- This topic has 332 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
What’s the best argument for atheism?
-
-
No evidence suggests any religion is correct
Coping christcuck
-
You have to be insane to believe evolution is true
-
[…]
scrotebrains.
-
-
Why should I trust a website?
-
The bible verses are in it
-
Which version
-
Most bibles are the same
-
I only trust the Greek bible is that in there?
-
>most bibles are the same
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
You are literally an absolute scrotebrain.
-
cope
-
idk man, evolutions sound just a tad bit more plausible than god pooping dinosaurs out of his ass
-
-
-
aren’t you the JW guy? you aren’t Christian to begin with lmao
-
why ?
-
go back to tftv loser
-
-
-
-
>No evidence suggests any religion is correct
Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. I don’t have evidence that you’re a murdered but you may be one anyway. So this is an argument for agnosticism rather than atheism.-
That’s a great example because you would need proof to believe he’s a murderer and it would actually be pretty unreasonable to assume he is without evidence
-
While it may be unreasonable to assume he is without evidence, it doesn’t mean that he actually isn’t one, right? I can’t look at a random person that I find in the street and think that this person 100% isn’t a murderer. Nor I can say that this person 100% is a murderer.
-
-
-
>No evidence suggests any religion is correct
Therefore, no evidence suggests that atheism is correct. How is that an argument for atheism? -
Evidence is not the only reasonable basis for belief
-
well then state them…
-
-
-
>the Big Bang created earth stars and the planets
Gravity did that you Jehovah’s Witness door knocking scrotebrain-
gravity is what makes apples fall from a tree, how does it create planets ?
-
holy shit
you utter door knocking scrotebrain. How about reading a relativity book or going to college instead of wasting your life shilling a cult-
>he can’t answer
Your parents did you an unbelievable disservice by homeschooling you
you are already wrong, why add being mean on top of it ?
-
For the record JW anon doesn’t know that stars and planets form from gravity accumulating matter together.
Not only was he never taught it, he can’t just doesn’t intuitively put 1 and 2 together.
What an absolute freaking moron-
WHO directed gravity to accumulate matter together ?
-
Yeah you should first spend some time learning what you’re even talking about before you get into the why’s
Literally unaware that gravity pulls matter together, you freaking childbrain moron.
Never post again -
No one.
Gravity ins’t an independant thing, it’s an effect, the effect of mass.-
Gravity affects feathers and planets. We can measure it, but we don’t remotely know what it is.
-
-
This really illustrates how the average theist thinks.
They subconsciously anthropomorphize everything, which begs the question who is doing what.
They can’t understand that not everything has agency and some things simply are.
-
-
-
I’m not your mother, look it up yourself, or are you too stupid to type in gravity on google.com?
please consider castrating yourself. I can’t imagine having more negative IQ shitters like you reproducing-
Isaiah 40:26
Lift up your eyes on high
And see who has created these stars,
The One who leads forth their host by number,
He calls them all by name;
Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power,
Not one of them is missing.-
>Lift up your eyes on high
>And see who has created these stars,
>The One who leads forth their host by number,
>He calls them all by name;
>Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power,
>Not one of them is missing.
lmao is this supposed to be an argument?
-
-
-
Remember when you face apped yourself as a girl and convinced lonely guys on this board that you were a girl named Laura?
That was weird, what is your church going to think about that?-
not the first time people LARP as me
-
No no no. The first image of you that was posted was face apped in your thread of a guy turning it into a woman’s face.
Someone noticed that it was edited and undid it, showing your actual appearance as a guy.
Really how do you think your church is going to feel when they find out you pretended to be a girl on LULZ to get men’s attention?-
Not him but what are you even referring to? Post the archive link
-
someone posed as me and posted a faceapp of their face as a woman or something like that
-
I don’t have it dude, you see people refer to JW anon as Laura when he posts his drawings?
That’s because he pretended to be a girl and even posted his face changed into a girls face. He’s just some greasy 20 something who pretended to be a woman for attention on LULZ -
post the archive link where I said I was a woman
literally never did
also I’m not greasy 🙁
-
Posting your face edited to look like a woman’s face in your thread and acting like it’s you, is you pretending to be a woman.
-
I’ve occasionaly seen anons pretending they’re me, how is it my fault ?
-
-
what does the post have to do with me ?
Literally unaware that gravity pulls matter together, you freaking childbrain moron.
Never post againI already know the whys
God made it
-
-
-
>Remember when you face apped yourself as a girl and convinced lonely guys on this board that you were a girl named Laura?
what?
I must have missed this, who tf is this laura? -
Literally never happened. That whole "Lara" thing was the creation of a mentally ill French guy who insisted that the comics must have been drawn by a random YouTube girl he became obsessed with after watching a video she created for a history class.
-
I never claimed to be Lara or a girl, you’re the ones who have been calling me hat for months for some reason
-
And he went along with it by posting his face edited into a woman as a pic in one of his threads. It was screencapped so I’m sure someone will post it
-
-
-
-
-
Your parents did you an unbelievable disservice by homeschooling you
-
-
-
You have to be insane to believe evolution is true
Please seek God
[…]
https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/good-news-from-god/recognize-true-worshippers/ -
>nothing
Rather, prior to the big bang, there was a big crunch / another form of the universe.-
prof ?
-
Atheism is a "belief," right? That’s what you theists like to say, at least. I was just correcting the faulty interpretation of the atheist "belief" in that image. As it stands, the atheist is highly skeptical of all theories, while taking into consideration what currently appears to be the most plausible of explanations, that explanation currently being not that there was "nothing" at some point in the past but something else prior to the big bang, which is not a true "beginning" as we understand it.
-
>As it stands, the atheist is highly skeptical of all theories
The term "skeptic" generally only applies to traditional religious beliefs, not atheism. Agnostic would more accurately describe skepticism of all theories.-
Agnostics are atheist fence-sitters. They’re atheists who don’t want to admit it. All atheists are skeptics, and skepticism is the foundation for all atheism. To speculate that reality is not something that "happens" to me but something that I "create" is the first stage of atheism.
-
Personally I agree. Agnostics are just defanged atheists who are even more apatheistic. But I wouldn’t say that atheism is skepticism, or I would if you mean as in the term "skeptic" which describes people who doubt established religious tradition. Otherwise I agree.
-
>But I wouldn’t say that atheism is skepticism, or I would if you mean as in the term "skeptic" which describes people who doubt established religious tradition.
That is what I mean. It is more natural / the more "default" position to regard your reality as something that "happens" to you, which is the seed from which religions grow. Skepticism towards that premise comes later in our thought process, and I’d claim that it’s always the first step towards atheism. Underlying all atheism is skepticism towards that premise.>Agnostics are atheist fence-sitters.
Agnostics have a grain of sense. Atheists are just silly reactionaries.
There’s little difference between atheists and agnostics besides that atheists are more honest about their convictions. They’ve thought their own position through deeper than the agnostics and realized that they have their own convictions like everyone else.
-
-
>Agnostics are atheist fence-sitters.
Agnostics have a grain of sense. Atheists are just silly reactionaries.
-
And theists are absolute scrotebrains
Are you an ateapoteist?
-
-
>something that I "create"
Sounds very nominalist, if not buddhist. Is nominalism the first stage of atheism?Rigorous philosophical skepticism leads to agnosticism, not atheism. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
-
Where did you get nominalism from that?
-
Truth is subjective. There are no universals.
-
The living embodiment of Dunning-Kruger kek
-
Like all brainlet pseuds, you don’t know what Dunning-Kruger means, and you have no argument.
-
>There are no universals.
A yes/no wasn’t given. What matters is where reality is coming from, rather than what it consists of. -
Reality coming from the individual subject as opposed to an objective source is the basis of nominalism, is it not? This isn’t a rhetorical question, maybe my understanding is wrong
-
As I understand it, nominalism is concerned with universals. It doesn’t rule out the view that there are universals and that I create them, and the "I create" part is where atheism stems from, not the "there are/aren’t universals" part, the latter being nominalism.
-
Thanks for clarifying.
-
-
-
-
-
>agnosticism means skepticism
This is the scrotebrain that seethes about atheists every day huh-
Agnostic means without knowledge. They believe that it’s not possible to know whether or not God exists. Therefore, this implies a skepticism towards atheism and theism.
-
Do you understand the words you’re using or you’re putting words together because they look nice to you?
-
I’m talking about etymology. A gnosis means without knowledge. Specifically, this refers to religious knowledge; they believe that true religious knowledge is impossible, except for theirs.
-
It was rhetoric, Captain nitwit.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
That’s what big bang means. You didn’t know this?
-
-
-
-
The fact that there’s no evidence for any god. That’s the best argument for atheism.
Plus the fact that religion is quite clearly just a human invention. So many religious claims have been disproven by science:
>The sun is pulled across the sky by the sun god in his chariot! (No, it’s actually the Earth rotating that causes the sun to "move" across the sky)
>The Earth was created in 7 days by God! (No, it was created over a very long period of time)
>The Earth is only a few thousand years old! (No, it’s about 4.5 billion years old)
>Humans were first created by God in the Garden of Eden! (No, humans evolved from earlier creatures, over a very long period of time)You have to be insane to believe evolution is true
Please seek God
[…]
https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/good-news-from-god/recognize-true-worshippers/>being so freaking stupid that you don’t understand modern science
LMAOThis is the only way you can be a Christian isn’t it? If you’re so stupid that you don’t even understand the basic findings of modern science?
