Is it rational to believe something which is impossible?
How do atheists do it?
Is it rational to believe something which is impossible? How do atheists do it?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Provide evidence for the existence of God(s).
Quick! Pull the trigger!
Read Aristotle on the immovable mover.
>If everything in the world is constantly changing and moving, then there must be a first cause or prime mover.
>If the prime mover started everything in motion, then it must be the ultimate cause of all motion in the universe.
>If the prime mover is the ultimate cause of all motion in the universe, then it cannot itself be subject to change or motion.
>If the prime mover cannot itself be subject to change or motion, then it must be eternal and unchanging.
>If the prime mover is eternal and unchanging, then it must be perfect and lack nothing.
>If the prime mover is perfect and lacks nothing, then it cannot desire anything.
>If the prime mover cannot desire anything, then it cannot be a personal God in the traditional sense.
>If the prime mover is not a personal God in the traditional sense, then it must be a purely intellectual entity.
>If the prime mover is a purely intellectual entity, then it is an immaterial being that is the source of all motion in the universe
I also want to say OP is a homosexual and doesn't know how logic works.
Even if we assume the premise of that argument go be correct, it still doesn't offer any convincing arguments towards any man made religion
I think man made religions are bullshit. We can never know for certain if God exists even if people say they have seen God or experienced something from him. People are infallible, corruptible even without realizing they're corrupted, and they are manipulative.
I just find comfort in the logic that there's most likely something external to our universe that created us. I may never know what, but it's impossible to think that something like the big bang happened out of nowhere even if we assume the universe collapses and expands ad infinitum. Something needed to start that chain of events.
Sorry, I meant fallible.
>If everything in the world is constantly changing and moving, then there must be a first cause or prime mover
Not necessarily, things can just run in an eternal loop with no real starting or ending point.
>but who made the loop
No one did, it just "is". If this is possible for "God", it's possible for the loop. Or maybe the loop IS God, who knows.
We cannot understand how an eternal being like God could exist or function, so all we know is that we don't know shit in the end.
But thinking one can use the rule of elimination to figure out existence so simply, while having a limited human mind, is just foolish.
>things can just run in an eternal loop
No retard, it cannot.
why not?
>But what if this prime mover were not physical. What if it were absence and that absence is why everything is driven towards it because nature abhors a vacuum and must constantly fill this privation?
Oh right, then it wouldn't exist to the atheist because it's not a material thing they can hold like a funko pop.
>tell that to my deer feeder which I haven't had to change or charge the battery in for 3 years.
Tell me why you "photon device" requires the battery to have a cathode and anode hooked up in a circuit. Just hook up one end? I thought these things were supposed to be traveling really fast?
>then it wouldn't exist to the atheist because it's not a material thing they can hold
Numbers demonstrate your strawman incorrect
>Numbers demonstrate your strawman incorrect
Hahahahaha. That's right materialist, numbers and quantities are your faith.
>That's right materialist, numbers and quantities are your faith.
No dummy, "faith" is demanding logic be removed to just believe
Numbers are a metaphysical concept we can see manifest in physical reality via quantity.
Strange that a supposed God has to use materialism to create and interact with the world, yet you expect me to believe he's above it.
>I don't understand how electricity works or why we need batteries
uhuh. You're just trolling at this point if you know what an anode and cathode are but pretend not to know what a fucking battery is.
Like I said earlier, christcucks don't even believe the con they sell.
But to answer your question: solar panels are something like 20% efficient and nighttime exists. And shadows, because trees are a thing.
The fact that you have to pretend to not understand the most basic of shit in order to justify your belief in skydaddy doesn't help your argument for the existence of skydaddy.
You need a "Cathode" and an "Anode" otherwise you don't get shit, dipshit. Point a and b are "already established" before your little lightbeam ever leaves the tube. Measuring the speed it travels between point a and b is moot, and the electromagnetism is anything but "physical". It's not the copper wire, or the lead battery.
Also, you mean to say that this light is "traveling" through a vacuum sealed tube? Patently absurd. First of all it would be negating the vacuum by "being in it" in the first place. Second...how is it physically possible? It's a sealed glass tube, anything physical traveling through it would break it.
>Numbers are a metaphysical concept we can see manifest in physical reality via quantity.
No. They are a description. Words of a language, that being "mathematics". You cannot even use them to describe the side of one of the most simplest triangles and you expect me to believe they can describe reality accurately? Retarded.
>No. They are a description
That's what I said
>They are a description. Words of a language, that being "mathematics".
Which can be demonstrated in physical reality
>You cannot even use them to describe the side of one of the most simplest triangles
Why not?
>you expect me to believe they can describe reality accurately?
It's an example of it. I see your lack of nuance hurts you
>retard
The battery stores an electrical charge. wires don't make electricity by themselves. an electric motor can charge a battery, and copper wires are a component of an electric motor. That has fuck all to do with solar panels. Solar panels rely on photons to move electrons, instead of an electric motor.
I guess I was wrong and you really are an idiot.
I mean, I'm genuinely having trouble parsing your idiocy, to be honest.
>a solar panel is a vacuum tube
I don't think so, no
>light can't travel through glass
>how do windows work,jpg
fucking idiot.
>if
>if
>if
That's all you lot can do, presuppose based on subjective interpretation, which you can't demonstrate past
>Provide evidence for the existence of God(s).
Unironically study NDEs and realize that there actually is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die. And NDErs talk about God running the afterlife. Therefore God exists.
Here is a very persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:
It emphasizes that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist
>"Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."
Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE you immediately realize that life is the deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.
Or as one person quoted in pic related summarized their NDE:
>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light. At the end, I could see and feel an even brighter light pulling me toward it, and as it shined on me, I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."
Even ultraskeptical neuroscientists are convinced by really deep NDEs.
>b-b-but NDEs are dreams or hallucinations!!!!1! DMT!!!1!!1!
No, this has already been thoroughly refuted already in the literature you likely have not read.
Gee, someone is sick, on death's doorstep, all his internal organs are in a state of collapse, even the brains. The sufferer experiences delusions, hallucinations, visions because of the near death distress of his brains.
THIS IS IRREFUTABLE PROOF OF AN AFTERLIFE.
Fuck off idiot.
I’ve met people who have had wild hallucinations during a near death experience or absolute darkness. I don’t think near death experiences prove anything.
I can understand how hallucinations can, and especially in the past, could have convinced people who experienced them that they had some divine experience. As someone who has had hallucinations induced by both illness and sleep deprivation, they can be extremely fucking vivid and seem almost like reality.
If ypu have no idea of brain chemistry and how hallucinations occur thinking that some supernatural shit occurred to you probably makes sense for such clueless individuals
>Provide evidence for the existence of God(s).
You're referring to the transcendental argument for God, which is pretty solid but atheists don't care.
You can't believe in God if you shut the door.
Believers in God believe because they realize that there is a "door" or home inside their heart that nothing else can reside in except for the love of God, that's why it's so undeniable when you do actually open the door and let God enter.
