Proof God exists followed by rationality of Christianity

Not recognizing hard evidence doesn't imply it doesn't exist.

First, I'm not your dictionary:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

And "herp what? that's ridiculous! derp," is not a valid contention:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy (The name of which is ironically an example of a reduction fallacy. Its unbiased name is Argument from Incredulity.)

Note: "Rejecting" a premise is a statement about how you feel, and is thus irrelevant. Assessment of soundness necessitates a -claim- of plausibility if it is to be relevant, else premises' antecedents be questioned ad infinitum, their soundness dictated only by how "obvious" they are to the reader, ultimately arriving at whichever conclusion they wish.

1
1. If God doesn't exist, nothing actually, objectively matters.
2. Things actually, objectively matter.
3. Therefore, God exists. (modus tollens from 1)

2
1. If God were not to exist, the only thing that could create consciousness would be some interaction between any or all of the four fundamental forces of the universe.
2. To assume the brain is evidence that this happens is a fallacy of the single cause, i.e. it is to assume fallaciously that because the brain causes consciousness, it is sufficient for consciousness.
3. There is no evidence, empirical, mathematical, or otherwise, that any interaction between any of the four fundamental forces of the universe could possibly create consciousness.
4. Therefore, to believe consciousness is only a product of the universe is irrational.

3
1. Subjective morality has no bearing on objective morality, including and up to ideas like "Whatever is most advantegeous for the survival of the species is what is objectively moral," as such an idea is itself only subjective.
2. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
3. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
4. Therefore, God exists.

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/r/ReasonableFaith/comments/1nawwc/claim_a_galilean_preacher_who_fits_the_general/
ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/christian-origins-and-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-resurrection-of-jesus-as-a-historical-problem/
leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html
answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm
pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/is-there-extra-biblical-proof-of-jesus/
reasonablefaith.org/rediscovering-the-historical-jesus-the-evidence-for-jesus
pastebin.com/eaEGgUa3
youtube.com/watch?v=W8UQ57XPQ60
youtu.be/mkuRqZ-SssI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Only dummies claim a creator exists/ doesn't exist.

Agnosticism is the only logical belief to exist until proven either way.

God and your thumbnail pic of Jesus are not synonymous

You guys do realise that pseudo-""philosophical""" stuff not only doesn't actually proves God exists, but in any way , doesn't prove a kike in a stick is God

Jeez you're so stupid

9
1. If God doesn't exist, nothing actually, objectively matters or has meaning.
2. If nothing actually, objectively matters or has meaning, neither does the proposition "Nothing actually, objectively matters or has meaning."
3. Therefore, the proposition is self-refuting.
4. Therefore, things actually, objectively matter or have meaning.
5. Therefore, God exists. (modus tollens from 1)

10
1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The universe — the collection of beings in space and time — exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

11
1. Human beings have a natural, innate desire for God, as implicated by history.
2. Natural selection only selects for advantageous traits.
3. To desire something that doesn't exist would be disadvantageous.
4. Therefore, to desire something that doesn't exist wouldn't have evolved.
5. Therefore, what humans naturally, innately desire, exists.
6. Therefore, God exists.

12
1. Our senses reveal to us an order of efficient causes in the world.
2. Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself because then it would have to exist prior to itself, which is impossible.
3. In a series of efficient causes, each member of the series is the cause of the next.
4. Because of this, if there is no first cause in the series, there will be no series at all.
5. The series of efficient causes cannot extend infinitely into the past, for then there would be no first cause and therefore no series.
6. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Son of god isnt god faggot its his son...

13
1. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.
2. If an infinite number of moments had to elapse before today, then today would never have come.
3. But today has come.
4. Therefore, an infinite number of moments have not elapsed before today (i.e., the universe had a beginning).
5. But whatever has a beginning is caused by something else.
6. Hence, there must be a Cause (Creator) of the universe.

14
1. If the multiverse doesn't exist, there is sufficient scientific reason to believe life is impossible.
2. Stephen Hawking and many other science cucks are advocates for the existence of the multiverse for this reason.
3. If there are an infinite number of universes with random properties, which the multiverse entails, all possibilities exist.
4. If all possibilities exist, God exists.
5. If God exists in any universe, being God, He necessarily exists in all universes.
6. If scientists like Steven Hawking are right about the existence of the multiverse, then, ironically, God exists.

15
1. Logical absolutes exist.
2. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature--are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature.
3. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true.
4. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different--not absolute.
5. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them.
6. This mind is called God.
7. Furthermore, if there are only two options to account for something, i.e., God and no God, and one of them is negated, then by default the other position is validated.
8. Therefore, the atheist position cannot account for the existence of logical absolutes from its worldview.

16
1. We have ideas of many things.
2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.
3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God — an infinite, all-perfect being.
4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and, because causes necessarily assume the greatness of their effects, no effect can be greater than its cause.
5. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.
6. But only God himself has those qualities.
7. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
8. Therefore God exists.

17
1. All physical things have a logical cause.
2. An infinite regress of logical causes is impossible, as any such infinite regress would itself beg a logical cause.
3. Therefore, there is an uncaused first cause.
4. The only possible cause that isn't itself caused is will.
5. Therefore, such a cause necessarily has agency.
6. To have caused the universe and life, it is necessarily omnipotent.
7. Omnipotence implies omniscience.
8. To have caused the universe and life and to be omniscient, it is necessarily omnibenevolent.
9. Evil is only an absence of good.
10. Therefore, omnipotence implies omnibenevolence.
11. Therefore, the uncaused first cause is God.
12. Therefore, God exists.

18
1. We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies.
2. Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; non-being is a real possibility.
3. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that non-being is a real possibility for everything.
4. Then right now nothing would exist. For
5. If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed — literally — nothing at all. But
6. From nothing nothing comes. So
7. The universe could not have begun.
8. But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. But
9. If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So
10. There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary.
11. Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being.
12. This absolutely necessary being is God.

