>athiests will try to argue against this
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.
>athiests will try to argue against this
bump
of course god exists
HATERS WILL SAY ITS PHOTOPSHOP
Anyone who says that there is no chance of god existing is an idiot. But anyone who believes in any religion that currently exists is a bigger idiot.
>>697634084
You are willingly choosing to believe in something that can not be proven to exist.
If I based my life around the existence of Planet Nine and the pursuit to uncovering it's mysteries I would be labeled an insane person even though there is strong physical evidence of it's existence.
Putting your life in the hands of something you have no proof exists is insane. Choosing not to believe is rational.
>responding to bait
>>697634084
That's not how logic works.
>>697634084
>implying it is the job of everyone else to disprove your random bullshit and not your job to prove it right
>>697634084
Christians will say that no one can prove the existence of magical faeries, and they're right, but I say no one can disprove that magical faeries exist
>>697634317
>>697634502
>>697634598
>>697634859
>>697634911
>>697635042
>>697635082
>>697635093
TROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAALL
>>697634084
I'm a Christian, and I'd argue against that. First, it entirely depends on your definition of proof. If by proof you mean philosophical argument proofs, then it's false: logical arguments have been made that prove the existence of God. If by proof you mean empirical evidence, then you're asking for natural evidence of the supernatural, a contradiction in terms.
>>697634084
hey kid you ever hear about evolution?
>>697634084
You mad white boy? Then I will prescribe you Xanax. You see sometimes we are angry for reasons we no longer remember and have the hatred boil up inside us. This is not healthy and rest assured you will not have to keep ingesting it it will be only temporarily. I will make you an appointment with our psychologist and she will keep track of your progress. Eat healthy a lot of fruits you know how they say an apple a day keeps the doctor away. Avoid stressful situations when you can. Take 2 pills one in the morning at diner and one at evening at diner with a big glass of water.
Side effects include:
Being forgetful
changes in patterns and rhythms of speech
clumsiness or unsteadiness
difficulty with coordination
discouragement
drowsiness
feeling sad or empty
irritability
lack of appetite
lightheadedness
loss of interest or pleasure
relaxed and calm
shakiness and unsteady walk
sleepiness or unusual drowsiness
slurred speech
tiredness
trouble concentrating
trouble in speaking
trouble performing routine tasks
trouble sleeping
unsteadiness trembling
or other problems with muscle control or coordination
unusual tiredness or weakness call me if you experience any of these.
I will see you again next tuesday at 10am or 7pm whatever fits you best. Have a pleasant day sir.
>>697634084
In genesis god created days before he created earth or the sun
Checkmate
>>697635344
Kill yourself. Life is meaningless. You're not being autistic or a higher purpose it's just regular autism
>>697635826
Where I live suicide is against the law
The last guy got shot by police for trying to kill himself
>>697635826
I'm okay that neckbeards think this way. Imagine my sense of superiority when 'debating' with people who can't even define their terms.
jesus is kewl
>>697634084
pointless
>>697636028
I successful enough in my own life that I'm happy about it. And I don't believe in some bullshit deity. I have enough brain power and social skills to decide what I want to do with my life and be happy with it. Unlike christianfags
>>697634084
If this is the only argument a christian has after thousands of years of technolgical advancements
I feel really bad for their patheticness
At least we have evolution and carbon dating and atom splicing and artificial black holes
>>697634084
"Christians will say theres no way to disprove god, but if you tell them that, by using that logic, Harry Potter can be real, they freak the fuck out"
>>697634084
its true both ways. you cant prove theres a god as much as you cant prove that there isnt either. moot statement
Religious people can't even live their lives without desperately clinging to higher meaning. The universe is incredible and grand. You are insignificant, get over it and live your life. Worrying about religion is a waste of time, emotions, and resources.
>>697634084
its not how it works.....its is prove of existance or prove of non existance...whoever says the opposite is a retard
>>697634084
In theory it can be disproved, however that would require knowing everything about everything and seeing that there is no room for a god.
Needless to say we are nowhere near that point.
It doesn't make sense if there was a big bang how did it start with our god? like i think there are plenty of proofs of god. But ateists can't disprove god. They aeee laughable
>>697636318
MFW talking to an atheist dipshit like you.
>>697634084
that's not an argument though.
The bible is a good evidence of god
>>697636463
Are you as stupid as you seem?
>>697636815
It is, it is an argument against gnosticism in general.
>>697634084
Of course anon ! Faith alone proves anything.
Blessed be Jesus.
>>697636854
I predicted this comment
I must be god
>>697636771
You're too stupid to properly form a sentence so why should you be able to tell others about your opinion and be right? Get your life together kid
>>697634084
Prove anything doesn't exist.
>>697636623
But that's wrong. And doesn't make a good life. It's nihilism. Most people who think that way are depressives who kill themselves after eating a thousand AIDS-infested loads of cum.
>>697634084
I'm an atheist and I agree with this. See, we can get along.
>>697636977
Quitter
>>697636912
I ask because you think that natural science can tell us anything about the existence of anything outside of nature, which is, I'm sure you'll agree, dumb as fuck.
>>697636977
>we can get along
except for the part where Christians will say youre gonna burn in hell for not believing in god
>>697634084
>I can't prove my point right
>But you can't prove me wrong neither! Nanabooboo!
The burden of proof is on the people making the claim, retard. Atheists don't have to disprove that God exists because there's just as much evidence either way. But since religious people want to claim God exists, they are the ones required to prove it, because if they don't give any proof then neither do atheists. You can't prove it either way. It's just what you believe, you b8lord.
>>697634084
"HUE HUE burdelun uv proef is on teh 1 making klaim"
>Accepts meriad of things that cannot be directly observed (higs boson, gravity)
>>697637098
Special snowflake detected.
>>697636852
>no bait
>>697634084
in order to disprove you require proof to refute
>>697634084
You can not disprove you are not a faggot
that's some backwards ass logic. the flying spaghetti monster must be in my kitchen right now because no one can prove that it's not. makes a lot of fucking sense.
>>697637098
Actually, quite seriously, I've had more Christians come up to me after learning of my atheism and try to "save" me. It's a little annoying, but I honestly find it endearing that they cared enough to be concerned. I've never had someone cast me out like that in real life.
That's not how things are proven
>This baseball has thoughts
>There's no way to prove it
>there's no way to disprove it
>replying to this meme
>>697634084
agnostic here, burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. That being said I'm willing to believe a god may exist but the chance that it is a christian god is pretty damn low.
