That's what religion feels like to me, and people trying to argue that gods may exist.
>>692492874 I don't think you fucking get it, bro. Your field of view is entirely tunnel visioned on rejecting Baptist Protestant Christianity. Wake the fuck up man, there is a world of religious thought. Some with wildly different opinions on the nature of their gods.
Some people who believe in God, see past all the dogma and rhetoric and look for answers to major questions without being fed a pile of shit from someone claiming to know one way or the other.
>>692492865 Still fags. Let me explain. John thinks that god exist, and that is ok. victor thinks that god Doesn't exist, and that is ok. if john and victor shut the fuck up about that they belive the world wouldn't give a single fuck about it. Kim doesn't know if there is a god, and doesn't care. That would be acceptable. But if kim claims that she is right about not knowing, she is way worse than edgy faggots because she is not even trying. >>692493311 This guy is a fine example of "I don't give a fuck" that is ok.
>>692493219 I'm not OP, and your logic or reading comprehension seems to fail you.
The enrgy of the universe is just that. All the energy in the universe. Some of it condensed into matter in its many different states, some extremely energetic as electromagnetic radiation. An entire spectrum of spectrum of energy all over. Are you blind or just closing your eyes to the truth?
there's nothing wrong with not having answers but it's important to side with the most logical side that has the best points so accusing people of burden of proof is just dragging the argument down and we're not gonna get anywhere
>>692485493 In current climate of scientific discovery we know so little about our universe and what created it that there is no absolute proof that discredits or credits belief in a God. However with the sheer amount of different conceptions of God the statistical probablitablity of you workshipping the "right" God be it Abramic, Simulation, Aliens, every religion every invented, is ludicrous!
I rule out most traditional religions due to lack of evidence like Islam, Christianity, etc. But I don't discount the existence of a being who is a "God" to us. I just haven't seen any evidence or proof of one existing yet, until I do I can't believe in it well that'd be foolish.
>>692493390 I'll give you a summary, since it's beyond the scope of this thread
>empirical observations All the coherence and order in the universe. Life itself, and the evolution of the species.
>modern science Modern science has no rational explanation for where all the energy in the universe came from. It's just as valid and makes more sense to me that there is a greater system beyond our conceivable (conceivable instead of observable, because we already know there is much beyond what we observe) universe, which some may call God.
I'm not preaching the rhetoric of any specific religion. As a religious scholar, I've synthesized the religious beliefs of dozens of contemporary and historical religions and taken what I see as the wheat and separated it from the chaff. I've done the same with our understanding of science and the material world.
I'm legitimately looking for the truth, unlike most of the people who are simply trying to validate some previously held internalized conviction based on blind rhetoric. Stand up and wake up and look for yourself. If you really do, you'll be happy that you did.
Deities and gods are our arrogance and our inability to answer the mal-formed questions about life and existence. Some people would rather settle for a bullshit answer than admitting we just don't know. And these deities always have some kind of human representatives speaking for them. Millions of human representatives all telling a somewhat different story. Believe as I believe, or suffer the consequences. Sounds more like a scam to me.
>>692493492 I do not get to sit on my lazy fat ass and make no effort to tear down any claim that everything Muslims say about their God is totally and utterly false. In order to do that I'd have to get off my high horse, dig a little, and do some research.
Your argument, and every argument of any atheist I've ever encountered, think you have to do no work. You're lazy, you use catchphrases like "burden of proof" and "self-fulfilling prophecy" the same way faggot use "racist" "bigot" and "homophobe" to avoid having to have their beliefs challenged.
You have beliefs, you won't state them because you can't prove them. You therefore lose. At least the Christians/Jews/Muslims are out there making a case for their beliefs. You poke holes in arguments and yet can prove nothing on your own.
That is why you lose, that is why I accept your defeat.
>>692489237 energy wasn't there "before" the big bang because there is no such thing as "before the big bang". Energy as we know it started to exist with the big bang. Energy isn't eternal. OP's concept of god is.
>>692494668 You don't get it at all, and your response shows an obvious lack of understanding of our mdoern conception of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang was energetic on a magnitude that most can not even comprehend. All that energy cam from somewhere. Some believe the Big Bang is a cyclic system where the previous universe eventually collapses and created a Big Bang, forming a new one.