-
>The fact that there’s no evidence for any god
There’s eyewitness testimony for the resurrection-
There’s eyewitness "testimony" of:
>Bigfoot
>Witches
>UFOs
>The Loch Ness Monster
>The "Flatwoods Monster" (pic related), which people realised was probably just an owl in a tree, combined with some shadows
Does that mean I should believe in all of those things? No. Because all of the apparent sightings of these things are usually either hoaxes, or are explainable by other phenomena.There is no good, reliable evidence for the existence of any of the things above, and the same is true of "God".
>Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence
OHHHHHH HE MIGHT EXIST JUST LIKE FATHER CHRISTMAS AND THE EASTER BUNNY MIGHT EXIST!Are you a child? Everybody knows that Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny are fictional inventions, which is why nobody seriously suggests that they actually exist. And anyone who knows even the most basic history of religion knows that religion is a set of myths invented by humans, which is why claiming that the Christian God really exists is ridiculous.
>He can exist while not being the god of any human religion
Then "he" wouldn’t be "God". It would be something else.-
>muh Santa
>muh Easter bunny
If you want to talk about fairy tales why don’t you go talk to your little sis? We’re trying to discuss reality here. -
>And anyone who knows even the most basic history of religion knows that religion is a set of myths invented by humans
This doesn’t mean a god can’t exist.> Then "he" wouldn’t be "God". It would be something else.
No, it would be a monotheistic God that created the universe.-
Would consider a hitherto undiscovered natural force a God then? What it if was civilization of higher beings and not an individual? What if there was no creation but a continuous existence at a higher level than our own universe?
-
Something similar to a monotheistic god can exist. It may not exist too. Those examples you made would suggest that something similar to a god doesn’t exist.
-
-
-
-
lol, sit down and actually read your bible for once
-
-
>The fact that there’s no evidence for any god.
Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.
>That’s the best argument for atheism.
Really? You can’t do better than that?
>Plus the fact that religion is quite clearly just a human invention.
I don’t see how religion being a human invention leads to no god existing. He can exist while not being the god of any human religion.-
>He can exist while not being the god of any human religion.
This is why agnosticism is the best position to hold
-
-
>The fact that there’s no evidence for any god. That’s the best argument for atheism.
Okay. Can you prove that? Without evidence your claim is meaningless and I will completely disregard it.
>Plus the fact that religion is quite clearly just a human invention
Why is every religion clearly a human invention except atheism?-
>can you give evidence for there being no evidence?
THE ABSOLUTE STATE AHAHAHAHAHAHA-
So, no. Why not just say that? You believe it’s true with no evidence, it’s just faith. Okay, just say that.
-
-
>Why is every religion clearly a human invention except atheism?
This is a troll-
It’s catscrote, what do you expect? The Anon who types like this
Why you’re avoid to answer if the big bang isn’t the point where space time as we know it began? Before the big bang we had no evidence that the universe had a beginning other than creation myths.
>A number series being infinite, doesn’t stop us from being at a given number in it.
You’re using only mathematical definitons, there isn’t infinity in our universe.>If you’re going to say what is effectively "there COULD be a god" then you need to say these things too:
But you see, all those things you’re talking about are material things. Your analogies would work if one’s definition of a god was he being a material being in the sky which you could gather physical evidence of existing. Then, as you don’t physically find him in the sky, you could compare him to things like santa claus and whatever, both physical things beings that you should have physical and scientific evidence of existing but you don’t.
The matter is that god isn’t necessarily a physical being, he could be something which transcends the material world and which by definition it would be impossible to gather scientific evidence of. This line of reasoning you did of comparing god to the easter bunny and how to counter it is something you learn on the first semester of a theology bachelor.
>What good reasons are there to believe in a god?
There are many arguments for someone to believe in a god. Here are some of them https://strangenotions.com/god-exists/
Now if you find them good it’s another different thing. I’m sure they have their fair share of criticism. Still, it isn’t like there isn’t any reason for believing in a god.is a known troll who is uses people to practice his script and entertain his strawmen.
-
Of course it is, because he’s describing atheism is a religion, when it isn’t.
-
-
-
evolution has never been observed in nature
hence not science
-
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
Yes it is science.
> Then "he" wouldn’t be "God". It would be something else.
No, it would be a monotheistic God that created the universe.>This doesn’t mean a god can’t exist.
If you’re going to say what is effectively "there COULD be a god" then you need to say these things too:
>there COULD be real leprechauns
>there COULD be real unicorns
>there COULD have been $1 quintillion USD left to me in a will by some rich person i’ve never met, and i just haven’t found out that i’m a beneficiary yet
But how likely are these things? Not very likely.What good reasons are there to believe in a god?
> So the only thing that can substantiate the evidence of a god is EVIDENCE, not a "proof". And where’s the evidence of "God"? Oh yes, there isn’t any.
Absence of evidence is not evident of absence.Dark matter has evidence behind it.
This doesn’t mean it’s a CERTAINTY but scientists have evidence it exists, e.g., observed gravitational effects.
Where’s the evidence for "God"? Go on, present it.
[…]
>Atheism is supported by evidence.
What evidence exists that supports that no god exists?1. Science has never found evidence of supernatural entities
2. Supernatural postulations have been explained away by science, for example:
a) it was once thought that a sun god pulled the sun across the sky in his chariot, but now we know the Earth’s rotation causes the sun to "rise" and "set"
b) it was once thought that each human had a "soul" which animated their body, but now we know it’s actually an electrical nervous system that animates the bodyThis is good evidence to support the idea that supernatural postulations, such as gods, are nothing more than postulations. Prescientific postulations in fact, which humans came up with because we didn’t have the tools to understand the universe, at the time. We didn’t know why bad weather happened, and ruined our crops, so we thought maybe there was a god that controlled the weather, and maybe if we prayed to him, then our crops might be saved.
Where is the evidence that supports the existence of a god?
-
>If you’re going to say what is effectively "there COULD be a god" then you need to say these things too:
But you see, all those things you’re talking about are material things. Your analogies would work if one’s definition of a god was he being a material being in the sky which you could gather physical evidence of existing. Then, as you don’t physically find him in the sky, you could compare him to things like santa claus and whatever, both physical things beings that you should have physical and scientific evidence of existing but you don’t.
The matter is that god isn’t necessarily a physical being, he could be something which transcends the material world and which by definition it would be impossible to gather scientific evidence of. This line of reasoning you did of comparing god to the easter bunny and how to counter it is something you learn on the first semester of a theology bachelor.
>What good reasons are there to believe in a god?
There are many arguments for someone to believe in a god. Here are some of them https://strangenotions.com/god-exists/
Now if you find them good it’s another different thing. I’m sure they have their fair share of criticism. Still, it isn’t like there isn’t any reason for believing in a god.-
>something which transcends the material world and which by definition it would be impossible to gather scientific evidence of
Now, why would you believe there is such a thing?-
In the same post I believe there is a link to something like 20 arguments for a god existing.
-
>If you’re going to say what is effectively "there COULD be a god" then you need to say these things too:
But you see, all those things you’re talking about are material things. Your analogies would work if one’s definition of a god was he being a material being in the sky which you could gather physical evidence of existing. Then, as you don’t physically find him in the sky, you could compare him to things like santa claus and whatever, both physical things beings that you should have physical and scientific evidence of existing but you don’t.
The matter is that god isn’t necessarily a physical being, he could be something which transcends the material world and which by definition it would be impossible to gather scientific evidence of. This line of reasoning you did of comparing god to the easter bunny and how to counter it is something you learn on the first semester of a theology bachelor.
>What good reasons are there to believe in a god?
There are many arguments for someone to believe in a god. Here are some of them https://strangenotions.com/god-exists/
Now if you find them good it’s another different thing. I’m sure they have their fair share of criticism. Still, it isn’t like there isn’t any reason for believing in a god.>https://strangenotions.com/god-exists/
Atheistbros… I don’t feel so good…-
Didn’t go to that link because I can’t be bothered to read faulty arguments.
Atheism is in good stead, since it seems to be the position best supported by evidence.
Religious people probably don’t feel so good though, given that their religious stories are being steadily dismantled by science, one by one.
-
In the same post I believe there is a link to something like 20 arguments for a god existing.
>If you’re going to say what is effectively "there COULD be a god" then you need to say these things too:
But you see, all those things you’re talking about are material things. Your analogies would work if one’s definition of a god was he being a material being in the sky which you could gather physical evidence of existing. Then, as you don’t physically find him in the sky, you could compare him to things like santa claus and whatever, both physical things beings that you should have physical and scientific evidence of existing but you don’t.
The matter is that god isn’t necessarily a physical being, he could be something which transcends the material world and which by definition it would be impossible to gather scientific evidence of. This line of reasoning you did of comparing god to the easter bunny and how to counter it is something you learn on the first semester of a theology bachelor.
>What good reasons are there to believe in a god?
There are many arguments for someone to believe in a god. Here are some of them https://strangenotions.com/god-exists/
Now if you find them good it’s another different thing. I’m sure they have their fair share of criticism. Still, it isn’t like there isn’t any reason for believing in a god.Yeah, I’m not pressing that link either.
Maybe you’dd care to present one argument out of the 20, the one you think is the strongest?
-
-
-
-
>all those things you’re talking about are material things
>The matter is that god isn’t necessarily a physical being
>This line of reasoning you did of comparing god to the easter bunny and how to counter it is something you learn on the first semester of a theology bachelor
A.k.a. a degree in defending a myth. Of course they would teach you tricks to try and defend the myth.Whether "God" is physical or nonphysical, you still need EVIDENCE in order to believe in him, just like anything else.