>>697636811
>>697636854
Mmmm so quick to the ad hominems.
>you know you're winning when...
My job here is done.
>>697637120
The problem with that is that atheists are materialists, and so will not accept any proof for spiritual things that is not material.
That is, their conclusion is the same as their premise: There can be nothing outside nature, and you must give natural proofs if you say there is, because nature is all there is.
Atheists simply beg the question.
>>697637300
Come to the bible belt south
They will run you out with pitchforks and torches
>>697637149
butthurt jesus lover detected
>>697635344
> If by proof you mean philosophical argument proofs, then it's false
If by philosophical argument you mean abject solipsism and logical fallacies.
>>697636977
Check'd
>>697637120
Lol, didn't even need to read the replies to know this dumb shit was there. I suppose atheists would be the ones to determine how much evidence constitutes proof when it comes to God. Ofcourse they'll keep raising that bar, even if you offer any. Any evidence you bring to the table will be mis-attributed to anything other than God. Witnesses will be called liars, crowds that see miracles will be called victims of mass-hysteria.
>>697637300
that would be even more annoying then them just telling me Im going to hell
>>697636928
I'm 30, I'm very good with sentences you know. All it is that existance could not be real unless there is a god. Atheists need to have purdon of proof, they cannot disprove god.
>>697637470
Says the guy who could never respond to the first post I mad but only engaged in ad homs. kek
>Your job here is done. You're fired.
>>697634084
can you prove you're not a massive faggot? no, you can't
-the end
>>697634084
If you define your god by the things that we cant explain yet then your god is an ever diminishing concept. science will make your god irelevant wether it exists or not
>>697634084
fucking stupid. You make the claim, its on you to prove that shit.
>>697634084
Don`t know why it have to be a god or even human like. The origin of life can be impossible to explain for us or don't really have a reason.
Either way, thinking that yout religion got the proof is stupid. It's was just invented by mans who didn't know what we know today and it only purpose had always been control the population. In Spain was used by that purpose 40 years ago and is used by the so called isis to pursuit their own interests.
>>697637494
I lived in Alabama, and this is false.
>>697634084
That statement is more or less correct.
Then again, it also applies to every fictional character you can imagine. And no sane man believes in those.
It's not that I'm saying that God cannot exist or that I know for certain he does not, but I will say that it is very likely that he doesn't exist, given that he violates everything we know about the universe thus far and we have no evidence that he's even there. In light of this, I think it's fair to take the provisional viewpoint that god(s) do(es) not exist.
a flying taco monkey cant be proven false either... u believe in that?
>>697637066
It tells us what existed before us
It tells us that the earth is millions of years old and not thousands
It tells us dinosaurs existed before men in biblical times even had the technology to know
It tells us that the sun is the center of our galaxy and not the earth being the center of the universe
Christians 0
Everybody else 666
›"I rode into work today on a griffon"
›"prove it"
›"no, you need to disprove it"
›Christian logic
When you assert that God exists, you are making a positive claim. It is up to the person making the positive claim to prove it. That's logic. This is why, in our justice system, the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. He is not expected to prove his innocence.
>>697637598
>crowds that see miracles
Oh, are you talking about the sun dancing around in the sky? Let me laugh harder.
>>697634084
You can swap God out with anything and make the same argument. I will let TAA take it away from here... https://youtu.be/wFk83C2awyA?t=1m1s
>>697637688
I LIVE in alabama and I'm fucking telling you that it's true
There is just as much chance of an invisible spagetti monster being our true diety or all your dragon dildos coming to life every time you leave the room to chat shit about politics and junk. You shouldn't believe in something just because it can't be dissaproved.
>>697637475
Except the natural world is not confined to our universe, else what was the prime cause? That would be like a rock pushing itself.
>>697637635
>I mad
>>697637753
Ok but miracles are real and proofen
>>697635173
I mean hey, it's still fun to pick apart the logic. Call it a troll if you want. So be it.
>>697637514
"They made me feel bad about being atheist."
>>697637838
Athists are turds
>>697637565
That's the opposite, though, dumbfuck.
Lrn to logic.
>>697637603
Only if they were insistent about it. Everytime it's happened they just make their peace once and I tell them I'm not interested and it's the end of that.
Yeah, like I said, it is annoying and even a little awkward, but I know they only mean well, and that's better than blind hate.
>>697637635
Mmmm yes more ad hominems please. I love to win.
>>697637804
You shouldn't deny it either, you should say you don't know, or cannot know. Claiming that something absolutely does not and cannot exist is just as bad.
>>697637619
>All it is that existance could not be real unless there is a god
Not true
If god can create himself out of nothing then in theory anything else can
I believe the universe is infinite, no beginning or end
>>697637803
You're a hysterical retard, friend.
I lived in and around Birmingham for 3 years, and no one gave a flying fuck what I believed. One girl said she would pray for me. No one tried to banish me.
>>697637785
>TAA
he's not wrong, he's still a faggot tho
>>697637844
Miracles would imply that your faith had something to with what happened wich can not be proven the word your looking for is anomaly
>>697635344
>then you're asking for natural evidence of the supernatural, a contradiction in terms
Isn't christianism, of all religions, pretty much built on natural, visible manifestatioms of teh supernatural?
>>697637830
Ah, but if you posit a multiverse, you haven't solved that problem but only kicked it down the road.
>ITT: 16 year old edgelords & christfags argue childishly about well-established concepts
OP: Russel's Teapot
Christfags: Theosophy
Edgelords: Kill yourselves
>>697637803
I definitely believe that there are some parts of the country that would have a lot bigger a problem with my atheism than where I live, don't worry. That's why I don't live in the bible belt south
>>697637300
I'm a Christian and there is a lot of this religion that is wishy-washy but if anything I'm learning some decent life skill and becoming a better person. Heaven or not this religion has helped me grow as a human being. You do you man and I'll do me. No hard feeling
>>697634084
Science VS Religion
https://clyp.it/5pbxdfqb
Just made this for a different thread.
>>697634084
>no one can disprove that god exists
i'm atheist and i agree with that.
Burden of proof.
SAY IT IN RED
"God exists"
THIS SHOULD BE EASY
>>697634084
Well you're right, you can't disprove it. But who gives a shit. Can't disprove a lot of things, doesn't mean you should base your life around it.
>>697638042
FYI, an ad hom is when you call someone a name rather than address his argument
You made no argument
I am calling you a name solely to let you know of my contempt for your sub-average intelligence.