Well, none of them have a provable source for all of that energy. Do you understand now? Humans don't know nearly as much as you seem to think they do.
>>692494875 In the bible it says that we cannot begin to understand the will and grasp of God and God created humans to be imperfect so whoever wrote that God can do anything may have been wrong we don't know
>>692494259 I have recognized that anon was right, and I cannot begin to discredit him in anyway. Alas, from what catchphrase shall I chose today? I settle upon "bait" until a more opportune one arrives.
>>692494436 >All the coherence and order in the universe. Life itself, and the evolution of the species. Stars explode, galaxies crash into each other, black holes, 99.9999999999% of all planets devoid of life and absolutely pointless, cancer, birth defects, earthquakes, tornados etc on the one planet that DOES sustain life. The universe is a chaotic shambles.
>>692494308 >Pizza in the sky is absurd So is believing in a specific God then. What sense do you actually have about believing in Jesus rather than Allah or Amun or Zeus or believing that are universe was created in a laboratory by gargantuans or in faith that the universe doesnt even exist and you are actually some abstract dream occuring within an organism you can't even imagine.
Having faith that the universe was created? Faith in a book? Feeling a presence? Again I go back to history and civilization. People believe in different Gods every few thousand years and you only believe in your God because you were born HERE NOW. If you were born here a few thousand years ago, or born in a different country whose main religion was diferent, your faith would be entirely different. I don't have any interest in putting faith in a religion knowing full well that my faith would be in a different religion if I grew up elsewhere. It seems to show a major fallacy in the whole idea of religion.. shows how it is made up by people and that religion are temporary and interchangeable. I have less of problem with someone saying "I believe in a God or Gods having created the world, but I am not religious because I have no way of knowing what the God may be like or if there are more than one". To me that is the only reasonable "faith".
>>692494436 >>692495354 >Stand up and wake up and look for yourself. If you really do, you'll be happy that you did. >but I hope you'll look for the truth yourself. Could you not be so patronising? You're assuming I'm some retard who hasnt given the concept of God a single thought
And yet you're here talking to a million people from all over the world, connected with invisible energy, playing on tools you could not possibly make on your own and likely do not completely understand all about them.
The universe is very orderly, and life is an extreme concentration of that order with the capacity to be refined further.
Catchphrases and buzzwords won't fly here. Try actually disproving anything. You can't.
Like the homos and the femnazis, you've become lazy and rely on buzzwords and think you don't have to defend yourself.
If you want to not believe a word I say, then fine, but if you engage in debate, you have to offer us something to go on. You can't just sit there and say "you're wrong" while I do all the talking. Sorry it's not so easy!
It's actually well known for having a number of flaws, contradictions, moral ambiguities. It is also not a single book but rather several books/scrolls that have been combined into a single text. Most, if not all, of these books trace back to human authors and many of those are taken from ancient Judaism. There is also a number of stories, written by the disciples of Jesus Christ which either conflict with each other entirely (the two conflicting stories of his birth) or can be argued to have been mistranslated or having had "artistic liberties" taken or even just having the wrong impression given to those observing the situation.
>>692485493 So what proof do you have that god exists? Check m8.
Also, don't make a fool of yourself by saying the bible is proof. It's not. It's been modified hundreds of times to fit the agendas of various people and organizations in power. It's not the word of god when the only way it's passed around and reproduced is through people.
we make claims based on axioms (pieces of data/rules that everyone agrees to be true) Noone even tries to prove the validity of these axioms, because in order to prove those axioms one would need even more axioms.
Nothing is "provable". We prove things by accepting dogmatic pieces of information.
We use the word "prove" in the scientific sense, meaning we agree that all the scientific axioms are true, and make claims based on them.
IF one agrees that everything must have a creator, then God, being a thing, must have a creator as well. Then the concept of God that has no creators is FALSE.
IF one agrees that things such as energy exist forever, that they are eternal. It means that they were never created. God is the creator of all. If there is something that isn't created, than something that creates all can't exist.
AGAIN, reality isn't as simple as we perceive it. Logic is a human invention. When you are a god you don't really need to care about Logic. Still, I can scientifically "prove" it's lack of existence.
