You cannot prove nor disprove God through evidence. It's unfalsifiable and you're reaching the realm of philosophy at that point. Presenting a worldview of overt atheism is delusional and irrational because you're expecting people to agree with you purely on personal feelings, it lacks any objectivity.
>You cannot prove nor disprove God through evidence.
You can go see him for yourself. Are you agnostic about your toes being on your feet?
/thread. OP btfo'd
Outstanding move.
t.
>You can go see him for yourself.
No you can't. I've never seen God. I don't believe anyone else has either. I think God is just a fictional character - just like all the other gods of the world's many, many religions.
> IF GOD REAL, HOWCOME I CAN'T SEE HIM FROM OUTSIDE MY WINDOW! : (
israelites are retarded.
Deism is the only reasonable position.
As causality is a well established phenomenon.
There had to be a prime mover.
Yes
>/thread's himself
you do realize we can see the poster count, right?
>doesn't understand sarcasm
anon..
That’s just an autistic trait. We are legion.
First of all, what is God? Why do you need a concept of a creator simply because you can't explain why we're here?
>Why do you need a concept of gravity simply because you can't explain why things fall?
Fuck that comparison right off because gravity is based on actual science. Christcucks only have polemic and hearsay after all this time on earth.
Ahhh so explanations aren't made up as a "need". Interesting...
>God has never been observed.
He has many times.
>I've never seen God. I don't believe anyone else has either. I think [the most convenient thing ever]
What am I supposed to do with that opinion? You can see God if you want. If not, go cope about agnosticism being a nice label.
This post is what evasion looks like.
>>no, counter-statment
>boo-hoo you evaded me
This post is what cope looks like lol
No you're just playing games, you've been already responded to but you're evading like most religionists.
I saw God exactly 1 hr ago.
>You can see God if you want
How?
>inb4 just take some hallucinogens bro or some theological nitpicking
>science
Is the same methodology that leads one to wonder why the universe exists, shlomo.
You seething, israelite.
Gravity can be observed repeatedly, around all planets and stars. God has never been observed.
And this:
Planets and stars don't exist though as entities that can be physically traveled to though, you're spouting "expert" jargon and taking it entirely on faith at that point. The only way to prove that they can be traveled to is to physically get in a space ship and go there, and that's not happening because space travel isn't something that was worked for over 70 years.
>Planets and stars don't exist though as entities that can be physically traveled to though
Yes they do. New Horizons visited Pluto in 2015 I think. Sure that's a dwarf planet rather than a normal planet, but still.
And there are man-made probes orbiting the sun too, collecting data.
>>God has never been observed.
>He has many times.
I don't believe that for one second. I've never seen him. I've never seen a photo of him. Even if you say "he's non physical so he wouldn't show up on a photo", there must be SOME way we can detect him with the senses, or else he hasn't been observed. You're just assuming some magical God created the universe, but you've never observed this God.
>What am I supposed to do with that opinion?
Realise that it's almost certainly true. All of the gods are just fictional characters. You probably already believe this about all gods except for the Abrahamic God.
>New Horizons visited Pluto in 2015 I think. Sure that's a dwarf planet rather than a normal planet, but still.
>And there are man-made probes orbiting the sun too, collecting data.
Space isn't an entity that can be traveled to, anon. The last time people claim we went to the moon was in the 1950's, and the moon landing was debunked for being faked and ever since the 50's we've never gone back to the moon. Objectively and empirically space is not something that can be traveled to, and you're taking on faith space's existence from entities in our world that propagate it as being true, and you want more people to take this space fiction on nothing more than your word. You don't follow reality or what is objectively true, all you care about is following whatever your feelings and emotions tell you to.
>the moon landing was debunked for being faked
No it wasn't
>Objectively and empirically space is not something that can be traveled to
You are objectively wrong. Astronauts visit space regularly, namely the International Space Station (if that counts as space, which I think it does, but it's still pretty damn close to Earth).
>you're taking on faith space's existence from entities in our world that propagate it as being true
And you take on faith that Jesus was divine, just because a book (the Bible) claims this. Lol.
>all you care about is following whatever your feelings and emotions tell you to
That's you though. You're a Christian because you want the universe to have an intelligent cause. Not because there's good evidence for this theory.