Christians try to cite evidence. E.g. "everything I’ve seen in the world has a cause (this is evidence from the universe), therefore I think there must have been an initial cause of the universe, which I’m going to say was this ‘God’ character".
But I don’t think that evidence is good enough to draw that conclusion.
1) Why should we jump to this conclusion that it was a supernatural / nonphysical "god" that created the universe?
2) What reason do we have to think that supernatural / nonphysical things exist at all? Proposed nonphysical things like ghosts, withcraft, human souls, etc., don’t have good evidence behind them. The "soul", as an explanation for how the human body is animated, has been replaced by a physicalist explanation – the body is animated by an electrical nervous system. The ancient idea that the sun was pulled across the sky by a nonphysical god in his chariot has also been replaced by a physicalist explanation – the sun rises and sets due to the Earth’s rotation. Nonphysical explanations of the creation of the Earth and humans ("God did it") have also been replaced by physical explanations – the Earth formed by accretion of matter in the solar system, and humans are a result of evolution.We have COUNTLESS physical explanations for the universe that are well-supported by evidence. How many nonphysical explanations do we have that are well-supported by evidence? None.
So why should I believe nonphysical things exist at all?
-
>Whether "God" is physical or nonphysical, you still need EVIDENCE in order to believe in him, just like anything else.
You can’t have scientific evidence of something that isn’t in this universe. I can’t have scientific evidence of a multiverse, for example.>But I don’t think that evidence is good enough to draw that conclusion.
That’s your personal view of that argument. Some people find it good enough.>1) Why should we jump to this conclusion that it was a supernatural / nonphysical "god" that created the universe?
Because it can be one of the conclusions. It can be another thing also.
>2) What reason do we have to think that supernatural / nonphysical things exist at all?
Because it can exist. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.>How many nonphysical explanations do we have that are well-supported by evidence? None.
You can make the case that a nonphysical god created the universe. And you can’t have physical evidence of that, only arguments.-
>Some people find it good enough.
I think those people are unreasonable. And have continuously failed to demonstrate otherwise.
Besides, very, very, rarely will people be swayed into a religion by something like a first cause argument.
It’s all about having ways to affirm faith, when exposed to the concept of critical thinking, which would be the essence of your post. Some people call it coping.-
Of course most people who are religious are so not because of reason, but because of society’s influence. Doesn’t change the fact that you can use reason to justify a belief in a monotheistic god.
-
>Doesn’t change the fact that you can use reason to justify a belief in a monotheistic god.
Ohhhh, I don’t agree with this at all.
I don’t believe t hey are justified, I believe they are failing to do so, misusing reason. Unreasonable.They need an independent reason to believe in God. (and most do, they call it faith)
-
Do you think someone who uses, for example, the kalam cosmological argument for justifyin his belief in a god is being unreasonable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
-
I find them being dishonest on purpose.
> Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
A small change to "everything that exists has a cause" would bury theism, but they act as if one of those assumptions is obvious and the other is absurd just to reach the desired conclusion. -
But it is a reasonable argument in favor of a god existing.
-
It doesn’t seem reasonable to me. It’s the equivalent of attempting to prove one dubious conspiracy theory by pointing to another as doubtful.
-
Why so?
-
Because the difference between "everything that exists has a cause" and "everything that began to exists has a cause" that separates Primal Mover from Infinite Regression hinges on your guesswork about what lies beyond a universe. It’s literally just a circular argument.
-
It is a guess, but it isn’t something that is not acceptable=unreasonable
-
Well, it isn’t absurd [in a sense of totally ignoring logic], but it is more speculative than reasonable. It’s a BIG IF TRUE kind of argument.
-
Yes I do. And I’ve thought a lot about this.
It’s a long discussion to go into.To summarize my take on it:
I think the premises are flawed. It uses what we can see in our daily lives, then stretches it to encompass things we never have seen, all by way of false analogy.
We have never seen anything come into existence, from non-existence.
But we have arguably seen causeless events that wasn’t purely actual (quantum stuff, or any event you’d grant as truly random)
There is no logical problem with an infinite regress, this has not been demonstrated.
I don’t think the conclusion follows, it’s a deductive argument that have not exhausted all logical space.But most significant to me, and this is not a particularly hot take. I don’t think it tells us anything about that "God", to warrant calling it by such.
Even if the argument succeeded. -
>It uses what we can see in our daily lives
It uses logic and reason
>then stretches it to encompass things we never have seen
Well that’s science to you. We’ve never seen a life outside this planet but it is reasonable to think they exist by using logic and math.
>But we have arguably seen causeless events that wasn’t purely actual (quantum stuff, or any event you’d grant as truly random)
Like you say, that’s a theory and not certain. You can as easily argue against the view that something comes from nothing. "Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states—no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields—what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields."
>There is no logical problem with an infinite regress
What you say about the logical problems that the wikipedia article shows? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress
>I don’t think it tells us anything about that "God", to warrant calling it by such.
Yes, the argument doesn’t justify the notion of any "known" god of the human religions. -
> What you say about the logical problems that the wikipedia article shows?
It’s on par with alternatives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma
Infinite regress, arguably, is the most *logical* option because it is the least arbitrary. -
If something can infinitely, how does it get to a specific point in time?
-
There is always a next event that makes the specific point in time close.
-
>then stretches it to encompass things we never have seen
>Well that’s science to you. We’ve never seen a life outside this planet but it is reasonable to think they exist by using logic and math.
Here’s the thing though. We’ve seen things that exists composed of matter, we’ve seen life, we’ve got a theory on how life came to be on earth and how it could follow the same steps elsewhere.What the Kalaam is doing, is not science. We’ve NEVER seen anything that began to exist. Cause or no cause.
Got zero empirical basis. -
Thanks, Satan.
The dumbest thing about Kalam is that you can just claim that everything is simulacrum without cause and starting point.
Capitalism? It’s just here. Never began to exist, also it has no cause. It’s a mystery and magic.
Your personality? Also just here. Nobody can pinpoint when you emerged. Total simulacrum.
Hell, your parents? Also just here. They are nothing but simulacra. Nobody can even see if they were biological or artificial.
Earth? There’s nothing but a pure hallucination.
The universe? It’s nothing but your brain, it doesn’t even exist. We’re not even talking about it. It’s all in your head.
You’re a mere simulation, Kalam, with a fake, virtual existence, and you’re not even aware that it is a fake.
-
Can’t you argue that space time began at the big bang?
-
> What you say about the logical problems that the wikipedia article shows?
It’s on par with alternatives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma
Infinite regress, arguably, is the most *logical* option because it is the least arbitrary.In regards you to logical problems with an infinite regress.
Infinity not a number, but a property of a set, and all that-
You would need to narrow down what kind of infinity we are talking about, in this case it would be an infinite past.
An alternative to a created universe with a beginning, is an eternal universe.There is no logical contradiction with an infinite past. Unless you believe the past exist as something actual, and the future is potential
there is no particular reason to hold such a belief, it’s unsupported by physicists, unpopular among religions/philosophers (except Thomists)
Guess what theory of time proponents of the Kalam holds to… Quintessential ad hoc -
There is always a next event that makes the specific point in time close.
Didn’t time began at the big bang? Time can’t infinitely regress, you never reach the present time if so.
-
>Time can’t infinitely regress, you never reach the present time if so.
This is more of a slogan, than an actual argument.
A number series being infinite, doesn’t stop us from being at a given number in it. -
Why you’re avoid to answer if the big bang isn’t the point where space time as we know it began? Before the big bang we had no evidence that the universe had a beginning other than creation myths.
>A number series being infinite, doesn’t stop us from being at a given number in it.
You’re using only mathematical definitons, there isn’t infinity in our universe. -
>Why you’re avoid to answer if the big bang isn’t the point where space time as we know it began?
Because these arguments are not beliefs I personally agree with. And it’s not a problem for the beliefs I do in fact hold.Still, to my understanding, that would be no be no obstacle for a Kalam follow-up argument, indeed they argue just such a thing when trying to get at God’s timelessness
Aquinas/Aristotle’s first movers are not particularly concerned with time, as they focus of, what do they call it.. essentially ordered causal series(?) where members depends on each other, no time supposedly needed for those (even if no such relationships can be exemplified in nature, by view of a modern understanding of physics) -
>Before the big bang we had no evidence that the universe had a beginning other than creation myths.
Coincidences are not evidence… -
>A number series being infinite, doesn’t stop us from being at a given number in it.
Yes it does, because infinity cannot possibly represent a numerical value as its not a number. It would be like saying that cheese is a valid unit of time. It’s just…not. -
> in this case it would be an infinite past
It is causal-logical regression, not specifically chronological.
> An alternative to a created universe with a beginning.
It can pose an alternative to an uncreated creator. For example, the creator could be created by an even higher being or causes, and so on.Religion is cornered in dealing with regress, because:
1. If you postulate an axiomatic logic that defeats regress then materialism-physicalism is a superior option. There is nothing beyond the Universe and its laws, which are itself axiomatics and no place for law-breaking “alogical” Gods.2. If you postulate that anything can happen “beyond the universe” then you can’t deny that there could be beyond “beyond the universe” and it’s just primordial chaos born of causal regress which had endless depths and possibilities.