Those who shut this door will never understand why believers are so devout. When you realize that God will enter your life if you open that door, it's something that you can never deny. You've realized the truth, you've felt it.
Stop using poetic terms like heart when you’re talking to autistic atheists, that’s part of the problem imo. You’d be better off telling them something more akin to their brain‘s neural activity creating the spirit, which is like a satellite link to God or whatever.
Or you could gain some self awareness and realise you’re too retarded to see reality and then do the right thing by forfeiting your right to vote.
>Hate jesus
>Has gay porn saved to his HD
Pottery
jesus
>>Has gay porn saved to his HD
Pottery
>Larpers can only pretend to be pagan
Refuted by the Good Book of rules and regulations 🙂
You are just an npc israelitebot
>Refuted by the Good Book of rules and regulations 🙂
can only pretend
>You are just an npc israelitebot
You and OP have a lot in common ;^)
Im sorry, but seeing as Christianity has an entire catalogue of books, that means all I have to do to refute your tik tok tranny larpers is refer to the book itself, in this case I will he lazy and just throw John out there.
You cant use false christians to argue against christianity.
Besides, given your loveof absolute worship of israeli policies, I find it unsurprising you fap to saved images of troons cosplaying
You walked into another trap set by yours truly teenage tim, this is yet another end of thread I proved once again I have, and always will, own you 🙂
>Christianity
About that
In 2 Samuel God prophesied to Nathan abiut the coming king from the flesh and blod of David. Jesus isn't the flesh and blood of David as Joseph isn't his father and Mary has zero lineage in the bible
Christianity is built on contradictions
>About that
No son, sorry, the fact that you tried to imply a troon could be a christian already set your level of actual knowledge about christian systems of belief at zero.
You dont get a say anymore, at least not in this thread.
Stop underage posting kid and lurk until you are 18
Anyway
In 2 Samuel God prophesied to Nathan abiut the coming king from the flesh and blod of David. Jesus isn't the flesh and blood of David as Joseph isn't his father and Mary has zero lineage in the bible
Christianity is built on contradictions
>Has no argument.
The only one full of contradictions are atheists on this board.
And I wont help you to unravel your confusion about the book of samuel, I just proved you vote and shill whatever direction israelites and the adl tell you to on tv.
You are either the biggest traitors spiritually or the most easily brainwashed demographic.
You have no value to bring here, and I would sooner argue with a rabbi about whats written(because he actually reads) than some cartoon character joke that has become new atheism.
You have no line of credit to talk about any other group here, you are spiritual israelite, nothing more
>The only one full of contradictions are atheists on this board.
Hmm, not really
Matthew has twenty-seven generations from David to Joseph, whereas Luke has forty-two, with almost no overlap between the names on the two lists. Notably, the two accounts also disagree on who Joseph's father was: Matthew says he was Jacob, while Luke says he was Heli.
Which ties.into
In 2 Samuel God prophesied to Nathan about the coming king from the flesh and blod of David.
>“‘The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
Jesus isn't the flesh and blood of David as Joseph isn't his father and Mary has zero lineage in the bible
Christianity is built on contradictions
Lmao Luke is literally Mary's genealogy not Joseph. It is astounding watching this ~~*atheist*~~ prove the confounding effect of 1 Corinthians. You literally are locked out of the kingdom and we can ALL see you clawing at the door. This is the wailing and gnashing of teeth He spoke of
The best thing about counter trolling you is I know your biggest weaknesses
1. You cannot admit when you are wrong
2. You childishly HAVE TO HAVE the last word.
All I gotta do is just make any post your direction, and its gauranteed you will respond.
You will watch this thread reach 300 posts, because I have owned you since you allowed me inside your head
That's such a hilariously uneducated take of 2 Samuel that it is hilarious.
Joseph adopts Jesus just as we are adopted in to be Sons of God through belief on Him. That's literally what strengthens and corroborates the prophecy. You just proved the efficacy of Jesus being the Christ. You are literally Balaam lmao
>Joseph adopts Jesus
That's not the flesh and blood of David. James is though, Mayne that's how God was talking about.
>That's literally what strengthens and corroborates the prophecy
That's literally not the flesh amd blood..sorry duder but your cope does not computer
>You just proved the efficacy of Jesus being the Christ
You mean your made up axiom thst literally is the opposite of the passage?
>Lmao Luke is literally Mary's genealogy not Joseph
Nope. They never keep those records for women.
Excessive replies, got eeem ;^)
Literally didn't read any of this. How does it feel to know that you can talk at me and I won't take in the words of your satanic ass?
>Literally didn't read any of this
I accept your concession
>Excessive replies, got eeem ;^)
I know you love to "participate"
Its too bad you refuse to drop the script every now and then, you never did tell me if you had a good Christmas and new year when I asked about ten threads back we have crossed paths in.
It would be more productive if we could just sit and have coffee in between bouts now and again.
It could be like one of those british shows about a demon and angel getting together for a beer or tea now and again, except it would be an anti christian and a turncoat fallen having small talk and non agenda related discussions about how the world has gone to shit.
I think you had real potential for real discussions here, but the board culture convinced you that constant and endless attacks is the way to win, but it really isnt.
The real game is networking and guiding the herd through social engineering.
I only gave enough shits about defending christianity when I saw overwhelmingly false claims and attacks on it and sniffed out an agenda.
In real life, I doubt we would get into this kind of heat at all
You gotta break character every now and again if you really want to connect to people
Like sure, I am defending OPs thread, but he is also a memeflag, there is a real possibility hes a fucking star of rem poster trying to just cause trouble.
But I saw the 2d4 chins post where a bong admitted to playing both sides against the other because apparently he thinks its "fun" to drive divisions.
You should consider this post above all others I have written to you thus far, because its the rare olive branch I have extended.
Sure we can keep fighting in other threads, but lets break bread once in a while, I only offer because even though I think you spam like a troll, I actually respect your power to confound other posters and drag them along your bait lines
You arent an idiot, and thats why I think I like you, despite my occasional disgust at your attitude
>emotional diatribe
I accept your concession
>which is pretty solid but atheists don't care.
Because it's a logical fallacy.
Ontological "proofs" of God are always circular.
At best, people like St-Augustine proved the existence of transcendentals, but it ends there.
Not going to let in the israelite, sorry just not gona do it is all.
What is uniformity of nature?
It is like the uniformity of nature.
I have no idea what that is.
Neither does he
>What is uniformity of nature?
>It is like the uniformity of nature.
Knuckleheads like you are the reason kids these days are starting after-school satan clubs.
just retarded christcuck terms, but in this case i htink it's a rabbi. just to mess with christcucks.
>Is it rational to believe something which is impossible?
An atheist by definition is a metaphysical belief system that denies the beliefs of other metaphysical belief systems.
That's it. You are literally dealing with pure irrationality reified into existence as a contrarian fence post sitting bag of shit that denies the substrate/mode/explanation as to how he's an animated bad of shit.