>Astronauts visit space regularly, namely the International Space Station (if that counts as space, which I think it does, but it's still pretty damn close to Earth
No they don't. Niel Armstrong even admitted that he never went to the moon. Enjoy being delusional though.
>You're a Christian
Wrong anon.
>Niel Armstrong even admitted that he never went to the moon
That isn't true. You may as well tell me that 2 + 2 = 5.
My bad, it was Buzz, not Niel who admitted the Moon Landing was faked. Regardless all this space nonsense is fiction.
No, he didn't.
You're making a wild claim with no evidence to back up your claim. So, I think the moon landings most likely happened, based on all the evidence.
Yes he did, on O'Brian as well. Hence why I used such picture. Go look it up man, it's not new information.
>So, I think the moon landings most likely happened,
On faith. There is no evidence that objectively proves that space is real.
>based on all the evidence
Might as well post an article that states the sky is made of plasma so you can eat up even more lies, since you believe anything as long as an "expert" told you it was the case, as you do with all your delusions based on nothing more than emotional and feelings.
>No it wasn't
Yes it fucking was. We're going to do this now?
Go make another thread about it. You say they're wrong, prove it.
No. You're the one with the wild claim that it was faked, you prove it. I have nothing to prove. All of the evidence of the moon landings is on the internet, ready for you to read about it.
>All of the evidence of the moon landings is on the internet, ready for you to read about it.
All of the "evidence" that overtly fake and not objective at all? You're telling me you believe smoke and mirrors special effects and the wind blowing on a flag in a vacuum as something that objectively happened? I'm sorry but you're delusional.
We're getting nowhere here, let's just stop
>there must be SOME way we can detect him with the senses
Absolutely! Making it not un-falsifiable.
If you are adamant about your agnosticism and leap to it with such adamant faith, you can just as well be a gnostic atheist.
>you've never observed this God
Correct.
>You probably already believe this about all gods except for the Abrahamic God.
No.
>doubles down
must be SOME way we can detect him with the senses
>Absolutely!
How can I detect God with the senses then? If I go to the beach, will I see God on the horizon? Where is he?
>>you've never observed this God
>Correct.
Then why do you think he can be observed?
>How can I detect God with the senses then?
Humble yourself, purify your heart from passions, practice contemplative prayer etc. There is no shortage of Christian mystics who describe fairly convergent ways to get in touch with God and see his energies for yourself.
>Then why do you think he can be observed?
For the same reason I think the Big Bang marks the material beginning of this universe. People much more skilled than I, who have dedicated their lives to this consistently report this being their conclusion.
>Humble yourself, purify your heart from passions, practice contemplative prayer etc. There is no shortage of Christian mystics who describe fairly convergent ways to get in touch with God and see his energies for yourself.
I said senses. Where can I see or hear God? Perceiving things with my senses doesn't require me to be "humble". I will still be able to see a statue whether I'm humble or not.
>For the same reason I think the Big Bang marks the material beginning of this universe. People much more skilled than I, who have dedicated their lives to this consistently report this being their conclusion.
The Big Bang theory has evidence behind it, but the God theory doesn't.
I obviously don't know everything Buzz Aldrin has ever said. But even if he denied the moon landings, that doesn't mean they're fake. I think they were probably real, based on all the evidence. You realise many other spacecraft have been to the moon since, right? India and Russia recently attempted to land probes on the moon. I think only India's succeeded though.
>There is no evidence that objectively proves that space is real.
You can see all the stars for yourself at night. You can see the sun during the day. And you can see planets like Jupiter or Saturn with a telescope, with your very own eyes. You can see the rings of Saturn. Pic related.
>you believe anything as long as an "expert" told you it was the case
You believe anything as long as "the Bible" told you it was the case. You realise every single time you try to make this point, it applies to your beliefs too, right?
>I said senses.
And that is what I answered.
>I will still be able to see a statue whether I'm humble or not.
Then go see a statue. God and spiritual vision in general doesn't work this way.
>The Big Bang theory has evidence behind it
I didn't see it or double-check the calculations behind it. And I very much doubt you did too. The reason we believe it is that people we trust consistently report it. We didn't investigate evidence.
>Then go see a statue. God and spiritual vision in general doesn't work this way.
Spiritual vision isn't a sense, it doesn't exist. "Hey doctor I've got a problem with my spiritual vision, can you fix it?" said nobody.