>>692495947 >if OP has even a cursory understanding of the science he's criticizing
This is atheists biggest problem to me. You have the almost pathological assumption that theists don't have the same exact knowledge that you have. Like it literally almost kills you to hold for a second that someone might have a different opinion formed than yours. Mindblowing.
>>692485493 In order for your challenge to even be possible, you must present evidence to suggest there is a deity. As no evidence has ever been brought forth to suggest there is one, proving the non-existence of something that has never been shown in any way to exist in the first place is pointless.
>>692495947 OP didn't criticize any science. It sounds like you're fighting your very own straw-man in your mind to say something like that. He just asked atheists to prove something that they can not prove, which obviously rustles some of their jimmies.
>>692496024 Yep, everything you say is true. And in fact scholars have dealt with and reconciled each of the things you've mentioned.
Case in point: conflicting stories often lend credibility to a historical event as each person has a slightly different view. If it were biased or a hoax, you would have several authors from the exact same date in time with the exact same written account, indicating some sort of conspiracy. The fact that several authors wrote at different times and their stories only have slight details contradicting actually lends credibility, at least as far as the gospels of Jesus Christ are concerned.
That's just one example though. Care to try again?
>>692496125 You're being hardheaded on purpose. Think for yourself, m8. If you don't understand that the universe is extremely orderly, then you can just throw out any scientific knowledge you think you have since it's "chaos". If you really believe that you need to think on that some more, son.
>>692494514 How does one prove non existence? You're shirking my question. If you can't prove to me the skies arent full of undetectable pizza, then I can't prove to you that their isnt an undetectable GOD which exists outside of the realm of our universe. I'm not really asking for you to prove the existence of God though, anybody who asks the other for proof should not even be in the discussion. I'm saying Atheists and Theists dont need to prove the existence or nonexistence. But I think there are some good arguments on the atheist side that theists dont have good answers for.
>Akum's Razor. Why does the Universe need to have a creator? If the Universe must have a creator, why doesn't the creator have its own creator? >Time and Place. If you believe in a religion (not just a God, but follow a specific religious book such as the bible) how do you answer the temporary and geographic nature of religions? If you were born 3000 years ago you would believe in a different religion entirely. If you were born in a different part of the world you would have completely different religious convictions and you would be just as certain of them. Why do you believe in Jesus and not Zeus? Why not Allah or Amun? >>>692494875 This is a simple logical fallacy which Christians always ignore. They believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing god, yet "all-powerful" is paradoxical. It's a concept which poeple have made up that can't actually exist. Something that is all-powerful would be able to create a stone so heavy that nothing could lift it (including the God itself) thus limiting its own power. Nobody can answer this, the question seems absurd, but thats only because claiming that something is all-powerful is absurd. Nothing can truely be all-powerful.
I think a lot of 'by the book' religious people don't actually bother to answer to these arguments and instead go to "prove he doesnt exist!" instead of answering the simple claims athiests make about having faith despite this
>>692497330 >Stars explode, galaxies crash into each other, black holes, 99.9999999999% of all planets devoid of life and absolutely pointless, cancer, birth defects, earthquakes, tornados etc on the one planet that DOES sustain life. Does this serious scream 'intelligent design' to you?
>>692497416 >But I think there are some good arguments on the atheist side that theists dont have good answers for.
That's fair, but having a dug a little into the atheists side of things myself, you get to a certain point where even atheists have to admit that they don't actually know (they won't admit or acknowledge this part). And that's my whole point, Atheists claim to know for sure, when they don't.
Saying that Christians do the exact same thing doesn't refute my point either.
I won't even begin to debate with you on such a ridiculous claims as your pizzas which is so self-evidently not true as to not require argument, anymore than I need to argue with you that the sun is real. Your fault lies in the fact that you think our 5 senses are perfect and the end all be all of proof. As if someone big enough to create it couldn't exist beyond our 5 senses.
I will never prove a single shred of God's existence to you as it is already available to you in abundance. I will always argue that belief in any sort of deity is way more credible than zealous atheists make it appear.
>>692498009 Futhermore all the stories in the bible come from the fact that we are not perfect, God sends his son down to die for are imperfections, Adam was given free will so he could sin and give us the ability to love
>>692486603 Correct, but Agnosticism is simply a knowledge claim. It doesn't say whether you believe there are god (s), just that you can't know for certain. You eventually adopt a belief position that's either theist (whatever flavor you might prefer) or atheist. And since you've already made the knowledge claim, you're more likely an atheist, because you usually assume when there is no evidence that something happened/exists, it didn't happen/exist.