Ad hom would not be against you to you; it would be to others to tell them to dismiss you.
The more you know TM
>shifting the burden of proof
>literally posts advert for upcoming christian film
>being this stupid
>>697637098
Specifically, THEIR god. Over 40,000 religions in the world, and they honestly believe that they just happened to be born into the right one.
YOU'RE JUST THAT SPECIAL!!
>>697634084
this thread again
>>697637918
they dont make me feel bad at all. its hilarious that adults believe in magic like that. make sure you whisper to yourself tonight of all the things you want in life so god can use his magic powers and make it all happen for you! AMEN!
>>697638180
It suggests that the supernatural intersects with the natural, not that they are synonymous.
>>697634084
>no one can disprove that god exists
Kek you have to prove he exists before you can disprove he exists.
>>697638205
Ah yeah, the infinite regression thing. First of, if god cannot create himself, neither can the universe. All events need a cause. In our universe that is. Why couldn't a parallel universe have different natural laws that would allow for such a thing?
>>697637619
>I'm very good with sentences you know. >All it is that existance could not be real unless there is a God
Bait
>>697638489
That one's already been made.
>>697634084
the kid is an agnostic then?
>>697638259
>You do you man and I'll do me.
Fucking Christians, telling us what to do!!
If you really believe that death leads to eternal bliss, then why are you wearing a seatbelt?
>>697638259
Would you say you need your religion to learn theese very basic life concepts though? i mean all it is is a convoluded story that basicaly is saying being nice to eachother howcome you need religion to teach you this isnt it just common sense stuff
>>697638009
>that's better than blind hate.
not really. its them seeing a problem with you and thinking they can change it to make your life like theirs. its extremely rude and insulting
>>697638697
Lol
>>697638578
I was born into the richest country in human history. I guess that is also impossible.
>>697638697
Autistic*
>>697634084
>this is green text
>>697638578
Yeah, cause no two religions can ever revere the same deity. And besides, if you're relying on large numbers; 1.8 billion people can't be wrong right? Ofcourse they can.
>>697638481
>Ad hom would not be against you to you
No.
>ad ho·mi·nem
>(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
today you learned
>>697634084
We cant disprove a god, but can we all agree the bible is 100% complete shit written by man? a "god" might be out there, but if all of Christianity is true, pretty much every person on earth is going to hell
>>697638615
You sound upset. Even a little teary.
>>697638743
Kek g8 b8 nig
>>697634084
The burden of proof lies on the person who makes the claim.
So if nobody mentions it then we can avoid these cancerous arguments.
>>697638604
WHY WON'T ATHEISTS JUST NOT ATHEIZE?
>>697638918
This. This is gold.
>>697638783
>its extremely rude and insulting
How? If, as the other guy says, they are willing to shut up about it...
>>697638936
no, I have fun making jokes about Christians.
try harder
>>697638781
No. Empathy and what you would consider "common sense" is largely learned and plenty of species get by on entirely different systems.
>>697639022
Why won't Christians jihad themselves for the Lord
Are you going to let the Muslims win?
>>697638783
I don't disagree with you, but do you really think attempted appropriation is worse than yelling and screaming for thr same reasons?
I know it's insulting, but they're just doing what they've been trained to do. They mean no harm, in fact they mean good, by it, so that's how I choose to take it.
>>697638669
I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I have noticed that atheists are often willing to posit fantastic hypotheses about nature that cannot be proved.
Someone like Aquinas might say: There is a parallel universe with different natural laws that would allow for a thing creating itself. And this is what we call God.
>>697634859
pick a side dumbass. you sound stupid
>>697638918
Yes i'd say that's pretty accurate.
>>697639067
so if I came up to you and said "youre hideously ugly, can I give you a make over to make you look better?" and then when you said no, I said ok and walk away, that wouldnt be insulting to you at all?
E
>>697634084
Even if god exists, he doesn't care about a filthy degenerate scum fucktard like u anon.
>>697634084
Isn't this getting boring by now?
>>697638882
You just repeated what I said, nigger.
You had no position.
Not every insult is ad hom. Ad hom is "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"
>>697638781
You ever talk to a kid?
They're pieces of shit and you basically need to bully them into being good. Religion is just that but for adults.
>inb4 maybe you can just be a good person
nobody actually is, they're either threatened with hellfire or the society they live in.
>>697638781
There are far more lessons than that to learn from any religion not just Christianity. I could just google "how to be a better person" but instead I choose to go to church and learn it. That's the difference between us. I have a lot of friends there that are like family to me and it's a great community. Atleast my church is. Show up drunk high whatever they are just glad to see you try and don't cram religion down anyone's throat and don't force or scare people to believe in the end it is your choice to believe or not
>>697638980
Claiming that something cannot and does not exist is just as fallacious. When one cannot answer a question, one declines to answer. Agnosticism is the only truly valid point of view.
>>697639085
Most theorists of human behavior would suggest that is because of your deep-seated worries about your own inferiority. Perhaps your need to attack Christians is a way of salving your guilty conscience.
>>697638341
as a counter point
science accepts when it has(and will) make mistakes
where as religion is dogmatic
>>697639155
I'm hoping to join them to kill atheists.
>>697639416
>reading is hard
>>697634084
well i can. :)
>>697639093
Yeah im talking about humans, and what im saying is you can get all the morals that religion teaches you by watching humanity work and realiziing hmm.. maybe i shouldnt be knob gobbler
>>697639212
Oh, yeah I thought I was replying to an atheist. The Thomas Aquinas quote sums up what I wanted to say. Not all universes have to function by the laws ruling in our own universe.
>>697637968
>Lrn to logic
I once had a pastor arguing at my universe take that route. After 45 minutes of him trying to trap me within a worthless philosophical framework based on metaphysics, he simply states, angrily "intelligence therefore God, and God therefore intelligence! That argument would hold up in any philosophy course!"
>>697637475
But that's entirely true. Even if there was a God or an afterlife, then those would be naturally occurring things, there is only the natural as nature is those things that occur naturally. If there was a God or an afterlife that function as a part of existence, then they are naturally occurring phenomena and thus part of nature.
>>697639591
You probably think dogma is a bad word.
Dogma means philosophical tenet. All worldviews have these.
>>697635344
You're talking about the ontological, cosmological, moral, and teleological arguments for God?
If so, you're mistaken by thinking that they're rock solid philosophical proofs of God.