>I didn't see it or double-check the calculations behind it. And I very much doubt you did too. The reason we believe it is that people we trust consistently report it. We didn't investigate evidence.
You could look at the evidence yourself. I think I understand some of the evidence, like redshift. Sure I'm no expert in it. Perhaps I'm willing to trust that the scientists are probably right, given that they've reliably given us discoveries that I can observe with my own eyes. Like whatever discoveries were needed to produce the motor vehicle. And computers. Etc. Where are the discoveries of religion? I can't see any of them. Whether it's God, or Jesus, or Moses, or miracles - I've never seen any of these things. So I think it was all made up.
>But even if he denied the moon landings, that doesn't mean they're fake
He was supposedly there. If it objectively happened he would have no reason to clam they were faked, he would just defend that it happened. All of this space nonsense is inherently fictional and you're taking 100% of it on faith alone.
>I think they were probably real, based on all the evidence
You believe in space because you want to believe in space. You're not interested in objective truth. You're delusional. We have never gone to the moon and space is fake and fucking gay, dude.
>muh India moon landing
Which was proven to be faked a little over a month ago. You really believe anything simply because some "expert" with an article posted it on corporate media? You live in an actual fantasy world.
>believes in ancient myths
>doesn’t believe in space
Fascinating retard
I'm an agnostic, try using that on some of the other anons in this thread. Any case all you've done is further cement the fact that you're a delusional and gullible emotionally driven npc who isn't interested in objective truth.
I just brought out the trash and was looking at space, hope you get the help you need
>I just brought out the trash and was looking at space
And realizing the fact you'll never go there because human beings can't travel there? Sorry but not sorry to burst your bubble.
Everything I have stated is the truth but all you've shown is that you're delusional and would rather believe in abject lies written by corporate media and live in a delusional fantasy land where aliens exist and mars had water and all of this hokey fairytale nonsense.
>And realizing the fact you'll never go there because human beings can't travel there? Sorry but not sorry to burst your bubble.
You’re saying it’s not even real, motherfucker you have a phone that works using satellites
>he believes that satellites are up in space and not in the atmosphere
Oh.. you sweet summer child..
You're saying things that aren't true so there's no point in this discussion. I would encourage you to read about the moon landings if you want to learn more about them. But if you don't, that's up to you I suppose.
You're tagging two different Anons, one of which (me) never said anything about the moon. I actually relied on the Big Bang being real in my argument.
Didn't know that, but both posts say false things:
>space is fake (false)
>spiritual vision exists (false)
I think atheism is most likely to be true
>muh corporate media
Back to
with you
vision exists (false)
Source?
>Hey doctor my spiritual vision isn't 20:20, can I get some glasses for that?
>you trying to argue that all of our media isn't owned by corporations?
No. Some is, some isn't. But someone who blames "the corporate media" as a singular entity is misrepresenting the truth.
Okay champ, enjoy your fairy tales for children.
>His source on ontology and epistemology is Ricky Gervais
Why am I not surprised lmaoo
I never mentioned him
If you look at global media outlets I don't think they're all owned by corps. Some are owned by states and others are owned by wealthy individuals. Actually WaPo is owned by Bezos right?
Atheism is probably true. There's no evidence for God. Physicalism (the idea of everything being physical) has done pretty well in the last century or so, as science has been able to explain more and more phenomena. I think science will give us a better chance of learning about the universe than religion could.
>If you look at global media outlets I don't think they're all owned by corps. Some are owned by states and others are owned by wealthy individuals
What you "think" doesn't matter, I'm arguing for what is. Regardless you're trying to present the case you listen to state funded media as opposed to corporate owned media for your information on the world, which is a million times worse and just affirms the fact that you're cattle.
>I'm arguing for what is
Then you will argue for atheism. If you don't then your posts do not matter.
Atheism is not an objective worldview so no. You're arguing based on feelings and proposing that to be true. Life isn't about your ego, mate.
>You're arguing based on feelings
That's what religious people do, not me.
You've deluded yourself into thinking you're rational when your entire worldview consists of delusions. Wake up. Space isn't real, the aliens aren't coming down any time soon, and your ancient ancestors aren't apes; they're ten feet under.
90% of our media is owned by corporations, anon.. CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, are all corporate entities.