>you don't believe in Santa Claus, therefore, you believe in Santa Claus!
uh, no. An absence of belief in something, is an absence of belief. period. fucking christcucks literally can't comprehend not believing in fairy tales...
>you don't believe in Santa Claus, therefore, you believe in Santa Claus!
Not what I said dipshit. I said:
>You are literally dealing with pure irrationality reified into existence as a contrarian fence post sitting bag of shit that denies the substrate/mode/explanation as to how he's an animated bad of shit.
Now shove that post all the way to the post hole.
>is an absence of belief
No dipshit. It is the DENIAL of belief, which in itself is a belief system. They deny there is any force whatsoever and most fall back to materialism, claiming that the material animates itself...somehow again without explanation.
>christcucks literally can't comprehend not believing
Cool belief you have there.
>in fairy tales...
As opposed to what? Oh right, you don't know but I'm sure you have a pilpul dualism rhetoric lined up to cope your way out.
Don't let them lack.
Again, defeat yourself
>I can lack belief in your subjective interpretation of what you think God while believing in mine
Every
Single
Time
>y-you a-actually DO believe, y-you're j-just in d-denial!
uh, no, fag, I genuinely don't believe in your magic skydaddy. Sorry.
>y-you a-actually DO believe,
You have no beliefs? Well do you actually know anything then?
>This is a strawman.
Where is the actual argument? They belief in fuck all to actually argue over and they don't actually know the facts to back up anything they say. It's like how a Buddhist denies the soul despite the scrolls to his own faith only denying that the soul exists as a material thing that can be obtained, observed, found.
You throw the baby out with the bathwater, again because you're stupid materialists who only view the world through atomistic ("Maya") eyes. You only believe in things that can be counted.
>We exist, if existence wasn't, we wouldn't be here to discuss it.
There's that juicy pilpul. You still lack, that's all you do. Lack the explanation, lack lack lack. "Hurr we just exist by materiel chance HURR"-atomistic retard.
>Materialism is the only rational world view because we can only examine the material reality
SO JUST UP AND DENY THE "NON-PHYSICAL" BASED ON THIS? LOL.
>Belief in supernatural is fucking retarded and nobody is obligated to share or respect your mental fanfiction about how the universe works or our place in it.
Now tell us about the "wave(of what) particle duality" and magic bumping particles.
>>This is a strawman.
>Where is the actual argument?
Exactly. Where is your actual argument?
I'm not the one in denial. Also I'm not really arguing in the first place, just accurately describing the absolute state of modern day atheism. You used to be fine with pure denial, but now that the world see's how unbearable you contrarian nature is the athiest now typically fallbacks to the most popular atomistic belief system. Which is now "magic bumping particles" and kosher light switch theory.
It's just a description with no explanation. "Hurr we're here otherwise we wouldn't experience it!". NO SHIT RETARD. WHY IS IT LIKE THAT? HOW? This doesn't answer the "how".
>We can both observe and examine particles like electrons and photons etc.
There is no empirical evidence of the magic bumping particle you described. I know you're probably going to say I'm wrong, but again you'll provide absolutely no evidence to substantiate your claim.
>You can't observe supernatural bs like gods
>We can't see it so it must not be there
>We can't see the soul so it must not be there
You have nothing.
That is the explanation
Description. There is no explanation in that statement.
>most consistent with what we actually know about reality and can demonstrate.
You can describe, just like any bum on the street.
>Yes, I lack any beliefs. I don't "believe" in anything.
>I trust what I can observe and/or verify
Lol. So go chase shadows, privation man. They're observable so they must be real.
>I'm not the one in denial
Me neither. Have a nice day
>lol shadows aren't real
wow, nice argument. I guess that photons aren't real, and that physical objects which block and redirect photons of light, casting shadows, also aren't real. Moron. Did you really just confess to not understanding how light works?
>I guess that photons aren't real, and that physical objects which block and redirect photons of light, casting shadows, also aren't real
You never see "light", only "illumination". This doesn't stop the scientist form doing the same thing a christcuck does with god and claim it's "real" and is a "particle"/"wave" (of what lol, a "wave" is what something else does) despite never actually seing "light" (the magic particle cause whatever). You see the reflection, the reaction of the wave on...other "material things" that are simply just "hard tangled light", propped into existence by it in the first place.
>nagger the fact that your computer works and you can post your low iq dribble here is based on the fact that our theories and models regarding those "magic bumbling particles" are more or less accurate, allowing us to produce machines with circuitry that manipulates the movement of those particles.
The magnet wheel goes BRRRR around a copper archform that doesn't touch the magnets, this generates you the archaic hertzian waveform known as "electricity" and has absolutely nothing to do with particles. If it did, then synchronizing generators across hundreds of miles...wouldn't be necessitated. Why would you have to synchronize them if what they were causing was traveling form point a to b? It's that point a and b has to be synchronized for the effect to even exist in the first place.
>photons aren't real
tell that to my deer feeder which I haven't had to change or charge the battery in for 3 years.
nagger the fact that your computer works and you can post your low iq dribble here is based on the fact that our theories and models regarding those "magic bumbling particles" are more or less accurate, allowing us to produce machines with circuitry that manipulates the movement of those particles.
He thinks that solar panels are powered by skydaddy fairy dust.
>>We exist, if existence wasn't, we wouldn't be here to discuss it.
>There's that juicy pilpul.
You clowns say the same claptrap just like a troon and just like them, it's all emotional no yous
Did you fail high school physics m8? We can both observe and examine particles like electrons and photons etc. You can't observe supernatural bs like gods
Retard, electrons are explicitly NOT visible(“observable”), being so explicitly wrong like this makes it obvious your “belief” is based on nothing other than your personal hang ups.
>whatisanelectronmicroscope.jpg
>more nonsensical wordsalad
nonsense is still nonsense no matter how much you reiterate.
That's still not an arrangement.
*argument.
You don’t see electrons WITH an electron microscope, dumbfuck, do you even know what they are?
It seems you’re assuming I’m trying to say electrons don’t exist or might not exist. The only reason you’d think that is because you’re a retarded materialist.
Does free will exist?
>I'm saying that electrons don't exist, but I'm actually not saying that!
No, you're implying that just because you can't see something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Which is a dumbfuck argument, because this very conversation proves that electrons exist, while there is still no proof of any god or gods.
Ok, then this very conversation proves God exists. Wow, that was easy.
Does free will exist? Yes or no?
>captcha: kkp00p
>Does free will exist? Yes or no?
Nope as every choice you make is predicated on consequences which you'll never escape. Good and bad
I don’t think you understand the question. I’m not asking “with a gun to your head, do you really have a choice?”
I’m asking, does the capacity to make decisions truly exist in such a way as it is reliant upon the self? Can anyone actually “act” in such a way that is not wholly predetermined by physics?
In other words, if all physical phenomena are cause and effect, and consciousness is a result of said physical phenomena, can free will still exist?