19
1. Only the mind gives descriptions of the world meaning.
2. Emergent properties are descriptions of the world, i.e. in defining emergent properties, we are describing the world.
3. Therefore, only the mind gives emergent properties meaning.
4. Descriptions of the world that only the mind gives meaning don't objectively exist.
5. Therefore, emergent properties don't objectively exist. (from 2, 3, and 4)
6. Therefore, matter is never objectively more than its parts, and matter cannot produce consciousness, e.g. an electron, or any number of electrons, passing between any number of points, in any permutation, through any combination or permutation of mediums, cannot produce consciousness.
7. Therefore, our consciousness can only be a consequence of consciousness.
8. The age of the earth is limited.
9. Therefore, there is a consciousness that precedes consciousness on earth.
10. What precedes that consciousness?:
10a. It's possible an infinite consciousness could "precede" itself.
10b. An omnipotent, aspacial, atemporal being would not necessitate a logical cause, and therefore would not necessitate a precedent consciousness.
10c. Irrelevant. It can't be inferred from the necessity of a consciousness that there is no consciousness.

...

20
1. The fine-tuning of the fundamental physical constants of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. Proponents of the anthropic principle assume that because observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it, it is unremarkable that this universe has fundamental constants that happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life -- which is a modal scope fallacy, i.e. it equivocates the necessity of the universe if conscious and sapient life that observes it exists, with modal necessity, i.e. it confuses "necessary if" and "necessary."
3. All physical things have a logical cause.
4. All logically-caused things are contingent, i.e. it is possible for them not to be caused.
5. Therefore, all physical things are contingent.
6. The fundamental physical constants are a physical thing.
7. Therefore, the fundamental physical constants are contingent.
8. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity, and the universe, as it is, is not the only possible world.
9. There are an infinite number of possible worlds in which the fine-tuning of the universe and all its antecedents do not exist or are in an infinite number of possible states.
10. There is a finite number of possible worlds in which the fine-tuning of the universe and all its antecedents exist or are in a state thought to be compatible with life.
11. Therefore, the probability of a possible world in which the fundamental constants exist and fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life is n/infinity, which is 0 or asymptotically tends to 0.
12. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance.
13. Therefore, it is due to design.

21
1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ p' = everything)
2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral. (Observation)
3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious. (Premise)
4. In some possible world, there is no morality. (From 2 and 3)
5. Morality is contingent. (From 4)
6. Morality is not contingent on the nonconscious. (From 2)
7. Morality is contingent on the conscious. (From 1, 5, and 6)
8. Consequence is objective. (Premise)
9. Consequence can be significant. (Observation)
10. Objective, significant consequence implies objective meaning. (Premise)
11. Objective meaning implies objective purpose. (Premise)
12. Evil is defined as absence of goodness. (Definition)
13. Purpose is good or evil. (From 12)
14. Good and evil are objective. (From 11 and 13)
15. Good and evil are only moral concepts. (Premise)
16. Good and evil are contingent on morality. (From 15)
17. Morality is objective. (From 14 and 16)
18. Consciousness is objective. (7 and 17)
19. Knowledge is objective. (From 18 and 23)
20. Objective morality is contingent on objective consequence and objective consciousness. (Premise)
21. Objective consequence and objective consciousness imply objective agency. (Premise)
22. Agency is objective. (From 21)
23. Objectively absent things don't exist. (Premise)
24. God exists. (From 12, 14, 19, 22, and 23)

...

4
1. Belief in some conception of God — that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due — is common to almost all people of every era.
2. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not.
3. If our only reason for doubting is that people have understood materialistic causes for materialistic things — which is necessarily irrelevant to the immaterial — then it is most plausible to believe that these people have not been wrong.
4. Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exists.

5
1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
3. So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
4. Hence God exists.

6
1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, nor creature can satisfy.
3. Therefore, there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."

7
1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
2. Truth properly resides in a mind.
3. But the human mind is not eternal.
4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.

8
1. Good things exist.
2. The cause of this goodness is either one or many.
3. But it can’t be many, for then there would be no way to compare their goodness, for each would define its own goodness. But some things are better than others.
4. Therefore, one Supreme Good (God) causes the goodness in all things.

...

...

...

Existence independent of God would imply His limitation and thus that He doesn't exist. Our creation implies God cares, which implies He would want us not to be fooled, which implies a 'religion' is true, and Christianity is the largest, most successful movement of all time. Jesus showed up just before the exponential explosion in the world’s population, so 98 percent of us have walked the earth since his ressurrection, which was witnessed by more than 500 people.

The historicity of the bible is proven by contradictions of its otherwise irrelevant details, as it is 66 different narratives, letters, and writings written by 40 different people, five of whom witnessed Jesus after His resurrection, over about 1,500 years, that are all theologically synchronous.

Christianity is one of the first to teach of one rational, all-perfect God, and is the only theological understanding in which we're not expected to work our way to heaven for some superficial reward, nor are we saved by the merit of our actions, but only by the grace of Jesus Christ. "Faith without works is dead," in that he who has faith in Jesus will simply bear the works, i.e. repentance, not Catholic tradition. It is only through this that we are able to know Jesus, but faith in Him and humility that men are not their own god must come first.

Evidence of Jesus and of His resurrection:

reddit.com/r/ReasonableFaith/comments/1nawwc/claim_a_galilean_preacher_who_fits_the_general/
ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/christian-origins-and-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-resurrection-of-jesus-as-a-historical-problem/
leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html
answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm
pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/is-there-extra-biblical-proof-of-jesus/
reasonablefaith.org/rediscovering-the-historical-jesus-the-evidence-for-jesus
(To scoff at the 'credibility' of sources is an ad hominem)

Christianity: the final redpill
pastebin.com/eaEGgUa3

...

...

...

>flag
Oh no no no

Image is retard to anyone with two brain cells
>what is wrong with chaos
>or
>it is merely your perception of chaos

...

Are you really implying parental teachings are necessarily hazardous?