If you cannot prove your particular god exists, then fear not my friend, no one can prove their god exists - because all the evidence is either lousy or non-existent. And, obviously you're not alone in believing in things without evidence.
>>692496673 Slight details such as the entire setting being different? Those who were greeted by an angel being vastly different as were their reactions? Or how about a genocide against children that was not recorded in any measure other than in the Biblical texts themselves? You almost make me want to put effort into this but I got to be somewhere in a half hour so I'll ask you to take up your world views with someone who spends a great deal of his time pursuing such scholarly debates
>>692498645 Not the guy you posted to, but think of it like this: I claim that there is an invisible, intangible, pterodactyl on my shoulder. I tell you to prove to me it doesn't exist. I'm obviously lying to you, so this should be easy to accomplish. How would you go about doing it?
>>692498425 I am the one you replied to and thats the point I'm trying to make. Everyone knows you cannot prove the existence or lack of existence of a god though I do think that Atheists belief in a lack of God is slightly better than believing in a God having created the universe because it is a simpler solution to the issue (Akum's razor). Though I strongly believe the all-knowing all-powerful Christian God does not exist because of the arguments I posed eariler. I believe if there were a God we would know nothing about it, nor would it expect us to know about it or care whether we praised it or spited it. I'm not an atheist because I cannot prove a God does not exist, but to me its the same as being agnostic about their being undetectable pizzas in the sky. I cannot say for certain they do not exist. And I really do not think the premise is much more absurd than the premise of a God
>>692497841 Yes, dude, what do you want, some candyland dreamworld straight out of the imagination of a toddler because that's what a Hollywood artist imprinted in them?
It all has a purpose. Humans are being refined. Refinement takes stress on the system, or there would be no incentive to advance.
Look, humans as they are now, are far from their potential. What makes you think creation is over? This is all a work in progress, and your childish complaints aren't even a footnote in the history of mankind in that blessed future of more perfected beings striving to be good co-creators.
>>692499080 >Are you saying you cannot prove a god exists? Far from it in fact! The proof is literally all around you, there is plenty of evidence. You may draw any conclusion you wish or like! I need not prove to you for instance that the sun is real, you may believe...or not! :)
>because all the evidence is either lousy or non-existent
This a common atheist fallacy. I could provide all the evidence in the world to you that OJ did it, you do not in turn get to say there is none. You do not by any means have to accept it, but you do not get to make the claim "there is none" you see? It just isn't true :)
Wouldn't you know it, a million atheists using the phrase "burden of proof" has actually never disproven anything! Go figure! :)
Sorry you were so badly mistaken about my defeat, would you like to try again?
>>692499182 >You almost make me want to put effort into this Ahhh, if only more atheists would, then more would realize the absurdity of what they've been saying for so long.
As far as your claim to the setting, not nearly specific enough for me to comment. But your mere other two claims are weak, at best. I will in fact put effort into your claims though and do a little digging, because that's how I get my beliefs. Not just, you know, throwing catchphrases out there to atheists. Thank you for pointing me in a good direction, I'm interested to see what I learn.
>>692500242 >Far from it in fact! The proof is literally all around you, there is plenty of evidence. You may draw any conclusion you wish or like! I need not prove to you for instance that the sun is real, you may believe...or not! :)
Just because things exist doesn't mean a deity created them. That was not an argument. If you think it was, then it was a lousy one.
As far as burden of proof goes, yes it disproves a great deal.
You're making a claim that a deity exists. Show some evidence to back your claim, or we simply dismiss the claim.
If I say I have a flying car, will you believe me? If I say I have a flying car that will make your soul live to eternity, and if you don't believe it you're going to burn in conscious torment for eternity, then will you believe it?
The more claims I make without evidence, the further from truth we get.
>>692500023 Kek I love that you came in here claiming the high ground because of science and your only response is basically 'god works in mysterious ways'. YOU were the one that claimed the universe was orderly and coherent. Then when I point out all the ways it's not you just write back 'Of course it's not perfect, why would God make it perfect'? You have absolutely no science backing up your claims and are clearly guided by emotion and, perhaps, a fear of the chaos and death this life offers.