>does the capacity to make decisions truly exist in such a way as it is reliant upon the self?
Sure, but what you fail to understand is that your choices also affect more than self and often times the choices made are also reliant on others
>In other words, if all physical phenomena are cause and effect, and consciousness is a result of said physical phenomena, can free will still exist?
No, not truly, however there is a sense of freedom within that because
>your choices also affect more than self and often times the choices made are also reliant on others
Understanding the totality of this, can give better clarity to the choice you make
>I think that the computer of phone I'm typing with being proof of electricity is a comparable argument to "god exists because I day so"
or you're just too retarded to grasp the obvious point I was making.
>free will
Has nothing to do with "god". Whether or not free will exists is an entirely different argument, and thus, a red herring. Make a new thread if you want to discuss whether free will exists.
Yeah, that’s really not what I meant. The idea you’d seriously think anyone was not “smart” enough to get your point is pathetic really. If you’d rather, so you can escape your own aggressive materialist sorting and categorizing autism, the *concept* or idea of God, has made this conversation possible. Maybe stretch your mind a bit and think on why I might say that before firing off some snarky response.
>Does free will exist? Yes or no?
This also goes doubly for Christians as their will is bound by the box if their gods will whom also designs every inescapable consequence to all their choices
>Ok, then this very conversation proves God exists.
Not really. You can't have a theory of it or make predictions and you can't test it in the lab.
The proof of god would be a miracle, something that defies the laws of physics and can be observed, measured and falsified ideally but they don't come even close.
>There's that juicy pilpul. You still lack, that's all you do. Lack the explanation, lack lack lack. "Hurr we just exist by materiel chance HURR"-atomistic retard.
That is the explanation most consistent with what we actually know about reality and can demonstrate.
>what is 1+1? IN B4 HURRR 2
>You have no beliefs?
Are you starting to understand?
Yes, I lack any beliefs. I don't "believe" in anything. I trust what I can observe and/or verify, or what otherwise seems likely given all available information; I don't trust hearsay and stories from indoctrinated cultists.
The universe exists, I exist, other people exist, plants, animals, etc, exist. That much is evident, plainly. There is no evidence of any "god" other than word of mouth from others. I haven't seen or been able to speak to or otherwise observe or verify the existence of any gods. No moreso than I've been able to observe or verify the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, ghosts, and so on.
>You throw the baby out with the bathwater
Anyone who says this, I immediately dismiss anything they have to say. Lay off the Ben Shapiro homosexual
>I'm programmed to respond to input
Sorry, NPC. I used one of his catch phrase by accident. Apparently there's more than just "okay this is epic", but I wouldn't know since I don't really listen to israelites.
>That's what I said
You said they manifest in reality. As imaginations I supposed.
>Why not?
Take a crack at the one I posted. It's only been 3000+ years.
>It's an example of it.
Clearly not since it's been 3000+ years.
>I see your lack of nuance hurts you
I'm talking about reality, not nuance of reality.
>an electric motor can charge a battery,
Not without both point a and b already connected
>Solar panels rely on photons to move electrons
They rely on infrared waves to perturb dielectrics/piezoelectrics to charge batteries connected at point a/b. Then step them up using transformers. None of which proves the existence of an electron particle. The "electron" is simply a quantified unit of the perturbations caused by hertzian waves. Used by mathematicians for mathematicians.
But none of that shit happens until point a and b are "already connected". To say it "has a speed" and "travels" is a misnomer. It's a field perturbation of what's already there and present.
>light can't travel through glass
The irony is that light "traveling through glass" destroys the concept that it "has a constant speed" since glass allegedly changes the speed it travels. What happens is that the waveform gets distorted due to the dielectric permittivity/ magnetic permeability of the material in question.
>used one of his catch phrase by accident.
>but I wouldn't know since I don't really listen to israelites.
Sure you do. And you worship one too.
>"magic skydaddy"
Pure straw. The "magic skydaddy" is YOUR homosexualy, j*wish interpretation of the term "God".
I don't believe in the magic skydaddy, flying spaghetti strawman either but I do believe in...no, KNOW there is... a God.
>prove it
"God is the universe and everything in it." ala Spinozian pantheism. This meets the burden of proof and criterial definition of "God".
Atheism is Talmudism for goyim. Sorry, but you've fallen for a j*wish trick.
>but I do believe in...no, KNOW there is... a God.
Sure, based on your subjective interpretation of what you think God is
No reason to believe you
>This meets the burden of proof and criterial definition of "God
To you, sure. I dont see any reason to buy into your presuppositions
>Atheism is Talmudism for goyim. Sorry, but you've fallen for a j*wish trick.
Yet you're the one kneeling to an Essne who had beef with Pharisees and Sadducces 2k years ago. All Semitic infighting
>but I do believe in...no, KNOW there is... a God.
Substantiate it
>"God is the universe and everything in it." ala Spinozian pantheism. This meets the burden of proof and criterial definition of "God".
I, too, can change the definition of words to win an argument.
God is actually ducks. Since ducks exist god exists.
>don't call my skydaddy a skydaddy
>father in heaven, hallowed by thy name
right....
>They deny there is any force whatsoever and most fall back to materialism, claiming that the material animates itself...somehow again without explanation.
This is a strawman.
>Cool belief you have there.
I van lack belief in your subjective interpretation of what you think God while believing in mine
>material animates itself
Why does something need to animate it?
We exist, if existence wasn't, we wouldn't be here to discuss it. Out of untold trillions of possible universes, this one exists. The 'people' of the others can't contemplate the non-existence of theirs because they don't exist. Survivorship bias.
Argument from personal incredulity is not a good look and you're wearing it with a bizarre degree of confidence.
>my theories are so great and evidence based
>the only possible explanation for what is right in front of us is through an infinite plethora of invisible unknowable nearly identical universes which couldn't quite make it
>flip a coin
>you just made a new universe
Materialists are insufferable twats. Can't wait for the divine order to purge you again.
>Can't wait for the divine order to purge you again.
Paper tiger empty words
Paper tiger? You know what type of instruments they invented the last time they had to get rid of you fucks?
I can't wait to see what the ingenuous devices of the modern inquisitor.
Quartering by drone. You will be hovering over the crowd and of course it would take quite a few drones to get the job done. So they will add only a couple at a time, really draw out the experience. When you finally start tearing your entrails will rain down on us. We will relish in your demise.
A thousand cuts from the thousand degree knife. A bit of a throwback, but a nice modern twist.
>Paper tiger?
Yup, as you demontonlive vicariously through a supposed past
>You know what type of instruments they invented the last time they had to get rid of you fucks?
>I can't wait to see what the ingenuous devices of the modern inquisitor.
Lol
>Christoid descending into violent power fantasies when people online disagree with him
Love to see it lmao
Welp, I was proven right yet again. Look mate, not everyone is going to be religious and follow the same beliefs as you, you gotta get over it.
Not even my beliefs. I just hate materialists because they are mentally retarded homosexuals. I hope Christians and Muslims slaughter you.