...

"Magic" is defined as non-existent. "It doesn't exist because it's magic" is a rhetorical tautology.
>implying its name is necessarily indicative of its purpose

You do realize that evolution has never been proven to work naturally, so your image argues for artificial evolution.

I'm implying that your knowledge of god is not naturally acquired by yourself, but spoonfed to you by some other human

Bbbb

I guess you’re right. Man, I wish someone had just written a book that I could read and form my own opinions.

You choose heaven with the way you live your life

>evolution has never been proven to work naturally

Go ahead, user.
Macro evolution is the eternal theory.
Prove me wrong.

too bad your'e not alone in the universe

Only evil people kill innocents said God before drowning the entire planet

That may be what you're trying to imply, but that's not what your image implies.

>thing actually, objectively matter
proof?

How is that relevant?

You didn't even substantiate 1.1 you dumb faggot

your life is not only you, therefore you can't say It's heaven because YOU chose it to be.
doesn't work like that

Read the post, idiot.

>only evil people
Wrong
>said god
Wrong
>innocents
Wrong

>literalism on the fucking flood myth
Oh no no no

>implying no argument is complete without infinite premises
It is to be taken axiomatically, idiot.

You are communicating in an objective manner and ask for objective proof of objectivity?

Heaven is a transcendence. It’s not a place like that planet past Pluto the Mormons believe in.
Therefore, ignoring the fact that your comment is a complete non sequitor, you’re still incorrect.

Prove claim 1.1 first, then we'll get to the rest.

>your life is not only you, therefore you can't say It's heaven because YOU chose it to be.
you are not making any sense user.
Everybody who is in heaven chose to be there based on their choices. In heaven people are pure soul, they are not afflicted by concupiscence, as it was introduced into the world by original sin.
Heaven is where God is, you should not look at it like Mount Olympus or some stuff like that. Heaven means becoming one again with God, as it was meant to be since the creation of the world. One not in the sense you become God, but in the sense you partake in his perfection and in his infinite, unintelligible mistery.

Prove anything.

So it would follow they weren't innocent, idiot.

The major premise is always an axiom, idiot.

You're literally having an argument held on linguistic basis. Try having this argument in Icelandic, Chinese, Sanskrit or other languages that have not been strongly influenced by Abrahamism but by other multitheist religions and you'll see the difference

very interesting theories but, It's impossible to get over the fact that you are basing your theories on a book written by people who didn't wipe their ass after shitting

im sorry , but I will stay agnostic until proven different

Concepts are universal.
If eskimos do not have a word for a giraffe, do giraffes not exist?

>1. If God doesn't exist, nothing actually, objectively matters.

prove it


>2. Things actually, objectively matter.

prove it

>3. There is no evidence, empirical, mathematical, or otherwise, that any interaction between any of the four fundamental forces of the universe could possibly create consciousness.

we haven't discovered everything so this doesn't really mean much, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>4. Therefore, to believe consciousness is only a product of the universe is irrational.

it's irrational to believe that something that has no proof exists and even more irrational to assign this mysterious entity responsibility for creating conciousness. It's also incredibly lazy and dismisses any further discoveries about the nature of conciousness, and if you accept that you are saying that all knowledge we have now is all knowledge we will ever have which is demonstrably untrue

>3. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

lolwut, prove it

I'm not gonna go thru the rest because you're clearly irrational and have a childlike understanding of logic lol

This is a very stupid post, I am embarrassed for you.

That's where you are wrong, for even if you try to use these arguments in Albanian, the results were to be different, and yes, in Greek for example is a spotted camel and not a "Giraffe".

You should first sort your life before you go on judging others.

Prove your brainlet assumptions, first.
>it’s alright to make things up if they comfort my narrative
You can’t discount consciousness just because “well, we might discover something in the future.”

I am handsome, wealthy, and have plenty of free time to mock atheist kikes. You, my friend, are the one in trouble.

The words something is called by change the properties of the thing? Be very, very careful.

Not surprising you'd post this based on your flag.

>I am handsome, wealthy, and have plenty of free time to mock atheist kikes.

laughing at yourself?
so smart!

Yes, for is it the giraffe and spotted camel, and longneck horse, and leafeater the same thing in concept and portraying it?

Wrong, it has to be an axiom. That's modem ponens. Unsubstantiated claims are just that, fantasies.

You are using language with a fixed meaning to communicate with me. The words don't change meaning depending on who reads them. They are objective.

I think it has something to do with the foreskin. The knowledge that someone would so carelessly multilate another human breaks something in the mind of the Jew.

So God exists.
Now prove it's your particular version of God which exists.

Then you are a racist, sexiest, beta male.

No, no. You dug your grave, now lie in it.

The form in which revelation is revelead is dependent on the limitations of the people who received it, not on God. If anything, it speaks of the omnipotence of the real living God that he would not go around shouting "muh hammer" since he has no need to overcompensate. As St.Augustine said "The God that created without your permission won't save you without your consent". God does not save those who don't want to be saved, and in this we see the history of mankind cooperating in that salvation. God is the ultimate Father, he is the parent that does not cuddle you but rather helps you grow, sometimes with a harsh beating sometimes by doing the ultimate sacrifice for you.
What is written in the Bible is true for all ages, it is the Divine Revelation in it that is important (and in Catholicism there is also Sacred Tradition that is used to interpret and undestand it, but mostly has to do with the sacraments and other things that are the everyday experience of the faithful and go beyond ink on a paper) not the fact that it is written in a book. It's just written in a book due to convenience.

>Agnosticism is the only logical belief to exist until proven either way.

Agnosticism isn't a middle-man/mutually-exclusive. Stop parroting this falsity. It's the stance of the intellectual-coward.

I did. The proposition is self-refuting.

I'm actually uncut.
Hard to imagine the same applies to you.

God by his very nature would encompass all. All religions would be both simultaneously true and false.

isn't*

So, is it exclusion from the tribe that prompts this anger?