So what, you trying to argue that all of our media isn't owned by corporations? Even if you live in China that isn't the case because their media is owned by both the state and corporations since their corporations are state owned.
>I think atheism is most likely to be true
What you think doesnt matter.
It is more probable that some flying spaghetti monster created the universe we currently reside in, than the highly ordered and well organised universe in which we currently reside just popping into existence out of nowhere.
The israelite cult of athiesm is by far the dumbest religion to have ever been invented.
>Humble yourself, purify your heart from passions, practice contemplative prayer
This isn’t necessary to perceive anything that’s real.
Source: I wish
Just being straight with you. God runs around fighting chariots with a sword in the Old Testament and you’re claiming you need to be 1 step short of doing mushrooms in the dark to be able to see him, sounds like you’re talking about methods that deliberately blur the line between imagination and reality by inducing an altered state
>There is no shortage of Christian mystics who describe fairly convergent ways to get in touch with God and see his energies for yourself.
AKA altered states.
There’s a good reason why you can’t see your god in the same mindset you have on the way to work or sitting on a porch in a normal mindstate
Call it whatever you want. It's a way to see God and if your only argument for God being unfalsifiable is "I ain't finna check yo", then naturally your position will be a parody of itself.
>runs around fighting chariots with a sword
Huh? Around what? God in the Old Testament rarely appears to the common person doing common tasks. And when he does and they're not prepared, they die, like in Leviticus. I'm not entirely sure how you imagine the prophets and saints of the OT (and NT) saw God in his divine form, but it was never a "normal" mindset.
>Spiritual vision isn't a sense, it doesn't exist.
Source: I need this to be true to maintain my beliefs
>"Hey doctor I've got a problem with my spiritual vision, can you fix it?" said nobody.
Except millions of Christians, many of which got it fixed.
>You could look at the evidence yourself.
Or I could just say the calculations are not a thing and that no doctor was ever asked to "fix my mathematics". Wouldn't that be funny?
>Where are the discoveries of religion? I can't see any of them
Then look.
> or miracles
Nobody is hiding those either.
Before we continue this conversation are you aware that you can perceive things that aren’t real but actually projections of your own mind by entering an altered state? Do you know that basic fact about reality and life?
No way, can you prove that please? Where can I see you imagining things?
Okay so you’re unaware that people can hallucinate during altered states, or that it’s a feature of altered states.
Your imaginary friend isn’t real bud, sorry
Damn, that sucks but I'll still need to see that proof. You did see some empirical proof that people project things in their minds before you blindly accepted that, right?
Anon, before the joke goes over your head again, you're asking me to prove something you cannot prove yourself - fact of an experience. You've debunked your own epistemological position twice now.
lmao this dude is literally "God tier' trolling.
Explaining why we're here is an inherently unfalsifiable concept though. No one can objectively prove how the world came to be because no one was around to document how the world came into existence.
Right that’s what faith is for
Agnosticism is technically true but atheism is probably true.
Just like you can't be certain there isn't a giant, cave-dwelling gorilla somewhere underneath the surface of Pluto. But there probably isn't (gorillas need air to breathe), so the gorilla's non-existence is probably true.
>Agnosticism is technically true but atheism is probably true
No, and your "feelings" are not the truth. You're pitting one word against another's. You cannot prove or disprove the concept of God. There's no empirical evidence that can be used to state one way or the other, it's either you go off one person's personal experience or the other. To state that there is no God with absolute certainty is delusional and divorced from objective reality.
>You cannot prove or disprove the concept of God.
That's why I said agnosticism is technically true
Atheism is probably true though. What are the odds that the Christian conception of God will match up 1:1 with what we actually find as the cause of the universe using scientific investigation?
Or to put it another way - do you think it's more likely that Moses really did speak to God, or that he made it up for political reasons? Based on the evidence of human nature, I think the latter is more likely.
Like I was trying to say in that post with the gorilla thing, if you're going to insist that people shouldn't say "atheism is likely to be true" then you'll also have to insist that people stay ambivalent about Ferrari cars found underground on Mars. Most people will say there's a high likelihood that there's no Ferraris on Mars. But if you insist on ambivalence then nobody can make the statement of probability.
>Atheism is probably true though
Again, it likely isn't because all of your presumptions are entirely formed on personal belief, emotions, and faith. Atheism has no basis on reality, and your conceptualizations of planets and the solar system is just more jargon you were fed on faith alone that has no basis in objective reality. The worldview you are preposing has nothing to do with reality.