-
-
-
>You can’t have scientific evidence of something that isn’t in this universe
I didn’t say scientific evidence, I said EVIDENCE. Why are you twisting my words?And it’s absolutely true that you need EVIDENCE to believe in something. It doesn’t matter if that thing is supposedly physical or not.
Even Christians know this, which is why they make cosmological arguments, which use facts they’ve observed about the universe as evidence.
>Some people find it good enough.
Those people have a wrong opinion.>Because it can be one of the conclusions. It can be another thing also.
Christians don’t have an open mind though. They don’t say "it COULD be a god-like figure, but maybe it could be something else – let’s look at the evidence". No, they just say "it’s definitely this god figure".God is a manmade idea at the end of the day (that’s what the evidence seems to suggest anyway), so I think it’s INCREDIBLY unlikely that it will turn out that there really is such a thing, matching the Christian concept of "God" (or really any religion’s version of a god), that exists.
I think God belongs to the same category as unicorns – an idea that looks like it was probably invented by humans, not something that has been observed directly in the universe, and therefore it would be a huge coincidence if such a thing actually did exist.
>Absence of evidence
Do you know Russell’s teapot? I’ll revise it a bit – imagine there’s an invisible alligator orbiting Pluto. We can’t detect it with our instruments. Would it be rational to say that this thing may exist then? After all, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence right?As far as we know, invisible animals don’t exist. So it would be a bit strange to believe that the invisible alligator exists, or is likely to exist. What positive evidence is there for the invisible alligator? Same with God.
(continued in next post)
-
>I didn’t say scientific evidence, I said EVIDENCE.
There are multiple arguments for god existing. Like the kalam one. Is this evidence enough?> I think it’s INCREDIBLY unlikely that it will turn out that there really is such a thing, matching the Christian concept of "God" (or really any religion’s version of a god), that exists
A god can exist without matching any human religion.>I think God belongs to the same category as unicorns
I can’t make the kalam cosmological argument thinking of a unicorn. I can using a god.>What positive evidence is there for the invisible alligator? Same with God.
There are many arguments for a god existing. There’s none of invisible aligators.>Everything requires evidence, no matter what it is.
Many arguments for god.>If an argument is just relying on intuitions, like arguments for god usually do, then it’s a terrible argument.
Is the kalam cosmological argument a terrible one? Why?>if you want to say "god MAY exist" then you need to say things like this as well
You’d have to make an argument for why this bear would exist.-
>There are multiple arguments for god existing. Like the kalam one. Is this evidence enough?
I wouldn’t call an argument evidence. Evidence forms the basis of an argument. You argue from evidence to conclusions. If your argument is sound then you will probably be using premises that refer to real evidence.>A god can exist without matching any human religion.
I don’t think it’s very likely though. No evidence of gods, nor of anything supernatural / nonphysical.It would be funny though if there turned out to be a god, but not the Christian God, or Allah, or the gnomish God (Yahweh I guess), or any of the Hindu gods, etc. I.e. they were all worshipping the wrong god all along. But no I don’t think gods are likely really.
>I can’t make the kalam cosmological argument thinking of a unicorn. I can using a god.
>Is the kalam cosmological argument a terrible one? Why?
I don’t think any of the cosmological arguments are convincing. The fact is that we don’t know what created the universe, if anything. Maybe it just came into being by itself. We really don’t know. History has shown that we keep discovering things that surprise us. Like fossils of dinosaurs. Or Pluto. Or black holes. So we can’t say we know yet what created the universe, if anything. But history also seems to show us that that these we keep discovering are all physical, and explained by physical processes. So I think if we do ever find a fuller explanation of the universe’s origin, it’s probably going to be a physical explanation.>There are many arguments for a god existing.
>Many arguments for god.
I don’t think any of them are convincing.>You’d have to make an argument for why this bear would exist.
Because invisible bears are necessary to the universe, obviously. -
>I wouldn’t call an argument evidence.
What is evidence for you? I already said, you can’t have physical evidence for something which isn’t physical. In your mind, how would someone find evidence for a nonphysical god without using arguments?>I don’t think any of the cosmological arguments are convincing.
That’s on you.>So I think if we do ever find a fuller explanation of the universe’s origin, it’s probably going to be a physical explanation.
Maybe, maybe not. How would someone find a physical explanation for the universe origin?>I don’t think any of them are convincing.
Again, that’s on you. They’re evidence that points out how something like a god can exist. Argue against the kalam cosmological argument. -
https://i.imgur.com/J7k7fyR.gif
>What is evidence
Observations.>you can’t have physical evidence for something which isn’t physical
Nonphysical things don’t exist.>How would someone find a physical explanation for the universe origin?
Science.>Argue against the kalam cosmological argument.
No.I already know that every "argument" for "God" is a sham.
-
>Observations.
How can you observe something that isn’t in this universe?>Nonphysical things don’t exist.
There may be a nonphysical god.>Science.
How can science find physical explanation for the universe origin?>No.
Nice concession. -
>How can you observe something that isn’t in this universe?
If we can’t observe something we have no good reason to think it exists.Should I believe that an army of gigantic unicorns exists outside the universe? Probably not because there’s no evidence of such a thing.
>There may be a nonphysical god.
There may be an invisible, intangible, inaudible brown bear in your room right now. But there’s no good reason to believe in one.>How can science find physical explanation for the universe origin?
Same way it found Pluto and black holes, and how it came up with the theory of the Big Bang – scientific experiments and the collection of data, which can be used to improve our theories.>concession
Nah it’s not a concession. I’ve given reasons in this thread why I don’t think cosmological arguments are any good.For many of us, the only way you will convince us that there is a god is if you present evidence.
Until then it’s just a speculation with no good evidence to support it whatsoever.
>but it MAY exist!
So may invisible, inaudible, intangible brown bears, but we’ve got no evidence of them, so no good reason to think they exist. -
>What is evidence for you?
I’ll take anything that would help separate imagination from reality. Any method you can show to be effective. -
What is imagination and what is reality?
-
>>I don’t think any of the cosmological arguments are convincing.
>That’s on you.
Pffft. It really is not.
Don’t act like it’s some sort of airtight argument, the consensus among philosophers seems to be that it’s so full of holes you can’t shoot it down.
You may as well say God revealed himself to us, so that proves he is real. And it’s entirely on me, that I failed to acknowledge his revelation. -
Go ahead and argue against the kalam cosmological argument then if it’s so bad.
-
read the thread, if you are so clever
-
I don’t see any good argument against the kalam one.
-
So like, do you think the kalam argument is being suppressed?
That there is a conspiracy against it? Why is it that (the majority of) scientists and philosophers both reject it as an explanation of the ultimate origin of our world? -
You’re incredibly stupid. You asked me to read this thread and I answered that I don’t see any good argument. In this thread obviously.
>Why is it that (the majority of) scientists and philosophers both reject it as an explanation of the ultimate origin of our world?
I bet they have their reasons. The kalam is one of the possible explanations, in no way one can be certain of it. And in no way can scientists be certain of the real origin of the universe also. -
>There are multiple arguments for god existing. Like the kalam one. Is this evidence enough?
No. As I’ve been trying to argue. A fail to see how it arrives at any God- particular attributes. And wouldn’t be better explained by naturalistic pantheism.>A god can exist without matching any human religion.
Yes? I would consider that much more likely than it matching one of the conflicting manmade religions>I can’t make the kalam cosmological argument thinking of a unicorn. I can using a god.
This falls back to me not granting the kalam as proof of a capital -G, God, in the first place, same objections
You need reasons to believing in an entirely new ontology, making up explanations have not explanatory power. (the unnecessary complex/arbitrary parts with God)>Many arguments
Thing is, if I think all of them are bad, imaginary. They don’t add up with each other to form stronger evidence.
I don’t think a first mover points to a God in particular, or anything like what I would call a God. I wouldn’t even count it among the arguments for God.
If I can make up arguments for such a first mover being the Abrahamic God, I can make up arguments for it being any arbitrary thing, like the plethora invisible animals. It would have the same explanatory power.(none)>You’d have to make an argument for why this bear would exist.
That’s the point, anyone can make up arguments, for anything. It explains nothing, and is unreasonable to believe to be something that exists outside my imagination.
That’s what I think people are doing with God. -
>A fail to see how it arrives at any God- particular attributes.
How does the kalam cosmological argument fails to arruve at a god as the cause for the universe?
>And wouldn’t be better explained by naturalistic pantheism.
How does natural reactions explain how the unvierse came to be?>I don’t think a first mover points to a God in particular
Can’t the first mover be a god? What is it in you ropinion?>I can make up arguments for it being any arbitrary thing, like the plethora invisible animals.
Make one then.>That’s the point, anyone can make up arguments, for anything. It explains nothing, There are many arguments that explain things.
-
Am I talking to Socrates?
>How does natural reactions explain how the unvierse came to be?
It doesn’t! Unknown natural process – is simply a more reasonable made-up explanation that "God did it"
on the basis of it requiring no new ontology, category of stuff, to be invented
I’m not asking you to believe it.>Make one then.
???
My objections was supposed to show that an made-up "explanation", doesn’t explain things.
Asking me to make one up, is missing the point or deflection. -
>Unknown natural process – is simply a more reasonable made-up explanation that "God did it" on the basis of it requiring no new ontology, category of stuff, to be invented
Are you saying that our current understanding of the natural universe can explain how the universe came to be? Wouldn’t we need to establish a new category of stuff that could create universes?>My objections was supposed to show that an made-up "explanation", doesn’t explain things.