You see
All these """arguments"" are held on linguistic grounds
Just because your language calls giraffe a longneck horse, is the giraffe a horse?

interesting

>Wrong, it has to be an axiom.
That's literally what I said.
>That's modem ponens.
Syllogisms have a major premise regardless of their form.
>Unsubstantiated claims are just that, fantasies.
Read the fucking post, idiot.
>The proposition is self-refuting.
Do illuminate us.

>Prove your brainlet assumptions, first.

How do I prove an assumption, an assumption is by definition accepted without proof. nothing I said needed proving tho, I was exclusively targeting your own arguments which were unsupported by any evidence. You literally made things up to comfort your narrative LOL

>You can’t discount consciousness just because “well, we might discover something in the future.”

you can't discount that it might have arisen from a natural origin based on incomplete knowledge. We do not have complete knowledge, this is quite self evident. New things are discovered every single day.

>your house is on fire
It's just the northern lights.

where do people get this meme non-logic from? There must be a source for it, besides satan I mean

>intellectual-coward.

yea so true, real intellectuals believe that a kike on a stick told you that dinosaurs were fake, and to stone gays

And that's impossible so god is impossible. It is far more likely that what people perceive as god is just their unconsciousness. How else would god answer prayers only to very religious people?

youtube.com/watch?v=W8UQ57XPQ60

I think that one in particular is a modification of Spinoza's argument.

You don't know the difference between 'is' and 'has to be', you have no right to call anyone an idiot

they're right. the left can't meme.

You can’t discount god exists based on incomplete knowledge. This is how stupid you sound. All knowledge is incomplete and based on what cannot be proven.
It doesn’t matter what the fuck you call something, is the point. It matters what it is. Your grasp of English is very weak, it is difficult to understand what you mean.

>israel
>left

This is nonsense.
If God exists, then he exists. Period.

If you meet person A, you will have a different understanding and a different relationship with this person, then I will with the same person.
The image of your parents is different for you and your siblings.
The image of your parents is subjective, but their existence is objective.
Same applies to God.

Not really, the very essence of the argument stands in the language used, thus there is no universal grasping of "the point"

>"herp what? that's ridiculous! derp," is not a valid contention

If you're not going to follow your own rules then what is the point of all this?

You don't have to matter/have meaning to deny you don't have matter/meaning. The proposition isn't self-refuting.

>You can’t discount god exists based on incomplete knowledge

stop dodging my points, I'm not the one making any claims mutt, you are the one claiming objective facts. Thus YOU have to prove these things are objectively true for YOUR argument to have any ground. You haven't done this so your argument holds no weight.

>All knowledge is incomplete and based on what cannot be proven.

we're talking about a very specific thing tho, how can you say for sure how much we will ever understand about conciousness, about physics, about biology etc? we will discover far more and our understanding will be far greater in the future, so the possiblity of understanding the origins of conciousness increase.

If you're a Christian, for example, how do you know Jesus Christ is God? How do you know Satan, for example, isn't the God?

Your logic is faulty and your grasp of language is too weak to correct it. Just read the response chain again until it clicks.
He’s merely calling you retarded for not being able to grasp how images work. In short, being a Redditor tourist.

1 Actually things don't objectively matter.

2. Your claim is "there's no evidence hence it's god". Sure.

3. No, they don't exist, and everything works fine with a subjective morality. Test me.

I agree God exists, but I am highly skeptical of Christianity in the religious sense.

I throw your own argument back at you and you say I’m the one dodging points.
Rest of your post is self-defeating amateurism.

...

>, idiot.
Why didn't you just come out in the OP and tell us that you made this post to feel better about yourself? I want my five minutes back.

Sage Goes In All Fields

>1 Actually things don't objectively matter.
so it doesn't matter if someone puts every single jew in an oven?

I'm asking you to prevent evidence for your argument, you can't do that like every other brainlet christfag so I guess I win.

If things don’t objectively matter, kill yourself.
This is the problem. Agnosticism and Atheism are the “religions” of cowards. They can’t follow them to their logical conclusion.

Mayhaps your logic is faulty, or one could say even lacking, may be because not only of the short spread of English concept-field, or maybe because You are monolingual...

See every other post in the response chain by me. You’re using the same arguments you are attempting to criticisize me for.

>>so it doesn't matter if someone puts every single jew in an oven?

Not sure if you're trolling. It matters subjectively (to the subject), not objectively.

deny you have*
lol can't type today

How does "kys" follow from that premise?

Nigger, words represent things. You don’t change the aspect of the thing based on the words you use, merely your faulty perception of it.

How could it not?

...

You claim it follows, please explain how. I don't see it.

How is is-ought or modal necessity relevant, idiot?

Those things are represented in a subjective way though

The existence of god has absolutely nothing to do with that post. Your use of a poorly recycled meme is embarrassingly bad.

If nothing is objective nothing can be objectively decided, ergo the only decision possibly is the cessation of decisions.

When did I ever try to negate a claim by calling it ridiculous, idiot?
>propositions can exist without having meaning
spooky

>2.Things actually, objectively matter.
stopped reading there

I don't need to decide things "objectively". I can decide thing subjectively. What's wrong with that?
Subjectively I say pleasure is good and go chase it :)

I'm merely and temporarily annoyed that the deflection tactics pre-emptively and sufficiently addressed in the OP are being employed anyway, which can only be done by idiots.

The words. Not the things themselves. Define “love.” One cannot. Explain “love.” Nearly everyone can. Words do not impair understanding. If your language has multiple words for love, or no words for love, it doesn’t change it’s nature.

Die kike, why are you typing sentence structures if objectivity does not exist

I can only speak for myself: I don't.
All i know is, that there is a higher intelligence/consiousness, that is able to communicate and intervene with our world and life. But I don't know it's "personality", so to speak.
I can't know if Jesus Christ is God, I can't know if Satan is really the devil, I can't know.
But I know there are good and evil forces.