You’ve got issues mate. I’m afraid you’re not going to get what you want. Funny that you’d want sand naggers to team up with Christians to kill people you disagree with illogically. I bet you’re not even white, one of those hyper religious spics.
It is a sufficient explanation. There is no need to suppose anything supernatural about it.
Materialism is the only rational world view because we can only examine the material reality, and decoupling your world view from this material reality just opens the door to unending tide of completely unprovable, personal fantasies that people conjure in their heads.
Your metaphysical beliefs that assert the existence of God cannot be examined or proven and are in nature, no different from metaphysical beliefs that assert the existence of ghosts or gnomes.
Belief in supernatural is fucking retarded and nobody is obligated to share or respect your mental fanfiction about how the universe works or our place in it.
>How do atheists do it?
They have faith. In the absence of objective knowledge, they have faith that there is no God.
People would dislike you less if you all just shut up.
>uniformity
>the state or quality of being uniform; overall sameness, homogeneity, or regularity
Next to my house is a green field, and the Sahara is a desert. A green field is not the same as a desert, but both are part of nature. Nature is not uniform.
>I can't explain the universe, therefore skydaddy
>you literally can't refute this
Not much of an argument.
Citations please.
citations for what?
>claims about "muh uniformity or something", some supposed intrinsic quality of the universe, makes a non-sequitur claiming god
it's literally not an argument.
>This, therefore God.
nothing causal, no evidence, just,
>universe, therefore God
you just insert "god", without cause, without explanation, and that's supposed to be convincing?
I'm still seeing any contrary possibility. Still impossible.
>I'm still not seeing any contrary possibility. Still impossible.
>it's impossible for the universe to exist without god, b-because I say so!
and? Unless you are the "god" in question, or have some actual evidence or proof, I don't believe you.
>because I say so!
Nope, it's because there is no possibility.
>wordsalad
again, that isn't an argument, much less proof.
>Prove something doesn't exist.
No.
You can't even explain what the fuck is "uniformity of nature".
Uniformity (tautology) of (tautology) nature (tautology).
>tautology
>It's real and requires inconsistencies to disprove
What the fuck are you even talking about.
>more non-sequitur word-salad
wow, I totally believe in gawd now.
At this point, I don't even believe that christcucks believe the bullshit they sell.
You're kvetching too hard that you're not making any sense.
>retard who can't make a single lucid statement projecting about others "not making sense", calls others israelite
You're just trolling and aren't actually this retarded, right?
>and aren't actually this retarded, right?
Search the archive this anon is more concerned with atheists than his own faith. For some reason he depends on us
>you're not making any sense.
He is and you know he is. This is why you gaslight with catchphrase like "kvetching"
I think they just accept that they aren’t smart enough to study anything but believing in something is necessary when you know nothing...
they need some source of motivation or they die. We should just put them in closed facilities, you can’t expect them to give up their delusions willingly.
>you can’t expect them to give up their delusions willingly
You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into
>I don't even believe that christcucks believe the bullshit they sell.
They don't, which is why they constantly have crisis of faith, revivals, and feel the need to come debate atheists because the possibility of converting someone is the greatest validation they can be given. It won't happen though, and they have to run with their tail between their legs into the bosom of their church flock.
You can't convert someone lol.
But I did spectacularly shut your mouth didn't I?
Foam more.
>You can't convert someone lol
You were born an atheist whom was converted tobacco specific brand Christianity. Yet you're still an atheist to the gods you don't believe in
>whom was converted tobacco specific
Converted to a specific*
Show flag kike
For knowledge of uniformity of nature without God, before you take it out of context.
If a blind man walks into a sign post it still hurts, you moron. You can't see it because you're retarded. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you can't provide a proof of the Poincare conjecture, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been proven you delusional egomaniac.
Yes I can't provide proof that something does not exist, ground breaking.
>Yes I can't provide proof that something does not exist
Why not?
No it's how do?
Logic and reason is how. That's why people reject your presuppositions, they lack either
You atheists are taking full advantage of the label even when I'm not using the method itself.
>*even though
>the label
What label?
>Knowledge
>Justified true belief
>belief
>BELIEF
>B E L I E F
So I should trust your way of flawed perception without you having the ability to losslessly transfer the data you possess? What kind of bullshit is this?
Conflating
> I believe in god, how can you not
With
> I believe in my church’s beliefs, how can you not
Is an easy way to falsely assert your illegitimate authority, and justify literally anything you feel like doing to others
It’s a lie you tell yourself, atheists happen to not buy into it
Every single day, I design and build machines that work.
I am a god.
Fear me, nagger.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "knowledge of the uniformity of nature" and how that applies to yoir favorite flavor of god?
All this kvetching and still no contrary possibility.
Sad!
>I have 1 but what is 0
>AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH
>still no contrary possibility.
>possibility
Your subjective interpretation is the contrary
Anyway OP, go back to lurking and abandoning this thread like you typically do
That post is just incoherent pseud rambling lmao.
There is zero rational reason to believe in the existence of supernatural things like gods or fairies when there is zero observable evidence of them. Any philosophical "argument" for the existence of supernatural entities can be flat out dismissed as irrelevant and pointless speculation that has no bearing on the reality of our universe.
Not an argument, still impossible.
Lmao, you truly are fucking retarded
That's even worse.
>It's just not p-possible o-okay?
>Not an argument
It is
>still impossible
Not according to you
>still no contrary possibility.
Like in every thread you create, you defeat yourself
Every
Single
Time
I took graduate classes from a physicist. He would talk about the symmetry of the universe as described with mathematics and wax on about how it's too perfect to be accidental. I think their are people who can make compelling arguments in favor of a universal architect, op is not one of them.
Using logic to logic that logic can’t logic without a god. Interesting. It’s one great big circle that I choose not to partake in.
Forgot pic.
>tips yarmulke
Tell me honestly Christian and atheist bros. How impactful and butthurtful is the argument?
For me it is a gradual process of refining it so it's lost on me.
>How impactful and butthurtful is the argument?
>this anon is more concerned with atheists than his own faith. For some reason he depends on us
Ask yourself that as you consistently make these threads
>How impactful and butthurtful is the argument?
It's not impactful, you're just ousting yourself as a complete retard.
The argument never goes anywhere, it just turns into shit flinging. I see Christians start threatening violence while the atheist tends to just turn to provoking the Christians. I personally don’t care about religion outside of being anti certain religions or sects of religions, like I’m anti islam and judaism. My sole focus is the survival then prosperity of the white European race.
>it just turns into shit flinging.
That's what happens when the majority (atheists) loses.
>when the majority (atheists) loses.
Yet you depend on them for some reason. Why is that?
Cause it fun harassing you guys. The guy above the atheist is the one who provokes when that's..
Whatever.
I’m not provoking anyone or anything, so clearly it’s not me you’re referring to.