I gotta leave pretty soon, but this guy does a pretty good job of explaining why these arguments are flawed.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3IOkNR8_9gpQa5teO1xQANB-3MiY17uk
>>697634084
Tbh who gives a fuck there's more important shit to worry about...wait I am on b afterall and fat neckbeards don't have anything better to do
>>697634084
This movie looks like cancer
>>697634084
No retard lol. Atheists just say the same applies to unicorns and faeries, and if you don't believe in unicorns and faeries you shouldn't believe in god either.
>>697635344
>>697639675
It is for you, yes.
>>697638856
Did I say impossible? No, it's just highly unlikely. At least you can be reasonably certain that you actually DID get born into the richest country on earth. Congrats on your genuine good fortune.
>>697639507
In a universal sort of sense where you aren't defining god by any of the personality and behavioural traits attributed to it by any particular religion, and define it as 'creator' only, yes.
The problem with religious argument regarding god is that they are very fond of arguing for generic creator and then bolting on their specific preferred manifestation of that creator as the same thing.
The only creator theology I respect from a logic standpoint is deism, ie, creator that created and hasn't interfered since.
>>697639570
no, its like making fun of someone for saying something stupid. its just stupid and I find it funny.
I know what you mean though, its just not whats happening in this case. it baffles me that people are stupid enough to still believe in god. or at least, the christian god.
>>697634084
>Needing evidence against something before evidence for that thing exists
If you don't have for something, just admit it and move the fuck on. Don't try to pin the burden of proof on the person who's not making a positive claim.
>>697639877
It is a bad thing if you thing dogmatically.
What you're staying is simply the Latin translation. That's called being disingenuous. The inherent dogmatism associated with Christianity is a bad thing, make no mistake.
Atheists do not believe in god. They don't "believe there is no god" as that would be hypocritical. Belief without proof goes against the concept of atheism. The phrase "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable.
I don't know if there's any god like being or creator. Neither do any of you. "Knowing" because you "feel it" doesn't count no matter how much you want it to. You don't know. Neither do I. Move on.
>>697639737
Except people are NOT going to pick those morals up without being taught by other people. Wild children for example will largely lack empathy. Also cultures like the Mongol empire were dicks just fine, couldn't really learn how to be a decent person if you grew up there.
>>697640004
>replying to the correct post is hard
>>697635344
No, no they haven't. Lol. Philosophical arguments for gods existence have been proposed and they all fail, because they're logically inconsistent. No sound argument for gods existence has ever been produce, nor will they. Logical paradoxes demonstrating the fact that certain definitions of god (such as the Christian one, which ascribes god with the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence) cannot exist on the other hand have been produced by a variety of figures going back as far as Epicurus.
>>697634084
>athiests will try to argue against this
just look at the facts niggers exist he wouldnt make niggers everyone in the bible was white , so either god is real or niggers are real pick one
>>697639419
Idk i was raised by a shity rapey family and bullied half to death in a christian school and without religion i looked at the pain inflicted on me and thought why would i do that to another whilst knowing what it feels like. This prooves religious people are incapable of simple logical deductions. Religion does not teach you morals experiences do.
>>697639591
Science operates on the dogma that reality is rational.
>>697634502
>>697639797
I don't pretend that everyone who speaks on my side is a genius. But there is a brilliant argument to be made that thinking itself (if there is such a thing) proves that there is a supernatural. The idea, in brief, is that thinking requires us to see it as something that is not merely a biological function, producing irrational by-products from purely physical inputs, because if that is our view of thinking, that view is itself merely the irrational by-product of a purely physical system, and as such has no claim to make on us. Even to argue against thought as anything more than a few squirts of hormones producing the false, physical sensation of truth requires the arguer to at least bracket applying his own theory to itself.
ITT: God exists in the material plane
ITT: The only plane that exists, is this material plane
ITT: A bunch of fucking kids.
>>697634084
That's like telling people you have an imaginary friend that only comes alive when no one is looking. Sure, no one can disprove it, but it would be retarded of them to believe you.
>>697639843
But that's not what religion claims at all. And by starting with the premise (all there is is nature) that gets you to a conclusion (there is no supernature) which merely repeats the premise, all you are doing is circular reasoning.
>>697640297
You can go further than just "I don't know". "I think it's totally ridiculous, like believing in fairies" is totally fine, since both fairies and God have the same amount of evidence for their existence."
I'm no asserting that God doesn't exist, just that the idea of believing in a God is stupid because I have no reason to do so.
>>697640504
No, it operates on the premise that the best place t look for evidence of natural phenomena is within the realm of the natural. If you disagree with this, you're a fucking idiot, as is evident just from a basic level of knowledge about significant occurrences of the last 300 years of humna history, or even the last 10. Lol
>>697639898
You err if you think that because people challenge arguments in philosophy that that means there aren't logical proofs being made.
It's a bit like when people say "Darwinism is only a theory."
>>697640671
this.
the way to disprove god is just to use common sense
>>697634084
you cant disprove theres a giant teapot orbiting the sun
get fucking #rekt christfags
>2016
>believing in god(s)
>ishygddt
I consider myself an atheist.
It has very little to do with the existence of god and more to do with appreciating all things as they are. If god exists, then god is self evident in all things, I am open to this. In fact, I often say that my word for "god" is "reality"...
We humans get so constipated over differences in words, definitions, labels, and rituals. I believe that all perceivable things exist in a single unified field. all differences are negligible to my mind.
when talking religion of philosophy I like to contemplate the following:
"The finger which points to the moon is not the moon itself"
meaning, anything we say about the profound mysteries of life are not the profound mysteries themselves. Allow all things to be. Observe. Drop all separation, be the ever alert master.
Alder's razor, or Newtons flaming Lazer sword states that if something can not be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate. Debating religion is pointless.
>>697640210
I don't doubt that you are baffled.
If God exists and made everyone in His image, why do people have genetic disorders?
>>697640224
When atheists put a negative connotation on a word, it doesn't change its denotation.
All worldviews are dogmatic.
>>697640844
Darwinism is only a theory that's how science works... Just like the Big Bang theory... No matter how much evidence you have you can't prove it and no matter how much evidence I have I can't disprove it.
This should be called "highschool debate exam"
Lrn2 Logical Fallacies fags.
A general rule is that people are expected to prove that something exists, not prove that something does not exist.
>>697634084
>>697640384
Not understanding that I was directing you back to the first post you spastically attacked.