It does explain. If you believe in it then it’s another matter. You could make an argument explaining how an invisible tiger created the universe, then I would reflect on it and think if your argument is indeed a possible explanation or if it’s not.
-
-
-
And it’s absolutely true that you need EVIDENCE to believe in something. It doesn’t matter if that thing is supposedly physical or not.
Even Christians know this, which is why they make cosmological arguments, which use facts they’ve observed about the universe as evidence.
>Some people find it good enough.
Those people have a wrong opinion.>Because it can be one of the conclusions. It can be another thing also.
Christians don’t have an open mind though. They don’t say "it COULD be a god-like figure, but maybe it could be something else – let’s look at the evidence". No, they just say "it’s definitely this god figure".God is a manmade idea at the end of the day (that’s what the evidence seems to suggest anyway), so I think it’s INCREDIBLY unlikely that it will turn out that there really is such a thing, matching the Christian concept of "God" (or really any religion’s version of a god), that exists.
I think God belongs to the same category as unicorns – an idea that looks like it was probably invented by humans, not something that has been observed directly in the universe, and therefore it would be a huge coincidence if such a thing actually did exist.
>Absence of evidence
Do you know Russell’s teapot? I’ll revise it a bit – imagine there’s an invisible alligator orbiting Pluto. We can’t detect it with our instruments. Would it be rational to say that this thing may exist then? After all, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence right?As far as we know, invisible animals don’t exist. So it would be a bit strange to believe that the invisible alligator exists, or is likely to exist. What positive evidence is there for the invisible alligator? Same with God.
(continued in next post)
>You can make the case that a nonphysical god created the universe. And you can’t have physical evidence of that
Everything requires evidence, no matter what it is. As I said, even Christians know this, which is why they make the cosmological argument – "hey look, things in the universe have causes, so the universe must have a cause". They’re relying on evidence (things in the universe have causes).>arguments
If an argument is just relying on intuitions, like arguments for god usually do, then it’s a terrible argument.Convincing arguments rely upon strong evidence.
Anyway, it seems your post boils down to "god MAY exist", but as I’ve said in previous posts, if you want to say "god MAY exist" then you need to say things like this as well:
>there MAY be an invisible, intangible, inaudible brown bear sitting in your room right now – how do you know he’s not there?
Well, because we don’t have any good evidence that invisible animals exist, or have ever existed, or ever could exist.Can we 100% rule out the invisible brown bear? I suppose that depends on how much you like doubting things. If you like doubting things then you might say "yes maybe the bear does exist – after all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"
But I think most people would say that there’s no good reason to believe that invisible bears do exist. We’ve never seen any evidence of them.
-
-
-
-
>Where’s the evidence for "God"? Go on, present it.
There are arguments for believing in god. Now, there’s no physical evidence of a god existing. Doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist anyway.-
>There are arguments for believing in god.
Hit me.>Now, there’s no physical evidence of a god existing.
If you say so.>Doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist anyway.
Agreed. Is there any good reason to believe a god actually DOES exist?-
for the arguments read
>If you’re going to say what is effectively "there COULD be a god" then you need to say these things too:
But you see, all those things you’re talking about are material things. Your analogies would work if one’s definition of a god was he being a material being in the sky which you could gather physical evidence of existing. Then, as you don’t physically find him in the sky, you could compare him to things like santa claus and whatever, both physical things beings that you should have physical and scientific evidence of existing but you don’t.
The matter is that god isn’t necessarily a physical being, he could be something which transcends the material world and which by definition it would be impossible to gather scientific evidence of. This line of reasoning you did of comparing god to the easter bunny and how to counter it is something you learn on the first semester of a theology bachelor.
>What good reasons are there to believe in a god?
There are many arguments for someone to believe in a god. Here are some of them https://strangenotions.com/god-exists/
Now if you find them good it’s another different thing. I’m sure they have their fair share of criticism. Still, it isn’t like there isn’t any reason for believing in a god.-
Is there one you find most compelling?
-
If I find one argument for god compelling, then that would be my personal judgment of that argument. So let’s just say that there are arguments for a monotheistic god existing and leave at that, not bringing personal values into this discussion.
-
-
-
>Hit me.
tax exempt status
-
-
-
>Science has never found evidence of supernatural entities
Can science, by definition, find evidence of something that transcends the physical world?
>2. Supernatural postulations have been explained away by science, for example:
This isn’t evidence that there is no god. This is evidence that things which people used to say are explained by religion/god can be totally explainable by science.-
> Can science, by definition, find evidence of something that transcends the physical world?
Yes. How is this even a question? Psychology isn’t a physical science for example.-
Psychology being a real science is something that is usually argued, as it often doesn’ meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and predictability and testability. Things like psychoanalysis for example aren’t considered real science, but pseudo science as it doesn’t meet the five requirements. Now fields like behaviorism are the most scientific ones of psychology, and they’re basically 100% about the physical world.
-
Anon, the answer is no. Science cannot examine things that cannot be examined. General relativity states that we can only experiment within the confines of the universe, not outside it.
-
If something affects us, it can be investigated; if it does not, it may as well not exist.
-
-
Atheist here. I don’t agree with you. I think psychology is purely physical (the brain is physical, and mental states are physical brain states). I think that everything is physical.
My response to his post would be "what evidence do we have that nonphysical things exist at all, or even CAN exist?"
Since we have no good evidence of nonphysical things. E.g. ghosts, gods, human souls, stuff like that. No good evidence for any of them.
-
-
>Can science, by definition, find evidence of something that transcends the physical world?
Different anon here. Science operates under methodological naturalism, as we all should, at least until we have a reliable way to investigate the non-natural.-
You’re right. Then the only way to have scientific evidence of a god is to have a physical manifestation of that god. You could say if a miracle happened for example, it would be THAT evidence. All the miracles we know yet are unreliable, so there’s no clear physical evidence of god.
-
There are a bunch of unexplained miracles in the catholic church
Lourdes, the vial of blood and all that stuff-
They claim that, as many other religions claim other divine miracles. But has any scientist investigated or seen one of those miracles? I believe the catholic church claims a lot of recent medical miracles as work of god, but is it really or can you explain those by science?
-
>has any scientist investigated or seen one of those miracles?
Actually they have, that’s the thing
I’m on a phone right now but I believe a simple google search can give you the sources, there was a thing with italian MDs swearing on oath that what they had seen was unexplainable and miraculous -
>italian MDs swearing
Shame they never take pictures.But seriously, if you think there is evidence of actual miracles happening. You are a gullible idiot.
-
-
literally grasping at straws
-
>italian MDs swearing
Shame they never take pictures.But seriously, if you think there is evidence of actual miracles happening. You are a gullible idiot.
>no argument
-
What?
My argument will remain as such: Humans can be wrong about what they think they see/be liars
In fact, it happens all the time.
this will always be a more reasonable explanation for "miracles", than inventing a new ontologyIf there was actual strong evidence for such events, we wouldn’t be arguing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
the thing is, your picture is not our religion, but in yours, gnomish man in the sky is, just saying
-
-
-
That the metaphysical Prime Mover/First Cause that human beings call "God" is an abstract, unthinking, eternal energy field/source or immutable law of physics/space-time instead of an uncreated omnipotent intelligence. If you make any other argument you’re not an atheist, you’re just a cringy anti-theist butthurt trying to get back at mom because she made you go to church once a week as a kid.
-
>That the metaphysical Prime Mover/First Cause that human beings call "God" is an abstract, unthinking, eternal energy field/source or immutable law of physics/space-time instead of an uncreated omnipotent intelligence.
That’s a good one. But we scientifically don’t know about those things yet (big bang isn’t 100% explainable), so atheists don’t have evidence for believing in that. So this prime mover could be a thing called "God" too, right?-
Yes but you avoid being theist by claiming that it is an elemental force like gravity or magnetism or time or physicality and therefore does not have agency of its own which is a necessary component of Godhood. It’s purely semantics to rationalize the innate monkeybrain necessity for belief in the divine to explain what cannot be explained.
-
-
why is your ‘definition’ of god any better than the ‘anti-theist’ ones?
-
Because the anti-theist ones aren’t trying to explain reality, they’re trying to get back at their parents and will subscribe to any contrarian ideology no matter how irrational or counterfactual it is to do so, and insodoing are merely creating a new ephemeral religion instead of being actual atheists.
-
-
-
The Bible
-
I’m always worried I’m gonna end up worshipping the wrong deity or set of deities. Or that the worship will be incorrect in some way. This especially a problem with the book since the book makes no sense.
-
That’s not an argument for atheism. The fact that you’re afraid of worshipping the wrong deity and that you think books don’t make sense, I mean.
-
Well its my understanding that most religions have dire consequences for worshipping the wrong deities and sort of minor consequences for not worshipping anything.
-
But how is this an argument that no god exist?
-
It not an argument for that exactly its an argument for not worshipping anything. Its a tactic to minimize potential damage, and technically not worshipping anything makes you an atheist.
-
So it is an argument to make someone become an atheist, but it isn’t an argument for atheism (that there is no god).
-
Okay I think you need to read what you wrote there again.
-
? Your argument isn’t about trying to justify the fact that there is no god. One person can worship nothing and be agnostic, for example.
-
Okay so you want to quibble over definitions? If someone isn’t worshipping anything they are practically an atheist. I don’t think it matters if that person is cerebrally an atheist.