>The guy above said the atheist is the one who provokes
What this means is
>I can't handle criticism
You belong in an echo chamber
>criticism
Your criticism will be valid when you actually give me a possibility.
>when you actually give me a possibility.
>give me
>possibility
Again, you defeat your self
Yes, but usually that’s after a Christian gets all huffy puffy and starts threatening violence like they’re some kind of badass Templar. I’m criticizing both parties here and how this debate tends to play out with my main point is that it’s pointless and that our energies should be focused on more important things rather than sophist tier “philosophical” arguments and presuppositions. The Christian crying heresy or apostate are just as bad as the atheist using terms like “sky daddy”, it’s all divisive bullshit.
>Cause it fun harassing you guys
We already know you're not genuine
>The guy above the atheist is the one who provokes when that's..
>Whatever.
Incoherent nonsense
Op is probably some shitskin esl retard given how abysmal his grasp of the English language is
Agree to disagree.
Christcucks are so fucking stupid.
>says the guy using a computer, invented by Christian man Charles Babbage
>invented by Christian man Charles Babbage
Too bad they couldn't prove an objective god
>using mathematics invented by a polytheist
you don't have to analyze 2000 year old scripture and symbols, god is here today!
Is everyone having a stroke today.
if nature was uniform, wouldn't the cosmic background radiation be uniform?
Uniformity of nature doesn't mean anything as a term. It's schizoid nonsense oo pulled out of his ass
>It's schizoid nonsense oo pulled out of his ass
Indeed frin OPs on words
>Cause it fun harassing you guys
Nice slide thread topic Moishe!
> It is impossible to be without knowledge of uniformity of nature
This statement is false. Lots of things exist without knowledge of anything. Grains of sand on a beach exist without knowledge. The planet Jupiter exists without knowledge.
>it is impossible to be without knowledge of the uniformity of nature
not if i smash your head in with a hammer until you're retarded.
thus your argument fails, because it is completely possible to be without knowledge of the uniformity of nature.
>"n-no but i'd still know it"
you defined knowledge as "JUSTIFIED true belief". if i keep hitting you until you're retarded then even your true beliefs will be unjustified because you will reach them by way of retard logic.
q.e.d.
Agnosticism is the true chad ideology
>Agnosticism is the true chad ideology
The Christians itt describe atheism like you would agnosticism. Agnostics literally have no room or reason to say anything about anything. Agnostics are to pussy to even attempt to say what they actually believe. Everyone is essentially agnostic to an extent by literal definition. None of us actually "know". That's why agnostic-atheists is a term. Because ultimately it is possible that a god exists, like how there could be a microscopic tea kettle floating in between Mercury and the Sun... but intelligent people in general know that probably isn't the case even without having to prove it. The chances of there being a deist type of god is very low and super improbable... a theistic god in itself by their own "holy" books is impossible. The god of the Bible doesn't exist, and it obvious
I have no idea what this person is talking about from line one.
>it is impossible to be without knowledge of uniformity of nature
what does that even mean? what is uniformity of nature?
It means that the laws of physics apply the same everywhere in the universe, even in the past. I don't get how this is supposed to prove the existence of God but whatever.
>uniformity of nature
OP is using garbled language to make the simple point that Nature (what you see outside that is not man-made, IOW, go outside and touch grass) is evidence of a higher being behind it. We can infer this because OP cites Romans 1:20, in which Paul writes: "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." IE, God's invisible qualities are made known to us in our visible world.
I don't think so. See above.
Laws of logic alone refutes materialism.
According to whom? You saying so?
According to the laws of logic.
Such as?
>the irony of me being provoked
You do it to yourself
>I have ever managed to do by proving God
You proved it to yourself
>I couldn't count the number of times I have been physically threatened by atheists
Take a number bro
The laws of ooga disprove the laws of booga, checkmate atheists
Now who's mad?
I think the anon threatening to kill and torture people, I don’t think we are. I know I’m not, I can’t really tell if you are or aren’t
It's just.. the irony of me being provoked when that's all I have ever managed to do by proving God is just. It stuck with me. I couldn't count the number of times I have been physically threatened by atheists.
I’ve been threatened by Christians, he’ll you’ve got a Christian in here right now threatening me and others. Emotionally stunted man babies threatening people over a disagreement as unimportant as religious beliefs. I’m not hostile towards Christianity, and me simply not believing in it shouldn’t be perceived as hostility.
>Laws of logic alone refutes materialism.
Such as?
cool, how you know your god is the right one?
random schizo babble that means exactly nothing
in a thread that's x or his material
It's so fucking simple, I do not understand how christians don't understand this. God has never been substantiated, ergo there is no reason to believe there is a god. You need to substantiate a claim.
Watching christians try to redefine the standard of evidence is genuinely the funniest fucking thing in the goddamn world.
All that rambling but alas, it's still impossible.
Either substantiate god or fuck off, nerd
Still impossible. Sad!
We do not know if god exists. The neutral statement of god is "we do not not know".
However, after all of these thousands of years of humanity existing we have not seen one miracle, no scientific evidence for god, no substantiation whatsoever.
That is the major point in favor of atheism. If there was a good you'd need SOME type of evidence besides just your gut feeling. The fact that no proof has been offered in the 300 000 years we have existed shows that god, most likely, isn't real.
Disregarding your opinions, I'm still not hearing any possibilities.
Damn, I guess I win.
In that case I will like you to keep winning.
>I'm still not hearing any possibilities.
You've already said there isn't any here:
You defeat yourself
Every
Single
Time
>substantiate god
>impossible
Done and done.
Like I said, you defeat yourself
Every
Single
Time
>it's still impossible.
To you
>Christians are so stupid it's fucking hilarious
>excuse me while I rape this dog
Canada.jpg
Why are you so MAD?
Just a reminder that atheists have never achieved anything. They have never had a country. They have never had a culture. They have never had an army. Atheism has never worked in the history of mankind. It is a way for midwit retards to mentally masturbate over their daddy issues. Your cult is a trojan horse used to infiltrate white nations and undermine them for israelites and Muslims to invade. Peddle your shit somewhere else.
Atheism isn’t a people, a people would be the Scottish, or French, or Dutch, so on so forth. And amongst those peoples there are atheists, those who lack a belief in a deity or deities.
>my belief in magic skydaddy is justified because skydaddy cults have accomplished things, and I'm going to claim that no one else in history aside from skydaddy worshipers have accomplished anything, ever
1: source for the claim that no-one who wasn't a skydaddy worshipper ever accomplished anything
and 2: an argument for the utility of religion is not an argument for the existence of god.
>skydaddy worshipper
Stop using that term, it doesn’t help. Provoking who you are debating or discussing something with won’t bring them to your side, convince them, or just create an understanding between each other. All it does is fuel more division.
pointing out that the belief in magic israeli santa clause is fucking goofy isn't a provocation. It's my honest opinion.
They literally refer to their imaginary skydaddy as "our father in heaven". Heavens = sky. father = daddy.