>>692501022 Not the other guy but I am interested in this conversation. I love that your first question implies >other people believe in my religion, therefore its more likely that its true!
this is gunna be good. Also, he's not the only one. I actually do believe he in fact has an invisable pterodactlyl on his shoulder. Ive seen pictures of fossils and know that pterodactyls do or at least did in fact exist. If they did exist, there is a chance that they still might
>>692500311 There are things we can know, and there are things we cannot know.
We can know that the bible was written by men. We can know that the claims in it are outrageous and without proof.
The bible makes scientific claims about the nature of the world, the age of the world, the nature of death and physiology.
There are many claims in the bible that are later proven to be wrong by science. We can know that if the vast majority of biblical claims are wrong, then the the deity is not so much a deity- He is not omnipotent, or omniscient.
>>692499838 >I believe if there were a God we would know nothing about it, nor would it expect us to know about it or care whether we praised it or spited it.
I can't even begin to follow your way of thinking. I'm sorry, I did try. I honestly don't know what to say other than the reasons you feel strongly about God existing do have the same effect on me.
Believe it or not, I am very much not a troll but believe the existence of God to be an absolutely critical one to my existence. I will investigate any and every angle I hear of, why would I want to waste my time believing in something that isn't real?
If any atheist can convince me otherwise, I'm willing to listen. As for me, I like to go to the source and investigate the only physical proof we have, which are the texts of the bible. They are infinitely more reliable than any other religious text and suffice to say I'm satisfied. If you are not then you are free to do as you wish.
However do not claim that my beliefs are founded on an absurd belief in a spirit in the sky that I made up one day. 95% of 4chan won't be able to maturely respond to this. I'm expecting more from you.
>>692501246 No, you're wrong. The universe is fine, it's your feeble perceptions that are flawed, but you will be long dead before God's creation is finished, so you needn't worry about that, you pretentious fool.
You haven't made any valid points in any way. All you are doing is clinging to this idea of a Baptist, protestant, Christian God that you've made into a strawman.
Fuck you, you completely tunnel visioned troglodyte. Fight your strawmen all you want. I was trying to talk to a you like a man, but obviously you're just a kid.
All you dumb as fuck, pretentious little teenage atheists need to understand that Southern Baptist isn't the only religion. They're more of a fucking cult than anything else. Wake up, dumbfucks. You're fighting a strawman, easy mode, and never dreaming to touch the root of the matter because apparently you've failed to realize the difference between dogma and understanding.
>>692502142 I didn't avoid the question, I answered it to the best of my ability. And who said anything about Christianity? We're just treating the pterodactyl as a claim for you to refute, and one should be able to do easily.
And to answer your question, all I can account for are my own thoughts, so I started believing this approximately 20 minutes ago. I'm unsure of when others believed in this.
>>692502720 1) Your opinion only 2) thanks I'll look into it 4) You fail to mention the many that did come true, how sad 8) also something for me to look into, thanks! 3 &9) the whole crux of the bible rests on these, they are pretty important!
>>692485493 Don't believe in a deity but instead and endless pool of consciousness in which we go back too once our physical body ends, nothing happens because of a diety and it's decisions things just happen. Helps me understand how the world can be so fucked up everything is just RNG on a massive scale.
>>692501768 What I meant by the part you greentexted was that if there was a creator for the universe we would not be able to determine anything concrete about the creator. Organized religion like Christianity or historical religions like Greek Gods or the Egyptian Gods are very much fantasy. In the beginning religions used God's that lived on the tops of mountains, but once mountains were climbed and seas were crossed people claimed God's lived in the skies or the heavens. Religion has moved towards abstraction, as we unravel more about the universe. As anon said, people used to claim God made the sun rise each morning by physically moving it through our sky. The point I was trying to make though is if you follow a book that claims to have stories involving the creators of the universe then you are stepping into fantasy world. Unless you believe that the creator zips into our universe and speaks to people like the "Satanic Toaster Lady". And if you can't know your creator or know why or what may follow in your death, then why worry about it? Why believe at all or be firmly in belief that one can't exist?
The Bible is not "infinitely more reliable than any other religious text". Earth is 45 million years old, the bible is off by 45.999 million years in that regard. Do you believe literally in Genesis and Adam and Eve? Even the time frame of the great flood is historically off by about 5000 years with the nearest major world flooding event.