>>697640537
Actually, there isn't, you're a fucking retard. If a person is brain damaged, their capacity to think is permanently altered, proving that thought is a physically rooted phenomena. The fact that this would imply outcomes of thought are deterministic is irrelevant. That just means that yes, the laws of physics determine potential outcomes of thought processes. There may be billions of variables and potential outcomes, however this does not change the fact that those outcomes are predetermined by physical processes.
>>697636463
>At least we have evolution and carbon dating and atom splicing and artificial black holes
>ARTIFICIAL BLACK HOLES
>>697640440
Ha ha. No. No one has disproved, for example, Aquinas' Prime Mover argument. They have disagreed with it, but it is still debated because it is still brilliant.
>>697636852
>this is proof that harry potter exists
fucking retards
>muh 2000 year old book that was written down by people recounting what a bunch of illiterate sandniggers had to say about shit they dont understand is undeniable proof that there is a deity
1/10 made me reply
>>697634084
thats why i am agnostic,
unrelated but also fight racism
we need you.!.! no matter which religion or nationality you have, also fuck radical islam (no offence fellow muslim people) and trump
>>697640504
science is theory based on observable, testable, and repeatable findings. Science does not 'believe' anything to be particularly 'true'. It is about systems we have identified and tested with predictable results. If a given theory is proven false by new findings, the new findings are tested to ensure authenticity, then new theory becomes the standard until such time as it is proven incorrect in future. Science is a fluid thing. When systems are identified to be consistent, we can then implement them to break new ground, predict future outcomes, develop a better understanding of how things appear to consistently operate.
>>697640999
Check'd and because niggers
>>697640779
So, what does that mean in relation to what I said?
What I am saying is that (most) scientific minded people operate on the premise that reality is rational. A premise that is not questioned or explained is a dogma.
You are criticising dogmatic behavior, I am saying that the same applies to science and the people who believe in it.
Yes, believe, because it's a dogmatic belief, just like religion is.
>>697640999
Because your papers did drugs.
>>697641124
What is proof?
>>697641471
What?
>>697641175
>I was directing you back to the first post
Then you should say that.
>the first post you spastically attacked
I never replied to that post. Here is the initial post for reference: >>697637470
>See how linking works?
>>697641119
Clearly you missed the point. You are using the term "theory" as though it means "guess". The term "theory" means something that has been vigorously tested hundreds of thousands of times for which there is so much evidence a person educated in the topic can make consistent predictions with a 99.99% degree of accuracy. The problem here is that you don't know what "theory" means.
>>697641502
Providing sound, indisputable evidence
>>697641248
http://www.tnetimes.com/article/632-mind-outside-brain-bruce-king-karl-pribram-neurosurgeon-stanislav-grof-/
>>697640537
You're just talking about the so called "hard problem of consciousness" now, no? What's more interesting than "is my thinking linked to a higher being?" which we have no reason to believe, is "why do my thoughts and experiences have a subjective quality unique to me?"
There is no reason to believe this is supernatural, and personally I ascribe to the Buddhist ideas of "non-self" which is basically the opposite of possessing a soul. Simply sit down and turn your consciousness into itself, and realize that there is actually nothing there.
>>697641248
>the laws of physics determine potential outcomes of thought processes
>those outcomes are predetermined by physical processes
So what you just wrote is the blind, irrational by-product of purely material processes that lack any intentionality.
Ah, well then it must be true. LOL
>>697641502
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
>>697641591
he says your papers did drugs
you dont mean to say that your papers never did drugs?
>>697641634
And what would count as evidence?
>>697640156
I have to agree with your point on the generic creator being substituted for the personal god of choice. It's why I never really argue for the existence of the christian god in particular. From a rational perspective, that's where it ends. How many creators there are, if they interfere with humanity, if those creators are gods... I can't give a sound answer to any of those questions. But I like Jesus and the thought of a God watching over me like an immortal third parent is appealing to me, so I choose to believe. I cannot prove that though, I'm merely filling in the blank creator with something I find appealing... So I won't defend and propagate it as truth or judge anyone for holding different beliefs.
>>697640699
but it's physically impossible for there to be something outside of nature. If something was unnatural it would have to occur outside of nature, and existing is property of nature. If the "supernatural" things naturally occur (ie EXIST) then they are a part of nature.
>>697635826
This guy knows what he's talking about. There is no god, we are all going to die alone or even worse, if someone ever does find somebody and has a healthy relationship. They will watch each other die on their death bed.
As soon as we're born we begin to die.
>>697641470
A good scientist will take the current theories and attack them from all angles using sound observation and experiment. Perhaps he will find they hold up, perhaps not. No good scientist is ever satisfied that a particular theory is set in stone.
>>697641329
Aquinas' prime mover argument doesn't demonstrate the existence of anything besides a physical force of some sort. It isn't even an argument for god. In fact, quantum fluctuations of energy is a documented physical phenomena that can account for this scientifically. The problem here is you don't understand philosophy, or physics. Further, Taoists believe in a creative energy called Tao that perfectly fits the description of "prime mover" or prime energy. This argument proves nothing for you Lol.
>>697641640
You pushed the argument further than I did. I was only rehearsing the idea that a belief that thought produces truth is at least tacitly premised on the idea that materialists are full of shit.
>>697634084
No, I am not going to argue against it. It is correct: It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. The question is: Do you believe in everything anyone has ever dreamt up? Not only the thousands (or more?) deities mankind have invented so far, but in every mythical creature such as unicorns and dragons? If not, why do you single out one undisprovable creature to believe in?
>>697641743
Well then there are proofs that God exists.
>>697641814
>it's physically impossible for there to be something outside of nature
see "circular reasoning"
>>697641375
oh, fuck off agnostic scum.
"oh we can't know either way so Im not sure"
Fucking wishy-washy cunts.
>>697642010
Such as?
There are so many problems with claiming to be an atheist in a strict sense that it's hard to a imagine a rational person really calling themselves an atheist in earnest.
>You believe that God does not exist
What do you mean by existence? Without establishing that, the claim isn't even coherent. If you mean that God doesn't exist in any sense, you're going to have to deal with the "God" living in the Meinong's jungle.
What do you mean by God? Do you mean that any possible thing that could be called God does not exist? Again, there are some choices of "God" and "existence" that would make it pretty obvious that "God" "exists," even to a hardline materialist. Perhaps "God" is the physical universe (in which case he is arguably omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent) and he exists in the sense that we can observe him.
Perhaps you meant that an omniscient, omnipotent being doesn't exist. Then you'll need to deal with the absurdities and contradictions that follow from the properties of a such a being. Can you make a meaningful claim about an idea that cannot be defined in a way that's logically consistent?