If you do believe in God, you are able to experience him. If you experience him, you have a (developing) relationship with him. And if you have a relationship with him, you are able to distinct good from evil and you know that "he" exists.

I think the whole idea of a personification is false anyways. There are a lot hint, that God is pure consiousness and therefore has no body, no face.
One of the commandments was "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" for a reasons. Because if you do, you will automatically worship this image of God and be fooled by yourself, since God can't be depicted on stone, paper, he has no form etc.

so you are saying I should be in favour of every jew going into an oven just because I am not a jew

Because that, in itself, is non-functional. You don’t make any decisions subjectively, it’s all attempted objectivity. People who make decisions subjectively are insane.

shutup you dumb cunt.
that post has EVERYTHING to do with you, your ideology and everything you stand for.
You rely on spoonfed biblical fable, tailored for Bronze age savages so they accept authority.
Think for a SECOND how dumb you look when your whole family tree was so incredibly retarded and autistic that they passed this pre-historic knowledge all down you, and NONE even for a second thought that it may be 100% fake.

Because you can't say only cars can be on the highway so everything on the highway must be a car without logically substantiating that claim.

I didn't say "objectivity does not exist". I said objective values don't exist. I don't share your axiom that only objective values are worth enforcing :)

>Explain “love.” Nearly everyone can
Nope
>If your language has multiple words for love, or no words for love, it doesn’t change it’s nature
Actually it does
The things words represent are either ambigue or subjective
>Not having words for some things
How does that make an argument any good
As I said, having this argument in Sanskrit, Icelandic or Chinese would change a lot

yes, listen to this totally white European and not a muslim pretending to be white

hmm no. If you have some empathy then you wouldn't want to do that. If you don't - it's a good thing there are other people with empathy to stop you :)

Right, so you want to be beaten, robbed, raped and murdered or maybe nobody desires that since not wanting it is part of the defnitions of those words?

Are you falseflagging at this point?
This is a question of philosophy, not religion. Religion is the opiate of the masses. There are very few people here who go to church, I wager.

I don't understand. Can you explain why you see them as insane?

Only a jew can use objective language to say objectivity isn't objective. I can't wait to fire up the ovens again.

It would change the words, not the meaning.

you claim that subjective values are objective though, that every value is subjective and thus the subjectivism of values is objektive. You run into the same conundrum of all the people who reject truth and common sense because they want their lies to be true, and that is only possible in a system of thought in which true and false does not exist in the first place.

so nothing matters objectively but empathy does?

Regarding your pic, what verse exactly?
>Because you can't say only cars can be on the highway so everything on the highway must be a car
These are both the same statement. Every argument has claims that are to be taken axiomatically/a priori, else, as I fucking said in the OP, you can demand "substantiation" for the substantiation ad infinitum, which seems to be your go-to strategy for disbelieving hard truths.

I don’t perceive them as insane. Society does. It is objectively insane to act in a subject manner.

What? If nobody desires that then it is true about all subjects. That doesn't make it objective, just a universal subjective thing.

The meaning is subjective based not only on the language, but the speaker itself

>universal subjective
Oh no no no

Quit your pilpul kike

When did I claim they were objective?!

What you speak on is an impossibility. If it were true, SJWs would be on the right side of history.

Empathy matters SUBJECTIVLY. If there were no being to feel empathy, then it wouldn't matter. That's why it's subjective. It doesn't exist outside the subject(s)

It's so obvious the kike's ITT are engaging in pilpul, just fucking ignore them

Please explain yourself.

>If God doesn't exist, nothing actually, objectively matters.
ok

now what?

Nigga, that is not what that word means.

Does history have a left side?

Please reread the sentence until you understand.

Well what's your definitions?

A dictionary.

P I L P U L
I
L
P
U
L

Good work user, bringing light to this zone of total degeneracy.

I've read 5 times and I don't understand why would society see that as insane (and why that make an argument for something)

I said in my very first post that I'm agnostic.
The only sane position.

wikipedia: "Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings"
How is that not what I talked about?

>nothing matters goy
>all values are subjective
All values sharing ins subjectivity makes them objective. You are claiming that values are objektively subjektive, thus giving them objektive value. Again, you run into the contradictions in which every relativist incurs when they try to escape from reality.

Is that how you justify killing goyim mercilessly? Empathy exists, therefore it matters. The way you use that empathy is reliant on your reason, and your reason works on analysing reality. The choice you make based on those elements definitely matter on an objective level, since they define you as a person both inwardly (therefore subjectively, so even in your worldview they would start to matter) and outwardly.
You are advocating for a way of life devoid of reason basically.
>inb4 reason doesn't matter
Neither does your opinion then, or your life. The only coherent thing you can do is suicide, like all relativists.

It could conceivably have a wrong side, since that is the opposite of right when used in that context. As I have said repeatedly, words are merely representations of objective meaning. Your trap reading doesn’t make sense beyond a simple joke.

But why Christianity?

>The only safe position.
ftfy

Try a dictionary, my man.

stumped u there eh?

>herp but not the Christian God
>I got em now

That makes no sense, as words indeed represent SUBJECTIVE meaning. If you say "blue stick" no two people will think of the same stick
>But they will think of a stick
Nope, it might actually be a rod what they think of, a branch or something else

A necessary property of a proposition is that it has meaning.

> Proof god exists....First, I am not your dictionary.
Of course...so, Here is my response:

1.
1) Who says anything does?
2) Prove this claim.
3) Special pleading.
---------------
2.
1) Prove this claim.
2) Prove this claim.
3) Special Pleading.
--------------
3.
1) Prove this claim.
2) Prove this claim.
3) Prove this claim.
4) Special pleading.

....you're welcome....
Glad I could clear up all that bullshit for you.

>All values sharing ins subjectivity makes them objective

mmm nope. It is my subjective opinion that values are subjective. Nothing objevtive in that.

>>Empathy exists, therefore it matters
Did I ever say it didn't matter? I'm not sure who you're arguing with but i doubt it's me.