-
I’m using the definition that atheism is believing that no god exists. Your argument is about the fact that there are multiple gods in different religions and you don’t know which one is the true one so you worship none of them. How does this justifies the nonexistance of a god? For all you care there may be a true god and a true religion, there may be a true god that isn’t the one any religion profess.
>If someone isn’t worshipping anything they are practically an atheist.
There are agnostics and religious people who believe in a "higher energy" and those people don’t worship nothing too. -
I’m not sure why this is hard for you to grasp, it’s like you are trying to force me into your version of reality and I just don’t accept that.
If you ‘believe’ in anything higher you aren’t an atheist, and if you worship that ‘higher energy’ you are making a decision that this higher power exists.
If you aren’t worshipping anything, you are an atheist. -
Look, if you don’t believe in a god because there are many gods and you don’t know which is the right one I can simply say that there may be a god anyway despite of that. Not worshipping anything doesn’t mean you are an atheist for sure, agnostics don’t worship anything and they aren’t atheists. Atheists believe that there is no god, agnositics don’t know if there are a god or not. And believing in a higher energy doesn’t mean you worship it too. I can think there is a higher energy in the universe but I don’t worship it. Am I an atheist?
-
That guy is trolling.
See how he immediately jumps towards any irrelevant detail from your posts to start elaborating whatever, in reality he’s talking past you, practicing his script while you waste your time entertaining him. -
Ah yeah probably, it really does feel like talking to someone with a script.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
well that could be said for philosophy as well, how could one be certain of a certain philosophical position when there’s so many out there, and especially so many thinkers. does that mean that we shouldn’t philosophize or think in thinks morally? by no means. rather, it’s our duty to undertake the task of understanding the world and uncovering it.
-
Well no philosopher ever said I would be condemned for all eternity for one wrong move.
-
-
-
is there just one guy making all these atheist threads
-
It’s a very small group of active Christians posting yes.
-
-
the best i’ve heard is while it’s true that God existing would be better for the grounding of our moral philosophies, that convenience doesn’t imply God.
read/watch graham oppy -
[…]
I’m sorry I meant the Greek orthodox bible, not a translation of the JW bible.
-
I guess you can find it online
I personally use the nwt since it’s more accurate
-
Okay so I agree I shouldn’t use your website. And I don’t know why you would use that version since it has so many problems.
-
>Okay so I agree I shouldn’t use your website
why ?
>And I don’t know why you would use that version since it has so many problems.
example ?
-
Why would I use it when I can just go to the bible? And it was written by a group with a theological agenda, rather than trying to honestly interpret the version I’m already reading.
-
>Why would I use it when I can just go to the bible?
it’s purpose is to guide you where to look in the bible
>And it was written by a group with a theological agenda, rather than trying to honestly interpret the version I’m already reading.
example ?
-
Why would I need a website to do that? And you want examples of the agenda of the people writing the book?
-
>Why would I need a website to do that?
it guides people where to look to find answers
>And you want examples of the agenda of the people writing the book?
you said they don’t honestly interpret the bible, please provide evidence
-
Why would I seek guidance from God in a website? Is that your relationship with divinity? A website?
And you want to know like, verses that are problematic or grammar or definition or what?-
>Why would I seek guidance from God in a website?
because its purpose is to help you where to look in the bible to find answers
>Is that your relationship with divinity?
the bible ? yes
“This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”—JOHN 17:3.
we get to know God by studying his word
>A website?
it’s a tool that facilitates research
>And you want to know like, verses that are problematic or grammar or definition or what?
what ?
-
A website can be a tool for research, but it can also be a tool to push and agenda. And I have a suspicion that’s what your website is. Not an aide in understanding the book but rather an organized group working on pushing their interpretations and agenda.
You get to know God by studying his word. Not by reading his word alongside something written by a JW.org editor.
And you don’t understand the question? I don’t understand what sort of example you want. Like, should we discuss the use of ‘a’ in John 1:1? -
>
A website can be a tool for research, but it can also be a tool to push and agenda. And I have a suspicion that’s what your website is. Not an aide in understanding the book but rather an organized group working on pushing their interpretations and agenda.example ?
>You get to know God by studying his word
I agree
>Not by reading his word alongside something written by a JW.org editor.
It can help you study it
>Like, should we discuss the use of ‘a’ in John 1:1?
please do
explain why shouldn’t there be an ‘a’ and I will explain why there should be
-
You want an example of how a website can be used to push an agenda? Are you joking?
And as far as that verse goes its a simple misinterpretation. -
no I’m asking how is the website you’re refering to not honest in its understanding of the bible
>And as far as that verse goes its a simple misinterpretation.
keep going, I know you can do it anon
-
I didn’t say that at all, I just said websites are not they way to God because websites can be used to push an agenda. I don’t make any claims about JW.org except that JW.org is not the word.
And you want some more examples? You want to talk about Romans 10:10? Or the ‘torture stake’? -
>And you want some more examples?
well you didn’t even begin speaking about John 1:1
please finish your thought
explain why shouldn’t there be an ”a” please ?
>You want to talk about Romans 10:10? Or the ‘torture stake’?
yes please tell me, post your arguments so we may examine the evidence together
-
Uhhh, yeah most of this is a misinterpretation of the original Greek, you want to argue about Greek grammar?
-
>most of this is a misinterpretation of the original Greek
what makes you say that ?
>you want to argue about Greek grammar?
please desist beating around the bushes and provide evidence that there shouldn’t be an ”a”
-
I believe in order to do that we would first need to establish why the JW bible decided to make this change in the first place.
-
so you’re asking why the NWT has ”a” in John 1:1, correct ?
-
Well I already know why, but we are going to disagree about the reason. You claim its a more literal interpretation and I claim it fails to understand the contextual nature of the original. Is that enough?
-
>Well I already know why
why ?
>You claim its a more literal interpretation and I claim it fails to understand the contextual nature of the original
why ?
>Is that enough?
I have yet to hear your arguments and you have yet to hear mine
Also you said the JW bible made a ”change”
it didn’t change anything though, it simply translates into modern language, in this case English, what the Holy Scriptures said
-
Oh because its just not that interesting to me to have a pantomime ‘debate’ with someone who has such a clear agenda. What’s the point?
-
what is my agenda ?
-
Your agenda is a JW theology woke af, I assume, mostly on your findings from a website, which is why you linked it in the first place. Not an authentic argument over the Bible’s interpretation.
-
and you are claiming the JW theology is false, correct ?
-
I’m not claiming anything about JW, I’m just saying you aren’t going to be interested in the text itself, since you come here with an agenda. I feel like I’m talking to a child.
-
I am interested in the text itself, that’s why I have asked several times to discuss John 1:1 with you
You seemed to have a problem with the article ”a”, when I asked why you replied
When I offered to do just that, you said you are not interested
So are you a truthseeker like me or are you content with the way you interprete the Bible ?
-
We aren’t talking about interpretation we are talking about translation. You see what I mean when I say it feels like talking to a child? If you don’t know the difference between basic English words we really cannot have a conversation about Greek grammar.
-
and you are saying that the translation of the NWT is incorrect, correct ?
I remember you saying something about it being wrong about Greek grammar ?would you care to elaborate ?
-
Not with you I’m afraid. At first I thought we were going to have a problem because of your existing agenda. But now I realize we are going to have problems because you cannot effectively communicate in English. Good luck truth seeking on the same website over and over again.
-
I see. I think it’s a shame but you are entirely within your rights not wanting to know the truth.
Have a good evening.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Marriage Equality.
-
snakes can’t talk
-
>That the metaphysical Prime Mover/First Cause that human beings call "God" is an abstract, unthinking, eternal energy field/source or immutable law of physics/space-time instead of an uncreated omnipotent intelligence.
Agreed. I don’t think we can know for sure but it’s certainly a good argument -
How do I avoid losing faith in humanity after reading threads like this?
-
Threads boring ZZZ
-
The fact that if we simply never told you about his you would never beehive in it. Think about it. Imagine if we took a 1 day old baby. Put him in a barn and raised him as a farmer but never mentioned religion or God to it. Over 20 years would he become religious? Which religion would he follow and why? Most atheists I’ve talked to never got brought up into it and so don’t ever think about it. They simply exist and live and work and enjoy life the best they can. They never think of God in any way.
-
Of course there is an influence of society in your religious belief. Most people are influenced by their parents religious belief and by the society they live in. Right now there is a secular wave all around, so is it fair to assume that this influences people into not having a religion. But you could also say that if those same people were born in medieval europe they’d probably be religious because religion was everywhere and they’d be influenced by it.
Point is, this doesn’t change the fact that there may be a god or not. There may be a hidden god that created the universe and doesn’t subscribe to any human religious belief for example.
-
-
There’s none, it’s a belief like any other that requires faith.
-
The bible doesn’t make much sense and whenever I would question stuff I would just get told to have faith or stop questioning god. Like ok so they teach god is all knowing/powerful/megal level 9000 got it. They also teach that he loves us like his own kids ok got it. Proceeds to know all the shittiness and pain and bonkedupness that will happen to us and just lets it happen. If I had that kind of god power I would never let a kid I loved go through half the shit humans got.
-
How is the bible not making sense an argument fo atheism? God doesn’t need to be the christian god or the god of any other religion to exist.
-
Monotheism is weird
>yeah the bible might be completely made up
>but it’s ok because somewhere out there there’s just one god
>and it’s ok if he isn’t the one we know in the bible-
I don’t understand your point. No christian think the bible is made up.