And as to >my beliefs are founded on an absurd belief in a spirit in the sky that I made up one day. 95% of 4chan won't be able to maturely respond to this. I'm expecting more from you.
It doesnt matter who made it up, or how many people believe in a book, that doesnt make it any more right. When you look at the history of religions in civilization they were used as tools to control people, religion and mysticism meant power in the early days and shamans were the original scam artists. Y should modern religion be any dif?
>>692503050 I'm talking about God, which transcends all mortal understanding. I'm not talking about some pigeon holed dogma of an idea. I'm talking about reality. Here and now. Science as religion and religion as science with the objective to find the truth.
I went through the phase you're going through as a teenager and I learned quickly that humankind's understand of the universe is fleeting, vague, and often entirely imaginative.
Somehow energy in all its states, exist, and modern science has no answers, and yet, intuitively most cultures have found the answer in a higher order beyond what we can sense. Well, the more we learn in science, the more we see the system is vastly more complex than we ever imagined. Molecules are actually made of atoms, and atoms, it turns out, are made of other yet more esoteric things. Conversely, the observable universe is gargantuan beyond the realm of imagination, but yet is dwarfed with what very likely exists beyond our ability to sense.
But to the point. You said you KNOW there is no God. That is objectively false.
>>692502142 Christianity is only a couple thousand years old. There are religions that have survived for tens of thousands of years such as the ancient egyptian and greek religions. Believing in something just because other people do and people have believed in it for awhile doesnt make your belief any truer. Like I said 3x in this thread, if you were born in Iraq you would just as strongly believe in Allah. If you were born in Egypt in 2100 BC you would believe in Amun with even stronger conviction. You're a pleb
>>692503735 You're just closing your mind because the truth makes you uncomfortable. You're still fighting your own straw-man and you've never even engaged me. Stay blind, for all I care. You want me to tell you God's thoughts, which is something only some goddamned lunatic would try to do. So, stay an idiot for all I care.
You have no idea whatsoever where the energy in the universe came from, and that is an objective scientific fact, and yet you place blind faith in an ideology that you not only don't understand, but can't comprehend, and defend your simulacrum like some lunatic religious zealot. Fuck you, dude, seriously. You're cancer.
>>692503750 >I'm talking about God, which transcends all mortal understanding
If this is true, then how can you know about it? And if it transcends mortal understanding, why do humans apply their understanding, and editing of the morals in the bible?
Why don't we approve of slavery? We have clearly edited the bible's ethics to suit our needs for a modern society.
Scientists used to invoke god when they came to something they didn't understand or were not able to solve. Now, we know we do not need to invoke god when we encounter something we do not understand. We need to simply work on the problem longer or admit we don't know.
Religious people want to make claims about why we are here, when to ask that question is sort of like asking "why is a rock?". It's simply not a valid question.
>>692504359 Listen son, you've got to wake up if you're going to discuss this with me. I'm not talking about Chrstianity, and I'm just going to start ignoring people who pick out shit from the Bible and act like they're even talking to me or on the same page. You're fighting your personal strawmen, not discussing theism.
In a search for the truth, you find God yourself, but most people can't understand that because they haven't looked yet.
>>692504150 >You're still fighting your own straw-man and you've never even engaged me Ok you must be a troll. I listed a number of things wrong with the universe in the hope of actually having a discussion and all you reply with is 'you expect me to actually address any scientific points?' 'God's plan is beyond knowing' and patronising bullshit like 'son/kid'. Get the fuck out of here.
>>692503750 >But to the point. You said you KNOW there is no God. That is objectively false.
A close examination of roman history and biblical claims does not make good evidence.
There were a few ancient miracles document decades after their occurence.
Constantine made christianity the official religion of Rome. The Roman empire was expansive at the time.
Christianity and becoming a christian is likely due to your immediate family, community as you would be a Hindu in a Hindu society, or a muslim in a muslim society. People you know and trust are christians, hence you become one.
>>692502968 >And who said anything about Christianity? Hahaha, I won't deal with trolls. You cannot honestly say that you won't make the comparison to a deity at a later point. Sorry!
>We're just treating the pterodactyl as a claim for you to refute Yep! Just as atheists constantly try and refute Christians. These are the questions I would ask!