>you only believe in planets based on faith
See here:
>cave-dwelling gorilla somewhere underneath the surface of Pluto
You're taking the prospect that Pluto even exists as a physical entity that has caves as a presumption formed entirely from faith alone. You have never been to Pluto nor can you empirically prove that it can be traveled to. You have no idea whether what we call "Pluto" is even a planet to begin with or is just a star we see in the sky at night, nor do we know if stars or even what we think of stars at all. You take all of this nonsense entirely on faith because some "expert" told you it was the case and none of it is based on objective reality.
>You have never been to Pluto
You never saw Jesus but you believe he was divine simply because a book claimed this. Lmao.
>atheism
The israeli religion of athiesm is the LEAST likely to be true.
The flying spaghetti monster is more likely to be true than that stupid israelite religion.
Agnostic vs. atheist is probably the most pointless ideological arguing setup I can imagine about. Sure, you can prattle all day about whether you can 100% deny the existence of God, but ultimately in practice, being agnostic is basically the same as being atheist except than instead of saying
>there is no god, so I’m going to live my life without thinking about religion-imposed rules
you say
>I can’t prove that there’a no god, but I’m going to assume that there likely isn’t one and even if there was one, I wouldn’t know what it (or they) are like, and thus I’m going to live my life without thinking about religion-imposed rules
Yeah, this is the board for pointless debates, but it still seems especially pointless even in comparison to most other debates here, as the end result is same but with just slightly longer and more doubting wording.
I still haven’t seen a proper rebuttal to the problem of evil
Make the thread again, see it debunked for the 8th time this month.
Read my essays
>you cannot prove nor disprove God through evidence
Proof?
Are you agnostic to leprechauns?
Hell yeah dude
>some random pagan tree god disproven by chopping down his tree
>leprechauns disproven by refraction, internal reflection and dispersion of light in water droplets
>demons disproven by psychoanalysis
>ayyliums disproven by the invention of camera phones
>Santa Claus disproven by Google Earthing the North Pole
>zero evidence in favor of the existence of of god thus far
>>um umm ummm y-you haven't sssssearched the entire uh-universe!
>some random pagan tree god disproven by chopping down his tree
The monk and the tree story is about providence of the deity iirc. The argument was that if you chop down his tree he doesn't have the power to influence that area, not that he doesn't exist at all.
>leprechauns disproven by refraction, internal reflection and dispersion of light in water droplets
How? Also Leprechauns are unfalsifiable because you're pitting one person's word against another. It's either
>I saw this
>I saw the same thing and I don't think it was that
It's moot.
>if you chop down his tree he doesn't have the power to influence that area
So as long as I DON'T chop it... amd just walk up to his tree every morning, take my cock out, and shower it with its golden splendor, he'll be a-ok with it? Or worse. Because it'll sure seem like
>1. he's fine with all kinds of blasphemies after all
>2. he's not real
How? Also Leprechauns are unfalsifiable because you're pitting one person's word against another. It's either
>I saw this
>I saw the same thing and I don't think it was that
It's moot.
Science, baby. Ancient men could've figured that out if they ha the means to study the phenomena for themselves.
If you're implying that the medical opinion of a doctor is equal to that of a homeopathist, fuck off.
>how
>muh science
Okay so you affirm that Leprechauns are unfalsifiable because you cannot prove their existence one way or another. If the argument is that Leprechauns existed at one point in time, well you can't go back in time to find that out for yourself, so you must either rely on hearsay and take it entirely on faith or just deduce that it's impossible to prove it one way or another. In either case you can't prove or disprove of their existence through empirical evidence. If the argument is that Leprechauns are an apparition that can be repeatedly experienced in an altered state, then again it's one person's experience versus another person's experience.
are made by leprechauns
>it's the sunlight, actually, here's how you can see it for yourself
>>well maybe rainbows are just a metaphor for something we cannot understand, therefore, leprechauns are real
Rainbows aren't irrelevant to the topic. The preposition is that Leprechauns are an entity that exists. Okay. That's an unfalsifiable statement.
There's an invisible green-skinned stripper princess named Charlie who lives on Mars with her 10-man harem of untimely dead Star Trek nerds who accepted her astral invitation. That's an unfalsibiable statement.