-
-
>there is a single god
>what do you mean these religions are all wrong? there is still a god out there, trust me on this bro-
>he can’t make arguments without green text
-
Quite interesting…
-
-
-
-
Thats because you’re human, whats fair in your eyes may not be fair in God’s
-
>don’t question, just obey
lol fuck off
-
-
-
>What’s the best argument for atheism?
Christianity -
>What’s the best argument for atheism?
Evolution is magic!
-
The existence of religion
-
I realy don’t need one to not believe in gnomish man in sky 2bh.
-
>I don’t even need an argument or evidence I just need faith bro
woah. this is the power of atheism?-
Oh so gnomish man in sky is real? Show me sis.
-
Is dark matter real? Can you show it to me?
-
-
I accept your concession.
-
You Christians on LULZ have the worst arguments.
He doesn’t believe in your god
He wants proof your god exists if you expect him to believe it, perfectly reasonable.
Then you ask him for proof of dark matter.
You can’t answer basic straightforward questions without deflecting and that’s part of why Christianity is nosediving so hard in the west.
Your ideas can’t compete with reality and instead of just admitting it’s blind faith you act like annoying children.
Not him and not even an atheist. Do better.-
Why don’t you do better and make a good argument for no god existing? And if he wants a proof of god existing he should just look at godel’s ontological proof or something.
-
>still deflecting
I’m neither of the two people you’re replying to and your reluctance to answer a basic question is really telling. You have no leg to stand on and can only deflect.
Christians cannot provide proof for their religion because their truth claims are faith-woke af, period. If you don’t have faith, you can’t be a Christian.-
You don’t need proof of the christian god for him to exist.
-
LMAO
>just believe without proof sis I swear it’s true!
Please tell me you’re baiting -
If you want proof of god existing you should read godel’s ontological proof. Also, science doesn’t have proofs too, why do you believe in scientific theories?
-
>science doesn’t have proofs
-
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.
-
Don’t be pedantic. Even shitty trolls in the site understand the concept of proof.
-
This.
>science doesn’t have proofs
It literally doesn’t, you idiot.
Don’t be pedantic. Even shitty trolls in the site understand the concept of proof.
He’s literally right though, and clearly the person who doesn’t understand the concept of proof is you.
Dark matter has evidence behind it. God doesn’t.
>if he wants a proof of god existing he should just look at godel’s ontological proof
You can’t "prove" that empirical things exist (due to the problem of induction), instead you just provide EVIDENCE to support the idea that something exists, and the stronger the evidence, the stronger the belief that the thing exists.This is why scientists don’t use the concept of "proof", they rely on evidence instead. "Proof" is an idea found in maths and logic.
So the only thing that can substantiate the evidence of a god is EVIDENCE, not a "proof". And where’s the evidence of "God"? Oh yes, there isn’t any.
-
>So the only thing that can substantiate the evidence of a god is EVIDENCE, not a "proof". And where’s the evidence of "God"? Oh yes, there isn’t any.
kek btfo -
It’s time to stop posting.
-
Proof that God doesn’t have "evidence"?
-
>Dark matter has evidence behind it. God doesn’t.
Show me the dark matter. If you can’t show it to me then it isn’t real.> So the only thing that can substantiate the evidence of a god is EVIDENCE, not a "proof". And where’s the evidence of "God"? Oh yes, there isn’t any.
Absence of evidence is not evident of absence.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Show you what? A gnomish man in the sky? You are a schizo.
-
>You are a schizo.
lmao, exactly my point
-
-
-
-
-
Why do Christians get so assblasted about atheists?
They are far from the only ones who don’t buy your bullshit and actually are a very small minority of people who don’t believe in your religion or any religion at all.-
Their pastors are mentally stuck 10-20 years in the past. And we all know the vocal, butthurt Christians are not the brightest ones.
-
-
You can observe clearly trends of consciousness of varying degrees. You can clearly state with a fact that, e.g.: Ants are incapable of perceiving human existence, and have no concept of humanity. They do not even know of human life, nor are they capable of seeing a human being even when a human being steps on their anthill. And yet we are told by Atheists that there are no beings of higher consciousness than mankind because "we cannot perceive it".
Care to address this? -
Jesus wasn’t a negroid admixed yemeni mutt
-
evolution disproved the creation myth of the bible, since Adam & Eve never existed there was no original sin, so jesus had no need of being crucified for a myth, which makes just just more myth piled on top of older myth,
god is a myth
the bible is fiction
religion is bullshit-
special pleading
-
The bible not being literal doesn’t mean god doesn’t exist.
-
but it means if a god exists, it is extremely unlikely to be the one in the bible and the rituals in the bible are useless wankery
-
To know if the christian god is the real one and if he is the one that exists is another completely different matter. You could start arguing that the Bible isn’t literal though.
-
The bible not being literal means the god of the bible is at the very minimum contradicting several claims about his followers
-
Like what?
-
lol
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Even if your fairytale was true in some way, you’re reading and following the "restored" depiction.
-
>gnomish man in sky
-
[…]
>The entirety of science is evidence that there is no evidence for a god
That’s crazy because people like Lawrence Krauss, people who are actual scientists with degrees, disagree with you. Why should I listen to you instead of established and respected scientists?-
No idea what he believes.
You want to prove me wrong when I say there’s no evidence of a god? Go on then, show your evidence.
No, you illiterate freaking moron. I said that science is evidence that there is no evidence for a god. I DIDN’T say "all of science proves there is no God", which you pulled out of your arse.
Christ, Christcucks are thick, aren’t you?
>My faith is not simply faith-woke af
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA>like yours is
No, I believe things woke af on evidence, a concept which is obviously alien to you.You are thick beyond belief, which I suppose is not surprising, since you’re a Christcuck.
Anyway, you’ve presented no evidence whatsoever for your god, so, by your own admission, this makes your position completely meaningless, and worthy of being disregarded by everyone.
Conclusion: you’re thick and your position is irrational.
[…]
I agree with you as a whole but many eminent scientists like Bohr or Planck believed in God.Good for them. A lot of scientists today don’t though. Stephen Hawking didn’t, for example. Maybe atheism and agnosticism have become more popular as science has advanced and shown that physicalist explanations really can explain so much of our universe (or, if physicalism is correct, all of it).
-
>blah blah i hate you and you’re stupid
ad hom. opinion completely dismissed. try harder next time-
Everything I said is correct and you’re seething because you know you’re a Christcuck.
Can’t refute my arguments? Then I accept your admission of defeat.
Glad I could defeat you so easily, Christcuck.
Try harder next time.
-
-
-
-
[…]
>y-your ideology is actually just faith woke af, just like mine, and therefore terrible… just like mine!
The difference is that you have offered 0 evidence to support your position whereas I could actually produce a cogent argument backed with evidence if asked. My faith is not simply faith-woke af like yours is. Evidence of this is that you gave the most braindead answer, "ALL of science proves there is no God" which is not evidence, that’s your opinion. Which I did not ask for. -
[…]
I agree with you as a whole but many eminent scientists like Bohr or Planck believed in God.
-
[…]
>Atheism is supported by evidence.
What evidence exists that supports that no god exists? -
Theism and atheism are indistinguishable. Because God is almighty, he would not be disturbed by non-existence. Anyone who is frantic to establish God’s existence is a false believer who does not consider the implications.
-
God doesn’t exist.
Should I believe Bigfoot exists?
Should I believe the Earth is flat?
Should I believe ghosts are real?
Should I believe unicorns are real?
Should I believe leprechauns are real?None have good evidence, so there’s no good reason to believe in any of them.
>but god is nonphysical!
Ignoring the fact that you don’t know that, it doesn’t really matter if God was physical or nonphysical – you’d still need evidence.E.g. if I said there’s an invisible, intangible, inaudible brown bear sitting in your room right now, would you believe me? Presumably not because you’ve got no good evidence that such a thing exists. Same with God.
>This is evidence that things which people used to say are explained by religion/god can be totally explainable by science
It’s evidence to support the idea that nonphysical things are just INVENTIONS of the human mind which aren’t woke af in reality. Ghosts, God, human souls, witchcraft, etc. The body of scientific evidence would suggest that none of those things are actually real, but instead were flimsy hypotheses conjured up by pre-scientific humans, in an attempt to explain the universe, before we had the tools to provide much more convincing physical explanations.And therefore it’s evidence to support the idea that God, being a nonphysical thing, is merely an invention of the human mind, rather than a real thing.
-
Dude You sound like You are coping for real
-
>can’t counter my argument
I accept your concession. You sound like you are coping for real with the fact that I’ve defeated you, LMAO. Pathetic.
-
-
>God doesn’t exist.
How do you know that?>None have good evidence, so there’s no good reason to believe in any of them.
God may transcend the physical world, so there wouldn’t be any way to gather evidence of him.>Ignoring the fact that you don’t know that
I don’t know that, it may be true or not.
> it doesn’t really matter if God was physical or nonphysical – you’d still need evidence.
How do you gather evidence of something that isn’t physical?>if I said there’s an invisible, intangible, inaudible brown bear sitting in your room right now, would you believe me?
It depends on your arguments for why this thing exists. I wouldn’t say it doesn’t exist for sure though.>It’s evidence to support the idea that nonphysical things are just INVENTIONS of the human mind which aren’t woke af in reality.
If your everything of reallity is things which are physicial, how can something which is nonphysical exist? By your definition it would be impossible to gather evidence for the nonphysical unless it somehow ebcame physical.-
>How do you know that?