Wouldn't it be easier just to say that you're not a Christian? That seems to be what most people really mean when they say they're atheists.
>>697641470
What you wrote is untrue. Lol. The claim that scientific minded people operate on the premise that reality is ration is false. They operate on the premise that reality is natural. That is not a belief, that is just a fact. Your comment just demonstrates ignorance of the scientific method and the history of science.
>>697641923
>It isn't even an argument for god.
Yes it is.
>The problem here is you don't understand philosophy.
No, it's that you don't understand Aquinas.
That's okay. He's hard.
>>697641791
in terms of the afterlife, someone returning from the afterlife several years or decades after dying. Not someone who was close to death and was then returned to health, someone who was dead and their body destroyed, and they then returned from the afterlife to tell us what it's all about.
>>697642010
>There are proofs
Underage fag arguing about religion on 4chan.
>>697640983
I think I'd be good for you, and you'd be good for me
burden of proof is on them lol. see spaghetti monster
>>697641427
>Science does not 'believe' anything to be particularly 'true'.
Science is a framework built rationally. It operates on the premise (or better: dogma) that reality is rational, which is why it tries to understand it rationally and draw rational conclusions, making the framework more complicated by adding more layers.
Science can never arrive at reality because it is operating on a false assumption.
If we force our rationalism on our arational universe, then our rationality will piece together patterns and find repetitions, creating the illusion that everything is rational, which is not the case but taken to be true.
Essentially science is a neurotic and dogmatic attempt at finding answers to our existence and purpose, just like religion, except that science seemingly progresses while most religions are static, which explains why they are basically outdated science.
>>697642077
Such as Anselm's ontological argument.
>>697640999
cause hes a dumbass.
same reason he gave us original sin and then killed his only son in order to take it back
>>697642072
that isnt circular reasoning, it's the solid definition of "nature". If something was outside of nature it would have to not occur naturally. If it did not occur naturally then it would have to be artificial. If it is artificial, then who made it? If someone made it, was that person not themselves naturally occurring? In order for God to exist, he would need to be naturally occurring (not created by anyone) which would make God a function of nature.
>>697642325
>which explains why they are basically outdated science
Not even close, anon.
>>697634084
If god is the omnipotent all powerful creator of everything, that means that god must have created evil, or if he did not directly create evil, then he created an environment in which evil could be created.
We claim god to be "good", but if god's decisions allowed evil to come into existence, then god is directly responsible for all of the evil in the world.
If god has the power to remove all evil from the world as people claim he does, being omnipotent, and yet he chooses not to do so, he is not "good". Men who have the power to stop evil deeds from being committed yet stand idly by while evil acts are committed before their eyes are just as evil as the men who commit such deeds.
We also claim that all things that happen in life are part of god's "divine plan". When a child is brutally raped and subsequently murdered by a pedophile, is it part of god's plan? If so, then sin must be in his plan as well. If there is a plan, then the free will we have been granted by god is an illusion.
If there is not divine plan, and everything just kind of unfolds as it does, then what use is god beyond a creator?
If free will does exist, and human beings are meant to do for themselves, then why worship a god who does nothing for you?
Why has god not revealed himself during a period of history where his coming could be recorded and solidified? Why has he revealed himself in the past, but not the present?
Why are all of his claimed "effects" on us so vague? Are we left to figure out his divine will? If so, then that suggests that his will is comprehensible to a mere mortal human. How can one call something so mundane divine in the first place?
In finishing, say god does exist. My question to you is why has he not revealed himself in the least, and why should we worship a god who does nothing for us?
No one can disprove that God is a piece of shit.
No one can disprove the loch Ness monster
No one can disprove that unicorns are real
No one can disprove that you're dreaming right now.
No one believes in any of those things unless they're retarded. God is no different.
If you believe in God you are a pathetic human desperately trying to prove that you are worth anything. When in reality you die and that's it. Your legacy is dead unless you have kids or changed somebody's life.
The only reason god 2as invented is because Christians wanted pagans to stop being so violent towards them so they tried to spread their ideals en masse. It was easy for them when people are desperate to find meaning in life.
>>697642153
You misunderstood him. The attempt to understand nature presupposes that it is knowable, that is, structured in a way that it can be comprehended.
>>697642196
No, you're simply retarded lol. A first mover doesn't prove the existence of god, it just proves the existence of a physical phenomena and an unknown force that initiates said phenomena. There is no logical reason whatsoever to assert this force is a god of any sort, and as I already explained there are potential scientific explanations for the existence of this force ALREADY, not to mention the fact that a prime moving force is closer to Taoist doctrine than Christian monotheistic religious doctrine. Clearly, as you did not acknowledge these points, you have no answer to them.
"I believe that 5-sided triangles don't exist."
"Okay, what's a 5-sided triangle?"
>>697641914
I never argued that they don't work on their framework, I simply said that their whole framework is based on a dogma.
A good scientist has studied the limitations of science and rationalism and doesn't try to make ridiculous claims about reality.
>>697642378
>Cause he's a dumbass
Savage
>>697642209
So physical proof. To believe in something immaterial, it would have to be material.
>>697634084
DISPROVE UNICORNS EXIST GO
>>697634084
There is no God, there is an old woman in the sky with luscious silver fur and a disproportionately huge penis named Momma Cougar. She blesses good sissies with perfect skin tiny clitties if they remember to play with their sissy holes and leave their clitty alone.
You can't prove she isn't there. She is just as valid as your god. Only way cooler.
>>697641807
i respect that
>>697642325
This is your subjective view on science, not reality.
Some fields DO operate under a dogma but the scientific method is infallible.
scientific method
noun
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
"criticism is the backbone of the scientific method"
science
ˈsʌɪəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
>>697641709
Predetermined set of outcomes doesn't mean their is no agency. It just means your agency is limited to an outcome within the scope of the predetermined set of outcomes, for which there could be billions or trillions of outcomes.
>>697642580
All that we have is the material. If something is immaterial then it's just how you feel about it, if your own feelings are evidence then you can believe anything without knowing whether or not you're insane.
>>697642410
Holy shit. Sorry but that was dumb as fuck. The supernatural would be artificial? What? God could only exist in nature, so that means there's nothing outside nature?
And this is NOT circular reasoning? kek
IF GOD IS REAL I WILL GET DUBS.