But there is a correct answer, and through use of more words it could be clearly understood.
It’s like saying “I have one thousand dollars, I’ll never be able to have one million dollars.” One thousand times one thousand....

Why, is wikipedia not good enough?

I can say 1 + 2 is 3 because 1 + 1 is 2. You claiming objectivity does not exist in objective language is immediately self-detonating and then you haven't even gotten to the infinitely large leap to therefore god.

If you have an infinite substantiation problem, it means your statement is unprovable and therefore bullshit.

Prove any claim.

Is a dictionary not good enough, you know, the thing specifically designed to tell you meanings of words?

Sunni Islam is the true religion.

Why does 1+1=2

All universals must be true and all truth must be universal. That is the definition of objective. True no matter what.

You do realise there is more than words to a language, especially grammar, and regarding that, English is pretty lacking. Using more and more words won't change that.
Again as I said, the things words represent are subjective, it's all in linguistic grounds

Read the OP, idiot. Repeating "Prove it," over and over doesn't constitute valid assessment of plausibility. How you feel, e.g. not believing something, is irrelevant to the dialectic.

Okay since OP is like an even higher level of stupid of normal.

>2. Things actually, objectively matter.
prove it, else term invalid

>3. There is no evidence, empirical, mathematical, or otherwise, that any interaction between any of the four fundamental forces of the universe could possibly create consciousness.
wrong on about two dozen different levels. Every single experiment deducted so far indicates that the 16 elementary particles and the 4 fundamental forces make up the whole universe with no counterargument or evidence to prove otherwise. the logical deduction is that consciousness is a physical reality composed out of a combination of the above. your statement is factually wrong and it invalidates the whole term

>3. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
prove it, else invalid

>3. Therefore, the proposition is self-refuting.
that's not how logic and deduction works, the statement cannot override reality. just because the statement itself is meaningless, doesn't mean that somehow gives meaning to the universe, invalid again

>5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.
surprisingly this whole term is logically consistent and isn't wrong at all. this is why scientists do this whole spiel of "laws of nature break down at yadda yadda". We can explain everything that happened since the big bang, but not anything before that. there is no evidence to make any predictions of what may have been there or what caused it.

continued...

>1 + 1 is 2
Prove it, else this is bullshit. You are obscenely stupid.

It is not "true no matter what". If there was no life in the universe, would it still be true to say that murder is wrong?

Read the OP, idiot. Screeching "Prove it," ad infinitum doesn't consitute valid assessment of plausibility.

Could you give me tldr on proofs for the resurrection of Jesus? Because there is no argument for Christianity besides this

Because that's what we've abstracted from objective reality, they are called natural numbers for that reason. If I say two apples, you can immediately apply the concept because it is objective.

>It is my subjective opinion that values are subjective. Nothing objevtive in that.
Your opinion does not change reality though. You considering values subjective does not stop them from being objective.

>Did I ever say it didn't matter? I'm not sure who you're arguing with but i doubt it's me.

>1 Actually things don't objectively matter.
>Did I ever say it didn't matter?
Yes you did. If something does not matter objectively, it cannot matter subjectively either, since the subjectivity of something being relevant is dependant on the belief that it is subjectvie. You objectively believe you'd rather live than die, and therefore your subjectivity only exists in as far as it is justifiable from an objective perspective. There are no subjective values without objective values, therefore values are objective.

>things objectively matter
They don't.
>There is no evidence, empirical, mathematical, or otherwise, that any interaction between any of the four fundamental forces of the universe could possibly create consciousness.
We're working on finding it out, as theists like to say "absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." The only difference is framing: we don't assume a god exists just because others before us did.
>objective morals and duties do exist
They do not. As a moral error theory fan, there is no objective morality. If there is, please explain what exactly the morals are and I'll rip them to shreds.

you're assuming that one would choose evil over good if they had entirely free will, which means that you assume evil is a better choice than good.

have fun in hell

Prove that there are cases where 1 + 1 is not 2 and I'll admit it is subjective

*is dependant on the belief that it is objective.

Resurrection of Jesus doesn't even prove Jesus is God
Muslims also believe in the resurrection of Jesus and it makes much more sense in Quran

Nope, you're shifting the burden of proof.

>Muslims also believe in the resurrection of Jesus
No they don't, they believe he was not crucified and didn't die

It's not about believing. It's about posting OPINIONS as if they were FACTS. If you have no proof to back up your claim, it is not a fact, it is an opinion. Opinions mean nothing. Facts and evidence or gtfo.

Good luck with the other 20 you intellectual giant.

What is hell? Being one with God is heaven, but we are atm not one with God, thus this is hell, but if we are then this is heaven?

Really? A Muslim once told me that Allah helped Jesus to flee. But I've never read the Quran so I wouldn't know

>God
Fuck off monotheist

I'm not making any claims. OP is.....

Show me one argument with a premise that doesn't fit your definition of "opinion," idiot.

Your entire argument is based on circular logic around the fact that morality is objective which it is not.
TL;DR I used big words to say something retarded so it must be correct

Nope, 1 + 1 is 2 is already objective proof because it is consistent no matter the circumstances. If you can prove that cases exist where it doesn't hold up, sure.

No this is not hell, we are still supported and protected by God on earth. Furthermore you can already take part in heaven and become one with God by attending Mass and eating the eucharist

...

>188 replies
Now this is shitposting. Congrats OP. Tried a little too hard though, no? Tone down the being retarded on purpose you might get 300 replies faster.

>>Your opinion does not change reality though
Why not? If I have a bit of power I can enforce my opinion (that's what the police does for example, enforcing a very wide spread opinion that murder is wrong etc)

>>Yes you did

No. I said it doesn't OBJECTIVELY matter. It still matters to me as a subject.
I don't understand why you insist that my values are objective. It is subjectivly relavent. I can go on.