I don’t need to. I’m a fallibilist. I don’t need 100% certainty, (neither can we have it) to have knowledge. -
Yes, when you invent a bunch of bullshit imaginary properties, a claim can turn unfalsifiable.
wooooowyou can do this with infinite imagined things, no reason to believe any of them to exist in reality
-
>no reason to believe any of them to exist in reality
There are many reasonable arguments for the existence of a god though. Is there any argument for the existence of santa claus?-
Those would be two different branches of arguing’
one would be attaching a bunch of imagined properties to Santa Claus, such as him being invisible, outside of time and intangible
that would make it impossible to prove if he exists, or doesn’t exist
these are in no way reasons to believe he exist, I would argue a thing turns less plausible, the more never before seen, imaginary, properties you tack onto itthe other would be along the lines of arguing that he must exists, what else could explain the coal in my stockings??? he’s the best explanation
thousands of sightings each Christmas, millions of children can’t be wrong, etc.>reasonable arguments
I don’t agree. I think they are analogous to my Santa Claus argument and unreasonable-
>one would be attaching a bunch of imagined properties to Santa Claus, such as him being invisible, outside of time and intangible
But santa claus isn’t that. He is a fat man who lives on earth and gives presents to kids.
>the other would be along the lines of arguing that he must exists, what else could explain the coal in my stockings???
But no one has any argument where santa is the prime mover.
>I don’t agree. I think they are analogous to my Santa Claus argument and unreasonable
Why is the kalam cosmological argument unreasonable?-
>Why is the kalam cosmological argument unreasonable
Yes I do. And I’ve thought a lot about this.
It’s a long discussion to go into.To summarize my take on it:
I think the premises are flawed. It uses what we can see in our daily lives, then stretches it to encompass things we never have seen, all by way of false analogy.
We have never seen anything come into existence, from non-existence.
But we have arguably seen causeless events that wasn’t purely actual (quantum stuff, or any event you’d grant as truly random)
There is no logical problem with an infinite regress, this has not been demonstrated.
I don’t think the conclusion follows, it’s a deductive argument that have not exhausted all logical space.But most significant to me, and this is not a particularly hot take. I don’t think it tells us anything about that "God", to warrant calling it by such.
Even if the argument succeeded.To clarify, I don’t think it is (entirely) unreasonable. I just don’t think the thing it’s supposed to prove, if it succeeded as an argument, is in any way something I would call a God.
It could more reasonably be, just some dumb non-thinking (super?)natural processThe separate arguments that may follow the Kalam. William Lane Craig -type stuff, why this first cause would have a mind, be personal and such. Those arguments I think are very weak.
-
>I just don’t think the thing it’s supposed to prove, if it succeeded as an argument, is in any way something I would call a God.
That’s totally fair.>It could more reasonably be, just some dumb non-thinking (super?)natural process
It may be, of course. We don’t know.>Those arguments I think are very weak.
Yeah, those arguments trying to argue for a specific religion and god can get very shaky.
-
-
-
-
-
-
>>God doesn’t exist.
>How do you know that?
It’s the conclusion I’ve drawn woke af on the fact that "God" is most likely just a pre-scientific human postulation. The evidence of history and science seems to confirm this.>God may transcend the physical world
We’ve no evidence that nonphysical things can exist, have ever existed, or ever will exist.>there wouldn’t be any way to gather evidence of him
Everything needs evidence in order to have a good reason to believe in it, and even Christians know this, which is why they draw upon evidence to make arguments for God – e.g. "things in the universe have causes (this is evidence), so therefore the universe has a cause".>>if I said there’s an invisible, intangible, inaudible brown bear sitting in your room right now, would you believe me?
>It depends on your arguments for why this thing exists. I wouldn’t say it doesn’t exist for sure though.
I think most people would say that such a thing is imaginary. Because there’s no good evidence that invisible bears exist.>If your everything of reallity is things which are physicial, how can something which is nonphysical exist? By your definition it would be impossible to gather evidence for the nonphysical unless it somehow ebcame physical.
My position is that everything is physical. In order to confirm something nonphysical then we’d need evidence that it doesn’t have any physical constitution at all. I.e. it can’t be made of particles, because they’re physical.I’m not sure if such a thing could exist though – our body of science seems to sugggest that everything in the universe is physical.
-
>It’s the conclusion I’ve drawn woke af on the fact that "God" is most likely just a pre-scientific human postulation.
The problem is that now, in the scientifc era, we have more evidence of God existing than in the pre-scientific era. So you would have to make the assumption that these people who couldn’t possibly have used modern scientific methods to come to these conclusions (that ended up being correct) simply guessed right. Once or twice, maybe, but not multiple times and across differenct scientific disciplines.
>We’ve no evidence that nonphysical things can exist
What about abstract objects? Do you deny the existence of numbers? Those are not physical objects.-
>we have more evidence of God existing than in the pre-scientific era
I’m not aware of any evidence of any god.>What about abstract objects? Do you deny the existence of numbers? Those are not physical objects.
In my view everything is physical, and yes this includes numbers.Numbers are just mental concepts, and mental concepts are just physical brain states, in my view.
So the number 2 is just a physical state of your brain, and a physical state of my brain, etc.
I’m a physicalist:
>In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism-
Well, even in this thread people were meaning Hawking. Hawking himself said that the big bang "smacks of divine intervention", which is a pretty clear indication that it could be considered as evidence for a God’s existence. Ultimately though, I find the question to God’s existence futile to debate. God is either something you accept or reject, not something you know or don’t know.
Yes I’m aware of the branch of philosophy, I was just reading about it. I think it’s pretty hardcore to say that things like good and evil don’t objectively exist, and I find it absurd that you would describe the Holocaust as merely a "physical event", but I don’t think that I can necessarily talk you out of it either. That is a realization I believe you would have to come to on your own.-
Hawking denied god your freaking clown, he’s not agreeing with your views. God damn, where do you fucks even come from?
-
You resorted to ad hom so I no longer have any reason to listen to you
-
Why is a literal nobody replying to me?
-
An ad hominem is using an insult INSTEAD of an argument. He gave you an insult IN ADDITION to an argument, which you promplty ignored.
-
That guy is allergic to the concept of honesty, don’t worry. It’s a known troll.
-
Oh and by the way, that’s the Matt Slick way: you act all uppity and smug, and belittle others. When people don’t fall for your bullshit or call you on it, you say "WHOAH dude address the argument please don’t offend me ok", and dance around as if the counterpoint doesn’t exist.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I am willing to ask a local retired hitman to do this last job and help removing Lara from LULZ.
Starting gofundme in a minute. -
"I believe there is no God"
>But you can’t KNOW that, there is no evidence that disproves God!
It’s a belief, not a knowledge claim. What is the issue?-
The issue is that you can equally then say that you believe in a god instead.
-
-
There is no convincing evidence either way, it all comes down to circular reasoning or arguments from ignorance. Embrace agnosticism, don’t worry about things as trivial as God.
-
> Embrace agnosticism
What is the proof for it? We should instead embrace meta-agnosticism where agnosticism itself is as unknown as theism or atheism.-
>what’s your proof for now knowing ???
Lmao scrotebrain-
Agnosticism is not the claim that you personally don’t know something, agnosticism is the claim that nobody can possibly know something. You’re confused about what the word refers to.
-
Damn sis, you’re lost
-
…No, I’m not.
-
You’re pretty much clueless about this whole thing
This is giving you the benefit of the doubt you’re not just gaslighting btw-
What am I clueless about? The definition of the word agnostic is precisely as I described.
"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
You simply don’t know what the word means, which is okay, but you shouldn’t pretend to know things you don’t know because then you be humiliated by people like me. I even gave you a chance to do it yourself, but you needed me to do it for you because you are a manchild.-
Lmao you’re truly a gaslighting scrotebrain
>a person
vs
>agnosticism is the claim that nobody
Not going to waste my time with you anymore, don’t bother replying
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[…]
No it’s not illogical, it’s perfectly logical.
We’ve never seen any evidence of any god.
Hawking was an atheist:
>Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#Religion_and_atheism>Ultimately though, I find the question to God’s existence futile to debate. God is either something you accept or reject, not something you know or don’t know.
Maybe there is a god out there that we just haven’t seen concrete evidence of yet, but I personally think it’s pretty unlikely that pre-scientific creation theories will turn out to be right, given that so many of them have been disproven (e.g. Earth being just a few thousand years old, the sun being pulled across the sky by the sun god in his chariot), and given that we don’t have any good evidence that nonphysical or supernatural things (like gods) exist, or can exist.>I think it’s pretty hardcore to say that things like good and evil don’t objectively exist, and I find it absurd that you would describe the Holocaust as merely a "physical event"
Good and evil are just human attitudes. The Holocaust was, if we’re being purely objective, just a physical event. Humans subjectively describe it as "good" or "evil". Some people do think it was good, although there aren’t very many of those people. -
So this is the power of apologetics, huh
-
Yup. It’s pathetic, really. About 1800 years from smelling their own farts and the best argument they’ve got is "because I say so".
-
-
Atheist here, I consider "fine tuning" arguments much stronger than any cosmological ones
Kalam doesn’t get to anything I would call a God (I will just argue the first cause is a mindless natural process)However, fine tuning arguments suggest a creator, that has a preference for life-giving universes. (allows for beings with minds)
That’s more curious to me.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.