>one should be able to do easily Very easily! >I started believing this approximately 20 minutes ago That's all I need to know! I cannot refute your invisible bird, sir. You are free to believe as you wish. However I know enough to confidently satisfy my own conscience about it.
Unfortunately, the correct answer is people have been believing in it for thousands of years! Sorry this game seems to be stumping you.
In the context of the creation of the universe and the evolution of life, it makes more sense to me to believe that there is a greater system outside of ours introducing orderly energy into ours.
God? A more advanced universe trying to guide us from self annihilation so we can eventually join when we're ready? Who knows, let's think about it.
but it makes a lot more sense that there is something on the other side of the glass if you will, than "Well the universe was just always here and then it exploded and stars formed, blah blah, and even though entropy is a law of physics, we can see order not only exist but advance in life.
It's like people lose sight of the forest for all the trees.
>>692485493 I can proof to you that any specific deity (Abrahamic Gods, mostly any Hindu gods, greek/egypt mythology, etc.) doesn't exist, but it's by definition impossible to proof the concept of a non-specific deity.
What you speak of is called Weak Agnosticism. It sounds like a derogatory term, but it actually just implies that you are not heated in discussions about this, rather than content with the fact that there is no way of knowing for sure and that you would allow yourself to be convinced by proof of a strong enough nature to believe that there is a god or gods. If the proof is strong enough to convince you. This is the box i usually put myself in.
>>692504447 >Eagerness to disprove me Dude, that's the point of a thread. Just type up a list of questions. Of course we're going to make our counters to your implications on each post, thats the point of the conversation.
>Your last question Implies a book adds authenticity to a belief. There are thousands of sources on the historical and scientific inaccuracies of all the bible and other religious texts. The counter is the same. Followers will say the stories which are proven inaccurate as symbolic.
>>692505015 >I know enough to confidently satisfy my own conscience about it
So if there's not a book, and other people don't believe it or other people haven't believed in it for a long period of time, then in your mind it doesnt exist. Well, nobody can argue that you complicate things. I take it you believe in all the major religions then?
>>692505679 >to the source of all the energy and matter of the universe.
OK, are you making a claim that there is an energy source? I'm confused. If you're making a claim there is an energy source, then you're making a claim that scientists "have yet to come close to a good guess as to the source of the energy" - then it is more baseless claims.
>>692492628 I am agnostic and I am not angered or annoyed... I just don't care. I don't feel nor see the presence of an almighty god... And even if I did, well that doesn't close the point because you need faith to keep on practicing. I also find certainly risky the idea of devoting one's life to an uncertain idea...
>>692505015 This has nothing to do with god(s), it has to do with making unfalsifiable claims. The whole point of the "game" is to try to falsify a proposition that is ultimately unfalsifiable. There is no way you can prove that pterodactyl doesn't exist. You were originally complaining about atheists saying that you have to prove god(s) does exist instead of the other way around, but when it comes to such a facile lie like mine you can't even disprove that, only sufficiently justify to yourself it doesn't exist. Face it, you had a stupid idea.
>>692490233 >The source of all the energy in the universe can not be explained in any coherent way by modern science. The best it can do is "It was always there" or "It was introduced from an even larger system" Kek, but believing in a fairy that snaped a finger and created all you see is more coherent?
>>692506236 You and every part of you (whether you are aware of it or not) and everything else in the universe is made of energy in various states.
Modern science has no possible explanation as to the presence of the energy. "It was always there" is a common faith belief.
Well, WHAT exactly, was always there? Some people see God on the other side of that glass. Maybe God has a whole powerstation full of universes Big Banging in unison driving some trans universal engine for all you know.
There is much we don't know, but I see a lot of order in this system which leads me to the impression that there is something more orderly and coherent and energetic on the other side, not less so.
>>692506350 >How do you account for all the energy in the universe? Simple question.
Simple answer: We can know that religion does not accurately account for any energy sources, or the claims they make are erroneous.
What the hell are you talking about anyway? "all the energy in the universe? You're trying to get me to believe that there is a source of energy first, then trying to get me to believe that someone made it. It's two claims in one, sort of like "jesus loves me".