IF I GET SINGLES YOU RELIGION FAGS ARE FUCKING RETARDED
>>697634084
>>697642360
>Anselm's ontological argument
ontological argument
nounPHILOSOPHY
the argument that God, being defined as most great or perfect, must exist, since a God who exists is greater than a God who does not.
>>697642468
Read Job.
The OT understood the problem of theodicy before Christianity even began.
>>697634084
Religion is a claim. No evidence has been presented to support said claim. Therefore we must assume that the god in question does not exist.
That is not a claim, that is a logical assumption made based on the lack of evidence to support the claim that is the existence of god. If one were to post on /b/ "guys I just stumbled upon a duffle bag full of money" but refused to provide timestamped pictures of said bag of money, we would all assume that OP was a lying faggot.
In short: Timestamped pics or it didn't happen, faggot.
>>697642442
Would you mind elaborating?
>>697642502
I would only refer you to Aquinas, who made the argument. You've clever not read it nor understood it.
>>697642299
If you make a claim that God doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on YOU.
If they make a claim that God does exist, the burden of proof is on THEM.
If you don't make any claims, you have nothing to prove.
The strength of your claim is the evidence and arguments you provide for it. If you cannot provide evidence or an argument, why would you make a claim, unless you like looking like an ass?
>>697642627
>>697642488
Can you give me an example of anything structured in a way in which it cannot be comprehended? If there were such a thing, it would not be knowable, so how could you possibly know enough about it to assert it is not knowable? Not presupposing that nature can be comprehended is the same as avoiding the burden of explaining altogether, in which case why are you here in this thread?
>>697642783
artificial
ɑːtɪˈfɪʃ(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural.
>>697642635
>She is just as valid as your god.
you tried
I once heard of a religion that believes that the Bible is one big metaphor. A guide to how to live your life. The reason I choose to believe in God is because if I do what the book tells me, my life gets better. Ever since I started acting out the teachings, my life got better. So in total I think that if believing in something makes you better, why not believe in it?
>>697643045
Fuck me! They are real!
>>697642672
The scientific method uses rationalism and operates on the dogma that nature (=reality) can be explained rationally.
What I am stating is equally a fact. The 'scientific method' is rationalism, and claiming that rational conclusions have any meaning in relation to reality (other than that it is a part of it) is preposterous.
>>697643045
lol absolutely savage
>>697642555
hes a stupid doo doo head
>>697635344
Before you attempt to "prove" God, either philiosophically or naturalistically, you first must be able to DEFINE what God IS. No one can or will even try to do this, and therefore all arguments for God fail before they start.
Sure God can be defined as the fedora I'm wearing but that is a meaningless definition.
That's the definition of agnosticism.
The census in Australia on the 9th August is an important chance to make sure your interests are met in decision making and funding, that views you do not hold are not over-represented in the coming years.
Ensure you are represented, mark 'No religion'.
censusnoreligion.org.au
>>697642673
Which is to say, thought can't be reduced to physical causes.
>>697642783
nature is that which exists. If the afterlife exists then it has to be naturally occurring or artificially created by someone or something naturally occurring. If the afterlife was supernatural (did not occur naturally, was outside of nature) it would require a creator. That creator would have to be naturally occurring since nature is that which exists. In terms of the monotheisms the way to think of this is that the nature of reality is for God to exist and things like the afterlife and the universe are artificial constructs created by the naturally occurring being we call God.
>>697643059
Black holes.
>>697642771
>All that we have is the material.
Your conclusion. Also your premise.
Kek you pathetic athiests are so easy to trigger
>>697643045
>>697642771
Those are some really impressive assertions you've made there. Can I see the stone tablets you got them from?
>>697639269
Sauce
>The fact that they had to produce something called "God is NOT Dead"
/thread
If there is a god explain the reason why babies are born with deforminties, why genocides happen, and the holocost
>>697643137
rationalism
ˈraʃ(ə)n(ə)lɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the practice or principle of basing opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.
"scientific rationalism"
PHILOSOPHY
the theory that reason rather than experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge.
THEOLOGY
the practice of treating reason as the ultimate authority in religion.
The burden of proof is on the god believers. Not the other way around you idiot.
>>697643235
You can't argue against A -> A
That's a tautology, my friend!
>>697643174
Your argument is that one must argue for God deductively, yet the arguments for God are more typically inductive.
>>697634084
The flying spaghetti monster argument does.
There IS a flying spaghetti monster, and you cannot disprove it.
>>697634084
trying to disprove god is like saying: "i am against the forces within my body and the environment around me that are constantly keeping me alive"
>>697643081
people who need a book to tell them right from wrong and what to do in life, need to be culled from this planet. Religion is seriously slowing down the progression of the human race.
>>697642943
Clearly you don't understand it, as you are clearly incapable of refuting my points lol. I understand the argument perfectly, it just doesn't prove the existence of a god. All it proves is the existence of a force that begins a causal chain, so, Tao. Become a Taoist. Lol
>>697643431
Be careful, the neckbeards are about to come after you
>>697642783
This guy >>697643197 is saying that the term artificial is reduntant.
>>697643505
yeah, trying to talk sense in 4chan is a dangerous game
>>697643197
>nature is that which exists.
This is the dogma of the materialist.
A Christian might say nature and supernature exist
An idealist (in the philosophical sense) might say nature is an illusion
>>697643235
how do you know something exists if it has no impact at all on the material? If it doesnt affect the material at all then how would you know it was there in the first place?
Jesus is coming back to fuck the unbelievers in their smooth boipuccis
>>697643390
Arguing that nothing exists outside nature because nothing exists outside nature is a logical fallacy.
>>697643431
What is god's relation to the environment?
>>697643587
>trying to talk sense
>religion
Pick ONE.
>>697643461
Honestly, do any other atheists think this way? This post would seem to prove that religious people, even jihadists, are still more moral than atheists, if this is an acceptable view in atheism.
>>697643748
WHy would he pick one when both make sense?
This is why nobody takes atheists seriously.
>>697643363
So? Care to elaborate instead of posting definitions that are largely unrelated?
>>697643711
but nature means "things that occur without humans intervening" in the broadest sense. Are you arguing that God exists because humans made him up?
>>697643712
the concept of god is the fact that you and the whole are inseparable
>>697643748
i'm not religious bruh. Spirituality
>>697643599
nature
ˈneɪtʃə/Submit
noun
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
"the breathtaking beauty of nature"
This is your premise. Or dogma if you prefer...
solipsism
ˈsɒlɪpsɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
>>697643599
What you are saying all comes down to definition.