>4. Therefore, to desire something that doesn't exist wouldn't have evolved.
wrong, we did select for a tendency to find an explanation of the supernatural (at the time), as part of our developing intelligence. Finding patterns in nature and teaching it to your children makes them better at surviving after all. God doesn't exist just because people believe in him. The selection process works in both cases, because it selects against the EFFECT of a religion (community, taking care of each other, etc.) rather than the CAUSE of said religion.

>12
that entire term is rhetorical nonsense, it's basically saying that cause and effect must exist, which is obviously true, but then asserts a giant leap in reasoning that has no basis. refer to big bang for the rest. we know what happened since, we don't know what happened before.

>1. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.
there is yet to be any proof that infinities exist in physical reality. so far it's pure mathematics with no real world applications. next

>1. If the multiverse doesn't exist, there is sufficient scientific reason to believe life is impossible.
nonsense again. life exists, therefore there is DIRECT scientific evidence that life can exist. next.

Are you guys not seeing the other arguments I posted?
>fixating on a 3 premise syllogism because I can't bear to tackle something with 4 premises or more
okie dokie
>because it is consistent no matter the circumstances.
Prove it, brainlet.

You get free will said god, so you can choose to do what I want or burn in hell

Why bother reading anything else when you can't even respond to a critique of those first three? You're absolutely pathetic user, especially because you assume
1) God exists (no actual evidence given)
2) One version of god that humans believe in is the actual version (no actual evidence given that ANY versions of god are real)
3) Your life has value (This one is just here because I wanted a third thing, but it's still valid because you are absolutely a waste of oxygen).

Already did, present your cases kike or into the oven you go

>there is yet to be any proof that infinities exist in physical reality. so far it's pure mathematics with no real world applications. next
This isn't a negation
>nonsense again. life exists, therefore there is DIRECT scientific evidence that life can exist. next.
It's a conditional, brainlet. The premise is life can't exist IF there is no multiverse

what? properties of the proposition are irrelevant.
your claim is that ''nothing has meaning'' is a self-refuting claim. however, i can deny i have meaning without have meaning.

>ad hominem
I'm out.
>prove a theory
You're pretty good kid.

If there is even one chink in your armor of “reason”, then the entire premise is false because of the claim of infallibility. I could tackle your wall of text point by point, but why should I? It likely won’t change your mind and free you from the shackles of religion.

>If I have a bit of power I can enforce my opinion
if people stopped believing gravity keeps them grounded on earth it would not stop gravity from doing so. The same is true for morality. Morality comes from God and God is not swayed by our wishful thinking.

>No. I said it doesn't OBJECTIVELY matter. It still matters to me as a subject.
I have alread proved you logically that something can only matter subjectively if the subject believes it matters objectively, so values are de fact objective.
>I don't understand why you insist that my values are objective. It is subjectivly relavent. I can go on.
It is not subjectively relevant, because if it were you would have no problem letting go of it even if it involves you personally. You are basically like that guy that says "life has no meaning" but keeps on living it, despite the fact that if that is true then the only way to give meaning to life is to kill yourself, since it would be the only way to react in a coherent way with what you perceive to be reality.
In fact, your belief that values are subjective is something that you believe to be an objective value, otherwise you would not be here replying to me over and over trying to prove to me that you are right.

Friendly reminder if you took OP seriously you fell for it.

>2. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature--are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature.
some logical absolutes still depend on the frame of reference, such as coordinate systems, velocity, etc. but go on.
>5. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them.
what, if they're always true regardless of context and regardless of outside influence, then they're true even in absence of god. God cannot make 1!=1, unless you start redefining what either of those things are. As far as we know, humans came up with math and it's not an intrinsic part of nature. Math is good at DESCRIBING nature, but it's not nature itself.

>4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and, because causes necessarily assume the greatness of their effects, no effect can be greater than its cause.
an idea of something does not create the something. i have an idea of a being more powerful than god that is able to kill your god. it doesn't magically make it true. invalid.

>2. An infinite regress of logical causes is impossible, as any such infinite regress would itself beg a logical cause.
>3. Therefore, there is an uncaused first cause.
already answered this one twice now.

>10. There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary.
no, empty space has an energy level and there is a nonzero calculatable chance for random chance to pop the universe into existence by big bang, it's something like 10^10^67 years on average.

>6. Therefore, matter is never objectively more than its parts
if that's true, then computers couldn't exist, next.

continued

>Why bother reading anything else when you can't even respond to a critique of those first three?
This is my 16 response, mostly to the first syllogism.
>no actual evidence given
>your proofs don't real
lol, stay butthurt faggot

You realize most retards don't know what a premise is let alone how to prove a point and set conditions and definitions for the sake of an argument.
It's like kicking a baby. What's the point?

Fucking hell replied to myself

True oxygen molecules exist yet we can’t see them. We can’t see god yet he still exist.

Have bump you cheeky bastard.

Is there any proof Jesus got resurrected? Because there is no proof for Christianity to be found in your post.

13 is Zeno's Paradox.

Actually molecules are observable since 2009 you fucking nigger. How do people fall for this meme so easily? Oh yeah because they just look at retarded infographics that they see on here and never read books

Morality is subjective. The MAIN moral points come to us by the limits nature has put to us, for if you die you don't come back, but if those things were to vanish, then no, morality does NOT exist

Kike atheist does not understand that his post is not an argument.

>all name-calling is ad hominem
>i don't know anything about logic whatsoever
>>prove a theory
>You're pretty good kid.
Aaaaand we've come full circle.
Kicking babies is my jam.
>then the entire premise is false
wat. Is your excuse really that if one argument for X is wrong, all arguments for X must be wrong?
Look into it or something. I'm not here to hold your stupid hand.

do you also believe in Santa?
fuck your parents scarred you for life, feel sorry for you

Morality is simply universalizing rules everyone can live by. Don't want to get murdered? Don't murder people. Same with stealing, rape, and other initiations of force.

>i made a response but you have to go look for it lol
I see you've never actually been involved in a real debate.
>stay butthurt
So are you going to debunk anything I said or... what?