Yes, because Mars cannot be proven to be an entity that can be physically traveled to. You can say whatever you want about space or stars or whatnot because the only way to prove that is to physically go there yourself (and good luck with that). If you were to claim that China is run by Bangladeshi mall cops then that's a statement that can easily be falsified. The problem is that you believe in things that are inherently untrue and propose them to do be true, which is why space is treated with a level of sanctity despite the fact that it's not something people can travel to.
You can travel to Ireland tho, laddie.
And are people arguing that Leprechauns exist in modern day Ireland or Ireland in the past? Do you even read the posts in this thread before responding?
We have no evidence to suspect that they went extinct at any point, if they were real. And because they're nowhere to be seen thesd days, and that pots of gold don't spawn at the endpoints of rainbows, they're not real.
>We have no evidence to suspect that they went extinct at any point, if they were real.
So if Leprechauns were real we have no records of what happened to them. That doesn't make them real or unreal, that just means that if they were potentially real at some point in time we have no idea of what happened. We have no idea what happened to Lao Tzu, or half of the women in the courts of the Roman Empire, or who the Sea Peoples were, does that mean they never existed either simply because we can't prove their extinction? You're making the assumption that because something lacks records of extinction that that means it didn't occur at all, and then basing your worldview off of an assumption you formed from your own mind, instead of basing your worldview off of reality.
Those who supposedly saw leprechauns would've noticed their sudden absence. And because that didn't happen, but science and enlightment happened, slowly eroding their faith in the leprechauns, we can safely conclude that they were just imagining them all along.
>Those who supposedly saw leprechauns would've noticed their sudden absence.
And what reason would they have to document their absence? You're making more assumptions and presenting it as true when it has nothing to do with reality.
>but science and enlightment happened, slowly eroding their faith in the leprechauns, we can safely conclude that they were just imagining them all along.
All that means is that human beings got brainwashed into a dogmatic worldview. So let's say if Leprechauns supposedly existed, and you're preposing the outlandish idea that the only reason people could ever not report their disappearance is because they were brainwashed by dogmatic "enlightenment" thinkers into doubting their own reality, why are you even promoting this type of dogmatisms to begin with if it makes people doubt reality? There are cults like Heaven's Gate that don't believe that the human body is real but rather that everyone is a possessed skinwalker, does that mean that simply because there are groups of people who think certain things about reality it ulitmately makes it verifiably true?
It's the same thing, you can't have it both ways. If they were real, someone would have found something.
The reason we hear about Leprechauns is because there is the potential that at some point they may have been something that existed. We have no idea, because it's not something that can be proved one way or the other.
You're talking out your arse, and it's a matter of science and not opinion.
Wow the projection.
The only projections I see are your fingers up your arse.
I'm glad that you agree with the prospect that agnosticism is a more reasonable position than irrational atheism, because otherwise you wouldn't be resorting to insults if you could continue to argue for lunacy.
No I think the more reasonable position is when you say you can't have it both ways. Well the difference is that I'm not the one claiming that there are little green men, so you can't have it both ways, only you.
If there were a God, you would be able to prove it by finding something in the natural world that can only be explained by that existence. That is how the natural sciences work, they take evidence from the natural world and make their conclusions based on those premises.
>No I think the more reasonable position
What you "think" doesn't matter because you're an irrational person who forms delusional perspectives and preposes them to be the truth.
>you can't have it both ways
Both ways for what? It's not a concept that can be proven empirically so whether or not you believe in it boils entirely down to faith, but at that point it has nothing to do with rationality or objectivity but just in what you personally feel, so it's a waste of time to try to argue that there is no God or that leprechauns don't exist for certain when that isn't information you can ever be aware of.
That's the difference, I have faith in something that I can prove, and I can see the results every day. You have faith in a thing that is only a possibility and can't even be proven one way or the other. And I've said, no, if I can prove God may exist, then I'll become an agnostic, but until that point I won't. So the burden is on you.
>I have faith in something that I can prove, and I can see the results every day.
You're not preposing to have faith in anything provable, unless you're the space is real fag from earlier, and in that case you're proposing to have faith in an abject falsehood. You're proposing lack of faith in something that is unproveable but you're not arguing for anything in particular or coherent.
>You have faith in a thing that is only a possibility
Which is what? You keep making assumptions and prepose them to be true.