>>692490233 >The source of all the energy in the universe can not be explained in any coherent way by modern science. The best it can do is "It was always there" or "It was introduced from an even larger system"
Why don't both those criticisms equally apply to the view that deities created the universe? I mean, wasn't God always there?
>>692506863 I'm saying that the belief in God is just as valid scientifically as the belief that "Energy was just there floating around until it exploded"
And again you seem absurdly fixated on the false dichotomy between science and religion. You do understand that alchemists and witch doctors are the roots of our modern development of science, right? Science isn't a fortress on a hill, it's a construct that changes as our understanding grows.
Religion doesn't have to be dogma, it can be exactly like science in so far as it can provide logical understanding of philosophical issues.
And conversely, science is sometimes simply dogma, and historically has been mostly just that, but that only becomes apparent generations later.
>>692507013 But just because we dont know doesnt mean 'it must be god'. There are endless things we didnt know in our history, til scientists figured them out. If we just assumed 'God' is the answer to everything we'd still be dancing to make it rain.
>>692507013 >Faith belief No, faith is based on no proof, you only believe because you feel the need to do so in some way or the other, the universe's energy having been always there is not a belief, it's a conclusion reached over decades of studying deep space frecuencies and waves. Also, the universe is far away from having order, it's always in a state of fluctuation from order to chaos but our lifespans are too freaking short to even be aware of that.
I think now you're starting to wake up. The fact is that atheistic zealots are just spouting blind dogma as much as some religious zealot cult leader saying god told him to poison the punch.
The fact is that no rational scientific theory accounts for the origin of energy, so it could just as well be God, and frankly, it makes more sense considering how much we don't know. As our understanding grows, maybe we'll be able to get closer to defining or understanding God beyond where we are now, but as it stands, secular or religious, to have a real opinion requires faith.
>>692507645 >>>You and every part of you (whether you are aware of it or not) and everything else in the universe is made of energy in various states. >That is a wild baseless claim. Please present some evidence of your claim, because I don't understand the claim without theory of the claim.
Matter can be converted to energy. E.g., read up on how these things work:
>>692507645 Goddamnit dude, I'm getting tired of your grade school level bullshit. Everything in the universe is energy in different states. Fuck, dude, get with the program. It's really like you're just trolling.
>>692508197 >it makes more sense considering how much we don't know.
It literally makes much less sense. Instead of energy existing, it posits a sentient omnipotent ghostly, usually personal, entity that created it. There is no reason to posit that. We know energy exists. It's unreasonable and baseless to ascribe its origin to sentient deities.
>>692485493 Define God. As in is it just part of the system that humans are unable to understand or is it an omnipotent being that greated all or just some guys on top of a mountain who throw some "magic" around? Or is it somenthing entirely different?
>>692508197 >Energy must have an origin >It was God What was the origin of God? inb4 he was always there. Faith in a god to explain the creation of things doesnt make any sense to me. Why do you think things must have been created? Why couldnt they always have been?
Also in reading through the text, a lot of people don't seem to actually understand physics/energy/matter and the conversation is degrading. Instead of typing a book explanation on how things work I'm just gonna go eat dinner. it was a fun thread
>>692485493 I can't prove that there isn't a deity. I can disprove a few notions
Let God be all powerful Let God be all good Total power is directly related to total freedom There exists a universal set. Within this set lies every thing we know. Good is a subset of this set Evil is a subset of this set The union of good and evil does not necessarily exist If the ability to be all powerful allows total freedom then God's domain is the universal set Therefore God cannot be all good if he is all powerful
If God is all good then his domain is the set of good If God is all good then his domain is not whatever is outside of good Therefore God cannot be all powerful if he is all good
>>692508289 > So you believe it just materialized out of nowhere?
Not exactly; just that it didn't need to be caused. Read up on how we know time is a feature of the observable universe and not its antecedent. Time itself is only about 15 billion years old. The fact that that's true means your normal temporal understanding of cause and effect can not apply to the origin of the universe.
>>692508289 It doesn't have to be logical to be true because our logic, our common sense is built upon us experiencing everyday phenomenons and watching their outcomes. Tell someone from the 16th century that lightning is no god's wrath and that you can capture it within a glass sphere and he won't believe you because it's "illogical".
If you need a post removed click on it's [Report] button and follow the instruction.
If you like this website please support us by donating with Bitcoins at 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that RandomArchive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.