You’re too worked up and emotionally invested in this debate, gotta be more calm and level headed. Let being overly emotional be the traits of your opponents but not yourself. I don’t view males who let emotion get the best of them as men, just a something off topic I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. Masculinity, logic, what it means to be a man. And what I’ve come up with is that most “men” don’t meet those standards.
>nonsequitur, strawman, and ad hominem all rolled into one
complete nonargument.
You can't even make a remotely reasonable argument for the existence of your skydaddy.
So, again, I genuinely can't believe that christcusts believe what they claim to believe, when they don't even have good justifications or arguments for what they believe.
Nope nope nope and nope. I’m not even religious, if you paid attention throughout the thread you’d know this. I was offering you advice and trying to spread an idea of my own, because I truly view men as too emotional these days. At this point why are you even debating if you’re not going to debate in a way that’ll change anyone’s perceptions? What are you gaining? Waste of time to me.
point out irrationality
>nooo, you're being emotional
find a dictionary, homosexual. You're not in any position to complain about wasted time when you're the one wasting mine.
You’re not going to convince anyone of anything by being this emotional and hostile. If I wanted to watch a man baby have a hissy fit I’d watch an SJW ownage compilation on YouTube. It’s my view that us on the right are civil and logical, especially towards one another irregardless of our religious beliefs or lack of in our case. Can you not tell you’re being belligerent? Leave this hostility and provocateur shit for the lefties. Some people can’t be reasoned with, this thread has proved as such and you’re no exception to that fact.
>making an argument = being emotional, because you're making me emotional!!!
Not my problem, fag. Go cry to someone else.
Still having a hissy fit. Is this the first time you’ve had your hostility thrown back in your face as being overly emotional? You don’t realize such hostility doesn’t belong in such a discussion and is only detrimental? You are quite literally acting like a woman
>whining like a little bitch and protecting
Like I said, go cry to someone else fag, I don't care about your feelings.
Let me ask you something, do you think a confident man in control of his feelings would get upset during a debate and start throwing ad homs? No, because he’d realize how childlike and feminine that is. You’re doing yourself no favors doubling down on your unmanly emotional behavior. I doubt you’re going to develop any sort of awareness in this thread, but possibly in the future. Your ego can’t take the hit currently.
>you're upset and emotional because I say so, because I'M upset and emotional
for the 3rd time, I do. not. care.
Go cry to someone else, fag.
With every response you prove me more right about your behavior. To the point you don’t even have an argument towards what I’m saying, just ad homs. I bet you think I’m trying to insult you with what I’m saying hence your defensiveness
>you don't have an argument against my nonargument projection!!!!!
cry harder.
So do airplanes. Bird still aren't proof of god, though.
Do you want the last word? I’ll let you have so you can feel accomplished. Go ahead, have at it
>I'm a complete homosexual who's not going to contribute to the discussion at all, and will do nothing but project and make retarded fallacious arguments, but I'm oh-so-smart
tf are you here for again, retard? fucking teenagers, I swear...
>tf are you here for again
If you’re actually asking me that question I’ll answer. I’m here because this entire presup argument is stupid and that it always turns into threats, provocation, and is always pointless in the end. I tried to be pragmatic and stop the division like I’ve seen happen many many times, I tried to get you to act less emotional so your arguments would actually have some weight. Plus your behavior just seemed to hostile and emotional for a fully matured adult, which is why it’s ironic you called me a teenager. But you’re hardly the worse one in this thread, the guy who threatened to torture and kill atheists with some power fantasy was clearly the worst. Also very immature, having power fantasies like a kid playing a video game.
>people debating in a public forum is, le bad
weren't you going to let me have the last word? lol.
I was but you asked me a question, I was going to just let you insult me and go about our way
>excuses
I knew you couldn't resist.
Don't try to bait me and then get baited yourself.
Proves you're inexperienced.
>Do you want the last word? I’ll let you have so you can feel accomplished. Go ahead, have at it
10 min later
Hahaha what a homosexualty homosexual
>So do airplanes. Bird still aren't proof of god, though.
Oof
I think that the main motivating factor for christisraelite is control. Their religion is a framework via which they/their community leaders, can control the behavior of other people, and the more people they have under the sway of their cult, the more power they as a whole have.
Their methaphysical beliefs are just post hoc justifications for their desire to impose their religion onto other people.
sounds about right.
A lack of something is not something. You however have the burden of believing in 2000 years of Hebrew lies made up as revenge against Romans. Sucks to be you chicken swinger light.
Atheists are not very bright. Just useful tools for those who want to do great evil and need to get the God issue out of the way.
>morality can't exist without my imaginary skydaddy
wow, I guess I should just murder you then, because murder is A-Okay when skydaddy doesn't exist and can't put me in hell. Because evil is acceptable so long as I don't face a punishment, I guess.
As I see it, God didn't create morals but rather he created a world peopled with intelligent agents in which morals emerge...
>Game theory optimal morals, like maths, logic, taxonomic and grammatical categories, etc. are to be discovered, not written in stone. They are context dependent -- on the psychometric characteristics of the individual you're dealing with or at society-level on the average of members of the tribe or society, most important among them are capacities for abstraction and theory of mind and levels of cluster b personality traits like psychopathy. Tribes that have limited capacity for abstraction, subjunctivity and future orientation are going to have different morals than ones that have these in abundance.
Impossible is a question of personal interpretation of reality
is existence manifest from a higher being?
or does existence manifest a higher being?
but one unproven hypothesis came first
>see also animism
>see also Theravada Buddhism
Things theists have arguments for
>that something intelligent and metaphysical is behind what we perceive
Things theists don't have any arguments for
>that God has a son named satan
>that it's possible to know God's mind
>that God wants worship of anything else from his creatures
>why God created or caused to be begotten constitutional psychopaths
Define uniformity of nature fuckwit. Physical laws break down in singularities, if "uniformity of nature" = "consistency in natural laws"
>it is impossible to be without knowledge of uniformity of nature.
Your argument falls apart at step one. It is, in fact, possible to be ignorant of a fact.
Belief that nature is uniform does not require God to be real. Not only that, but many theist world models involve God(s) who manipulate nature in ways that would cause observable nonuniformity of nature. (resurrections, stopping the apparent motion of the Sun, floodings)
While it is certainly possible to argue that God is real, this particular argument for the existence of God is *incredibly* stupid.
Didn't say belief alone. Justified true belief aka knowledge.
And no the fact that someone believes miracles can occur doesn't mean they don't have the knowledge that nature will be uniform.
>Didn't say belief alone. Justified true belief aka knowledge.
If someone does not believe that nature is uniform, they obviously do not hold a justified true belief that nature is uniform.
>the fact that someone believes miracles can occur doesn't mean they don't have the knowledge that nature will be uniform.
Miracles are a nonuniformity in nature.
Question: Do you actually BELIEVE your argument is a compelling proof of God, or are you an atheist strawmanning?
None of what you said had a disagreement or a refutation.