>You're proposing lack of faith
How is it possible to propose a lack of something? And yes, I'm saying I have faith that God does not exist. I have no faith that he does.
>Which is what?
There are no little green men, I don't need to prove it. But you're claiming there might be gods, but you can't prove it, and so I need you to provide some evidence for what you're proposing, that's all.
Just because something is unfalsifiable doesn't mean everything that is unfalsifiable has the same level of plausability. If magical creatures existed they would violate the known laws of physics. It is less reasonable to believe that fundamental physical properties are wrong than to believe that humans make up mythical creatures. To believe in Laozi is to believe in a sage who at some point existed. There is no need to rewrite the laws of physics to believe in him.
>If magical creatures existed they would violate the known laws of physics.
The modern conceptualizations of what is considered to be the laws of physics is an extremely and exceedingly recent concept to human history. Obvious theories such as gravity can be repeatedly tested and proven to be consistent, but there are many theories of how the physical world operates that are not always true. Scientists still cannot explain how rogue waves function because it doesn't line up with any of their models of how physics work. Atoms in particular are a model that has shown to be incredibly inconsistent and unstable, we've gone through 15 different models of what atoms are all within the span of 50 years. You're preposing this odd conceptualization that the laws of physics are a concrete, definable model that is constant and never changes, when the reality is that models get updated all the time because they are frequently proven to be incorrect.
Magical creatures don't violate supersymmetry or quantum field theory. They violate things like causality, or the laws governing flight. Leprechauns can somehow discover live at the end of the rainbow, which is physically impossible. If they existed, fundamental facts about reality that have been consistent for all of human existence would come into question. To believe they don't exist is not based on feelings, it is based on the assumption that there is a foundation from which we can reason about things at all.
>Leprechauns can somehow discover live at the end of the rainbow, which is physically impossible
Well apparently not since if Leprechauns existed they could manage to do it. How is another question.
>If they existed, fundamental facts about reality that have been consistent for all of human existence would come into question.
Leprechauns aren't human beings though, they're leprechauns. Have you considered the possibility that leprechauns just don't operate the same way human beings do because they aren't human beings? Only way we could know for sure is if we lived in ancient Ireland, though.
Rainbows are illusions that remain constant from the perspective of the observer, there is no actual location where a rainbow ends. If you were to rationalize the existence of leprechauns, maybe like positing some inidgenous irish pygmies, you open yourself up to a bunch of falsifiable claims.
In other words, "magical creatures" throwing off your conceptualizations of how physical reality functions is irrelevant to how true they are, because conceptualizations of how reality functions are constantly thrown out, updated, and altered to match experience.
Whether or not leprechauns exist is irrelevant to the formation of rainbows, don't shift the goal post.
Who so? Leprechauns always appear alongside rainbows.
If leprechauns made it seem like a natural phenomena, then it sounds like they don't want to be found.
are made by leprechauns
>it's the sunlight, actually, here's how you can see it for yourself
And was that always the case or did Leprechauns place them there and then tie them to the sun? That's not something that can be proved one way or another.
>too skeptical to check if something is true
>mfw I just proved agnosticism by a leap
That is still atheism though and atheism already collapses into an arbitrary world view
Agnosticism literally isn't even a position; it's the degree to which a position is held. Everyone is "agnostic" because the knowledge being wagered is literally unknowable.
When someone refers to themselves as "agnostic" they are just an atheist, but a more intellectually honest atheist who admits they don't know what they don't know.
Nope, I genuinely take the stance that I don’t know if a god or god(s) of some kind exist. It is a mystery. Don’t believe in religious ones, beyond that who knows
>You cannot prove nor disprove God through evidence. It's unfalsifiable and you're reaching the realm of philosophy at that point.
agnostic atheism
>Presenting a worldview of overt atheism is delusional and irrational because you're expecting people to agree with you purely on personal feelings, it lacks any objectivity.
gnostic atheism
Whatever you guys are smoking dont bogart the joint
So Christians believe in or are agnostic about Leprechauns, space, and at least one guy here doesnt even believe in hallucinations.
This board has probably done more to convince me that religious people or theists are dying and primitive than any atheist figure people bitch about here.
>This board has
If you take them seriously that says more about you.