>>697643246
or ya know, its just a topic of conversation that we wanna talk about.
also, is it more pathetic to see someone starting an argument and trying to get your opinions heard, or being the one that made a thread specifically to annoy people?
>>697643865
>both make sense
troll/10
>>697643620
Through channels of knowing other than the empirical: thought, contemplation, etc. But of course most religions believe that nature is occasionally intersected with supernature. That is, the latter occasionally visits the former and makes itself known.
>>697643711
Nothing exists outside of nature because...
nature
ˈneɪtʃə/Submit
noun
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
>the phenomena of the physical world collectively,
>>697643187
...Are you retarded? The physical causes prescribe a set of potential outcomes. Agency is the capacity to select from a number of different options. Thats it. Physical process cause the release of hormones, etc. This limits the number of options you have to choose from. Eg, hormones cause you to become angry. How you deal with that anger is dependent on the part of your brain that gives you consciousness, the part that gives you movement, the part that you use to make rational decisions, etc all at once. To say that you don't have agency because of this is nonsense, as you ARE those things. If physical processes in your brain cause you to act within particular parameters, that doesn't mean you don't have agency, because those physical processes are you to begin with.
atheists are pricks
>>697643916
>nature means "things that occur without humans intervening"
what? Human beings are part of nature.
>>697643599
nature, supernature and ubernature above supernature exist. Ubernature is the cause of supernature, which is the cause of nature. Prove to me that Ubernature does not exist. You cant do it, can you? This means it exists and you have to start worshipping the pantheon of ubernatural gods (they're all ducks for some reason, that's just how ubernature is. It's beyond the understanding of mere mortals.)
>>697643895
The definition itself is an argument.
Oh, and it's entirely related. Re-read your posts.
>>697642882
>Religion is a claim.
No, various followers of various religions have made some very different claims.
>No evidence has been presented to support said claim.
There's plenty of evidence (not of the "claim" you mention, since there's no such thing). Much of it is higher quality than anything you'll ever come up with. You're not going to outdo Godel's proof of the existence of God in terms of technical quality. Whether or not that evidence constitutes proof is a different question.
>Therefore we must assume that the god in question does not exist.
And now you've simply made an assertion with no evidence for it. If your argument were valid (Don't worry. It's not.), we'd be forced to assume that this claim is wrong because you haven't presented any evidence for it.
>>697634084
OK, let me try to argue against this in as clear and concise terms as I possibly can, using a pretty well known example.
So there's a pretty prevailing theory out there that a lot of people believe in called "The Secret," which basically sums up to "if you believe in and want something hard enough, it will happen." Proponents of the theory claim that great historical figures like Newton and Einstein all used the Secret to achieve success, because they believed so hard in the science of what they were doing that the theories they worked on just "came to them." Do you see the fault in this line of thinking? It's impossible to prove The Secret wrong. If anyone says "well I wanted to be an astronaut and it never happened," someone else could just easily dismiss them by saying "well clearly you didn't want it hard ENOUGH." It's all so vague and so perfectly airtight that it can't be proven wrong.
Real science can be disproved, refuted, contested. Even things like Newton's Laws can be contested in a laboratory setting, data can be analyzed on it. They probably won't ever succeed in proving the Laws wrong but they can still try, do you see the difference? Something that literally can't be refuted by any means available to us is just pseudoscience.
>>697643974
You stopped making sense. Try again.
>>697644263
You still haven't disproven God's existence.
>>697643059
5 sided triangle
>>697643059
square circle
>>697643959
>the concept of god is the fact that you and the whole are inseparable
How did you come to this conclusion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God
>>697643216
Black holes can be comprehended. lol We don't know where they lead or what causes them. That doesn't mean they can't be comprehended. lol. They are an unusual absence of information, and as such can be comprehended and understood as anomalies in the universe in which there is an absence of information. black holes are clearly identifiable and knowable. Everything with a name is. The fact that we call them "black holes" already demonstrates some level of comprehension about their nature.
>In science there are no facts, only theorys/hypthesis
>The Laws of Physics are the one exception
>no theory can be completely proven
>no theory can be completely unproven
Not an argument.
>>697634084
We all know jesus is watching us and if not he then the guys from cctv (pic rel.)
>>697643975
Indeed. A lot of times, when people "debate," they are using words in ways that are mutually exclusive.
That is why I began by asking what would count for proof. For materialists, the only proof will often be empirical evidence. For logicians, there are proofs that have no basis in empiricism at all.
>>697643174
>No one can
lol, you're going to need to define God before you prove that no one can define God, tough guy
>>697644110
You do get that the very definition of the supernatural is 'that which exists beyond nature." That's what the word means. So defining nature says nothing whatsoever about what is outside nature.
>>697644250
I am sorry, I admit that I have not been very precise, so before this thread dies, what I want to say:
The only conclusion that rationality can get to is that rationality can't say anything about reality other than that
1. it and all conclusions are a part of it and
2. it cannot comprehend reality because it's just a higher order emergent property of this arational reality.
Both religion and science are wrong for this reason.
>>697644369
Alright. Let's say God does exist for a moment. All knowing, all powerful. So he basically watches kids get locked in dungeons and get raped for 17 years and he's just hunky dory with that. He watches serial killers peeling peoples' skin off, war crimes, cancer, natural disaster, all that- he's fine with it. Because he supposedly loves us.
Either God is not all powerful, in which case, why should we ever worship him? Or, he is all powerful and doesn't help us, which means he's a fucking piece of shit and I'd refuse to worship him.
>>697643599
A Christian might be wrong. Also, scientists don't say nature is that which exists, they only say nature is anything within the bounds of the universe that thus far has been proven to exist, because all things within the universe are a part of its structure on a chemical/physical level. If something we don't know of yet exists beyond these bounds then that thing would be a part of supernature. The problem is we know of and have discovered nothing of the sort.
>>697643711
If you think that tautologies are false, you'd better study a little more logic. God bless!
>>697644334
Get literate first.
I haven't the time for toddlers.
>>697644770
Read the book of Job.
And the reason you should worship him is because he is all powerful and is your creator
>>697644660
Real quick, how did you come to the definite conclusion that reality is arational?
>>697643385
The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. Otherwise, the claim is simple assertion.
For example, you claim "The burden of proof is on the god believers," but you failed to justify your claim. The burden of proof is on you!
>>697644770
he's also insecure as hell. 'love me or you burn for all eternity'
he's a bitch, hes not fit to be anyones lord let alone ruler of the entire universe