What this means is
>I couldn't find a way to exploit what you said
There's definitely something beyond our reality but that's all I know. It sure as fuck isn't Christcuckery.
>I don't know what it is but I don't know what it isn't
How do you rationalize that?
but i know what it isn't*
you can only actively deny a religion it you have the definitive answer to life's origins. if you're a fence sitting "I don't know atheist" then you can't actively deny anything. if I don't know the answer to a math problem how am I going to actively deny someone else's answer?
>you can't deny bigfoot unless you can prove a negative
I can, actually. Bigfoot isn't real. You're the one claiming that bigfoot is real, so you're the one who needs to prove it.
Exactly. Now prove there's a possibility.
a possibility of what?
The only thing you've contributed here is nonsensical wordsalad.
evidence of life != evidence of skydaddy
at that point, why does skydaddy need to be inserted into the situation other than "I want to believe in a skydaddy"?
>a possibility of what?
Knowledge of uniformity of nature without God.
How many times have I repeated this one?
that's not what I'm saying though.. a more equal hypothetical would be more like if you and i were walking through the woods and we see a giant footprint. I say bigfoot. obviously i don't have concrete proof. Then you say definitely NOT bigfoot. I say ok then what is it? You say no fucking clue. it's ridiculous to say my claim is 100% without a doubt false but you have no explanation of your own.
it's more like you read a 2000 year old book about how someone saw a footprint, so you swear up and down that bigfoot is real, and I don't believe you or the book, actually.
It's more like we can see life all around us with no explanation
Because codes (e. g., genetic code) don't write themselves.
Yes, they do. I can't remember the term for it, but that's exactly how some ai work, even. oppositional something or other, I think. Basically, competitive systems wherein one system eventually wins over another.
Also, dna being ad-hoc and evolutionary is why it's so buggy. It's why we age, it's why we get cancer, and so on.
Why would a "perfect god" create such flawed lifeforms?
>but that's exactly how some ai work
>ai
Ai has a creator.
>Now prove there's a possibility.
What does this even mean?
there's no evidence of bigfoot but there is evidence of life so that's different
Explaining one level of unfathomable mystery (nature) with another even more inexplicable level of unfathomable mystery (god and religion) accomplishes nothing.
These "philosophical proofs" of God are always laughable bullshit.
Its just a way for self-obsessed so-called apologists to stroke their ego, and has convinced a total of zero people ever.
If dinosaurs are real
>why weren't they "discovered" until the 19th century?
>Why are most of the "dinosaur" bones on display in museums reproductions?
>Why are all these reproductions made in the same factory in China?
>Why did they use modern bird and reptile bones constructing "dinosaur" bones?
Seriously will all the tunnel digging, mining, and civil engineering done by Ancient Rome not a single dinosaur bone was found?
>discovered until the 19th century
They weren't first discovered then, that's just when they were classified as something unique and special. Scientists/archaeologists are super pompous so of course they have to act like they found something new. Why do you think legends of dragons or other colossal animals exist in virtually every culture? Its from people finding fossils.
>Why are most dinosaur bones on display in museums reproductions?
Because they are rare and irreplaceable and nagger vandals exist.
Everyone is already an atheist. It's just that some of us check off one additional god on the list of deities you choose to not believe in.
Why is it impossible to have knowledge of uniformity without a God?
Please don't get me wrong. I think that there could be something out there, but it's not smart to just believe it on a whim, which I think the majority of religion is surviving off of currently.
I lost personal battles with myself and went through a lot of work to finally see that yes, there most likely is something.
The thing is, though, that there are people like you who deter me away from the concept. Again, it's not smart to believe something on a whim. You get really cocky and arrogant. It makes me think less of it.
What you think of something has no bearing on the truth of it.
Infact line up on the other side so I can harass you too.
>What you think of something has no bearing on the truth of it
Look at you, defeating yourself as usual
The hell are you still on about?
Pointing out your self refutation you attempt to guise by putting it off onto others
>tfw the difference between someone who know god exists vs a believer vs an atheist is their spiritual attunement.
You can cultivate your spiritual attunement, but everyone is born with varying amounts. It's probably genetic, but it might not be.
TL;DR- Spiritlets, lol. LMAO even.
I AIN'T READIN ALLAT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shut ip Theodore. If you were born in Iran or Irak you would be a muslim you grifter.
there is no evidence that he exists
no evidence that he doesn't exist either
you cant shit on people's beliefs, because they are called that - beliefs
if you cant accept the fact that no one knows, then you are a midwit retard who probably also got vaccinated
Nobody thinks this about everything though, you can't 100% disprove anything in existence on a universal scale, that doesn't mean you have to say "maybe" to every single thing.
Yeah I think you're right
If you believe in God (and Jesus) and you've never seen a miracle, like healing or a demon being cast out (or something that can't scientifically be explained) then you're doing something wrong.
John 4:48
Then Jesus said to him, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe.”
Mark 16-15-18
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Luke 10:8
And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:
And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
John 14:12
And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
Matthew 10:7-8
And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
If Jesus is your Lord, then do as he asked. Go out, make disciples of all nations. Heal the sick, cast out demons.
It proves the existence of god but not of any flavor of religion
All western science is based on the uniformity of nature. If the universe was not uniform we would never have developed the ability to accurately quantize phenomena around us. I believe that is the fundamental idea behind the “uniformity of nature”.
>first sentence is literal schizo babble
>its another word play game as "evidence"
fuck of christisraelite you are unironically the least intelligent posters on here and nobody fucking likes you
Yass Jesus!
Slap that jebussy!
Too bad that letter never existed
Its ok to be white israelitebot
>uses white like a leftists
Look at that, page 2 again.
I just resurrected OPs thread like Lazarus.
Still think it wont reach 300 posts now?
All I have to do to guarantee that is post my james franco sig
>Look at that, page 2 again. I just resurrected OPs thread like Lazarus.
can only pretend
Kek, go home Talmud Tom of nagger Brainia
>inb4 rent free cope
>Being spotted because I never change up posting patterns means I live rent free
Im not the one who thinks about tom 🙂
>>inb4 rent free cope
Like clock work
>If I say something about anyone that responds to me that makes it true
2nd grade logic there, it only works if anyone is childish enough to play along with your fantasy.
As I saud already teenage tim, stop baby posting
Anyway
In 2 Samuel God prophesied to Nathan about the coming king from the flesh and blod of David. Jesus isn't the flesh and blood of David as Joseph isn't his father and Mary has zero lineage in the bible
Christianity is built on contradictions
This guy best explains it. He knows his stuff about genealogies and prohecy timeliness and things of the subject.
Too bad you.cant articulate the subject interpretation that you adopted
People become more receptive when they are humbled. So shut their mouth so they become more receptive to the Holy Spirit.
>People become more receptive when they are humbled
Which is why I left Christianity
>So shut their mouth so they become more receptive to the Holy Spirit.
Because people like you can't be humbled with consenting adults who have zeroaffect on your supposed "faith"