I don’t know any in real life so my only exposure to Christians is on the internet, the ones on other websites are just as stupid
There are many things that are unfalsifiable. If atheism means "believes that there is positive proof in the non-existence of God" it is a weak position. If atheism means "believes there is no God" in the same mode of disbelief as "believes there are no flying spaghetti monsters" it is a ressonable position. Agnosticism is silly because people pass judgements based on probalistic reasoning all the time. There is no reason to exempt the question of belief in God from these judgements.
>If atheism means "believes that there is positive proof in the non-existence of God" it is a weak position. If atheism means "believes there is no God"
You have stated the same thing twice. In any case you haven't read through the thread because you're preposing a position that is oriented entirely around your own personal feelings. You do not believe that God is real, thus it must be true simply because you do not believe in it. It has nothing to do with objective truth, only on what you personally feel.
>same thing twice
To believe that there is a positive proof of the nonexistence of something is different than not believing in something. Depending on your epistemological rigour what can be positively proven varies, but lets take a layperson as an example. They might say that they have positive proof of the nonexistence of things at a specific time and place (eg "there is not a man in the doorway"). Very few things can be proven positively to not exist though. When we make a judgement on the non-existence of something we are really assessing the possibility of the existence of the claimed thing against our own knowledge. If you are judging whether a flying pig exists you might use your knowledge of physics or genetics to assess the claim. Both forms of judgement fall under "not believing in something" but it is a meaningfully stronger claim to "believe there is positive proof of the nonexistence of something".
You didn't read the original post then, or if you did you did not comprehend it. Whether or not God exists is an unfalsifiable statement and you're delving into philosophy at that point. It's like how the Greeks proposed the concept that the sun is being carried along by one of their gods in a chariot. It's not something you can hand a manuscript or document of to prove empirically that exists or not, nor can it be measured. So it's unfalsifiable. Proposing that God does not exist is irrational because that is not information you can empirically know since it's not something you can "study" or "check for sources" to begin with.
It is not reasonable to have an unfathomably infinite amount of unfalsifiable super-natural things that could possibly exist. To even claim "it could exist" implies there is some way of assessing the plausability of the statement. The statement is only meaningful when it is naturalised, where we can either have a belief in its (non)-existence through deductive or inductive reasoning. If God is something that is possible to have meaningful discussions about it cannot be independent of our existence.
Not really. Spiritual experiences are a thing. Anyone who experiences them understands that agnosticism is not viable. That there is indeed more than meets the eye to the reality we see and what creates it.
>You cannot prove nor disprove God through evidence.
You absolutely can. If God's existence implies all the things the Bible is wrong about, then God doesn't exist.
In principle, but apologists will explain away discrepancies like saying "Judas hung himself, bloated in the sun, the rope snapped, and when he fell his organs fell out" rather than admit the contradiction. Or just dismiss things as allegory, like the biblical cosmology.
The problem of evil logically refutes God, i.e., an all good, all powerful creator of reality. You can criticize their reasoning, but the problem of evil actually ends with the conclusion that the existence of God is by definition impossible.
You'd be right if you replace God with "any higher power", or "a sapient creator". But God is usually and traditionally by definition tri-omni.
God allows evil as a choice, and if he didn't give you that choice he wouldn't love you.
Agnosticism is the only /socially defensible/ position someone can hold based on their own understanding. Theism is perfectly plausible but naturally due to it being based on individual perspective is not a position one can argue for in a discourse, it's more of a gateway drug to gnosticism which is also perfectly plausible and I would go even further to say that to be a gnostic is the very foundation of any genuine practice of belief and/or religion, without it you're probably just a pontificating hypocrite
>Theism is perfectly plausible
which theism? Some say there is only god while others say there are multiple, some say there is omnipotency while others say gods are as faulty as humans are. Hell, some religions even say ultimate state of god is "not"
>which theism?
It doesn't really matter. As I said Theism is a personal perspective, it doesn't require consensus or agreement for a particular faith to be held; a theistic worldview only axiomatically functions on an individual basis, that you believe in whatever conception of God you have, arguing for or against is moot beyond the bounds of tempering your beliefs against reason.
>plausible
You mean possible. An enormous amount of things are possible. Virtually everything that isn't a logical contradiction. If the impossibility of the thing is a condition for believing that the thing doesn't exist, then there are very very few things that we can validly believe don't exist.