Not an argument, death to israel.

thank you

The same is true for morality? But how will you ever know it's true?!
By the way, how do you know the morality God gave you is what you should actually do? How do you know he isn't lying? There is a hidden SUBJECTIVE assumption here that you should do what God tells you. That assumptiom came only from you, hence it's subjective too :)
>I have alread proved you logically
Perhaps you should try again because I didn't get it.
>your belief that values are subjective is something that you believe to be an objective value, otherwise you would not be here replying to me over and over trying to prove to me that you are right
I know. It is weird, but it is only to be expected that it would be weird (since there is no objective value).

>9. There are an infinite number of possible worlds in which the fine-tuning of the universe and all its antecedents do not exist or are in an infinite number of possible states.
lapse of reasoning. just because the universe can exist in different configuration, doesn't mean that all possible configurations exist simultaneously. there has been no observation and evidence for any multiverse theory to be true so far.

>3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious. (Premise)
same concept, there is much more wrong with that whole term, but this already wrong. read above.

>3. If our only reason for doubting is that people have understood materialistic causes for materialistic things — which is necessarily irrelevant to the immaterial — then it is most plausible to believe that these people have not been wrong.
99% of all assumptions are wrong. so far everything that used to be explained by god or higher powers and was later debunked by science to be a natural phenomenon. there has not been a single case of something that was proven to be genuinely supernatural. Your own argument works against you here because by your own logic it is most reasonable to assume there is no God after all.

>3. So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
>4. Hence God exists.
Ignoring everything else that's wrong with this, this doesn't even make sense internally, because maximum properties implies there is a maximum amount, therefor God is not omnipotent. You fail at your own arguments.

continued

That fades when for example you kill people based on what they think and that "field of morality" allows it

>Actually molecules are observable since 2009 you fucking nigger.
>Being this fucking stupid.

Please kill yourself. Please do it now. We've been observing individual MOLECULES for well over a century, you fucking retard.

Show me a picture of an oxygen molecule right now and not some drawing from a professor with Parkinson’s disease. I want to actually see it.

Got any real arguments, kike?

Test it
youtu.be/mkuRqZ-SssI

>1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
no. lots of people wish to be all powerful. just no.

>2. Truth properly resides in a mind.
prove or invalid

>1. Good things exist.
Good is relative, not absolute.

I have finished. Conclusion: KYS yourself.

>well over a century,
since over thousands of years you mean

>thank you
It wasn't a compliment. You're an atheist pretending to be agnostic because you're too much of a fucking coward to admit you BELIEVE God does not exist.

>Look into it
I did. Guess there is just no proof for Christianity

The initiation of force is immoral, killing in itself is not. You can't murder someone who wants to die.

>since over thousands of years you mean
Well technically yes, but I meant where we can track just one alone from the others. Brownian motion was found a century ago.

>God claims his word is infallable
>God says something that isn’t true
>His word is fallable
>His word cannot be trusted
>Entire Bible can not be trusted
>It is safe to assume that Bible is wrong
>God does not exist
Do I have to spell it out or will you just as hom everyone and tell them not to use fallacies that you use in every single post? I’ve wasted enough time here.

Yes it does. That which can asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

>It wasn't a compliment. You're an atheist pretending to be agnostic because you're too much of a fucking coward to admit you BELIEVE God does not exist.

no I don't
I'm agnostic.
I just hate religion more than i hate atheism

>God can do anything! So he's EVIL.
The bible SPECIFICALLY lists several things God cannot do, you ignorant piece of shit.

>hate
Than you're not agnostic.

Wrong, and OH agian, that still is based on linguistic grounds

Have fun talking to rocks without sound then. Fuck off dunning-kruger effect. Not an argument.

You want to find god ? He's not here any more. He's on the far side of the universe. Might be time to put the old fairy tales down and get into some science. You're going to need rocket ships and microscopes and all kinds of equipment to go looking for the old fucker.

>That which can asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
Nope. Just because your opponents can't prove something, that doesn't mean the opposite is automatically true by default.

I've been trying to explain this simple and undeniable principle to athiots for years now. They're all too stupid to understand it.

Show me a picture of an actual oxygen molecule and not some drawing explaining oxygen molecules I want to see it.

Conception is how many things exist in the first place, therefore "God is conceived, therefore he doesn't exist," is negated.
>I see you've never actually been involved in a real debate.
translation:
>you're a poopoo head WAAAAAAAAA ;_;
>unironically using the word "debunk."
>1) God exists (no actual evidence given)
I posted 21 negations of this
>2) One version of god that humans believe in is the actual version (no actual evidence given that ANY versions of god are real)
I posted negation of this as well.
>3) Your life has value
Agreed. If your contention is only that I won't repost my arguments for you, tough, idiot.
Guess not, idiot.
>God says something that isn’t true
If you just made this up, you should really reconsider why you hold your position and realize it is only because of massive butthurt
>That which can asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
This is true, however it can fallaciously be taken to mean, as may have been Hitchens' intention, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed as false or unlikely without evidence." Those who interpret the statement as such, commit an argument from ignorance -- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, nor does expectation of evidence constitute absence of evidence.

Who are you quoting?

>Believes there are sixty gender.
>Believe niggers are equal to whites.
>Believes nothingness spontaneously turns into a universe occasionally.
>"Time to stop believing in fairy tales!"
You first, bitch.

Do you really not know how to use google?

Christianity is degeneracy.

Example:
>Jesus jerks off dogs. He waits until 2-3am on a Wednesday night, and quietly slips out his back door, and in his backyard he eases himself over the fence into his neighbors yard. Creeping through the darkness guided by the pale yellow beam of a penlight, he approaches his neighbor's doghouse. Once he gets close enough for the dog to hear him, the german shepherd-boxer mix emerges from the doghouse, tail wagging. He knows what is about to happen.

>Jesus crouches next to the dog and cradles the dog's massive sheath in his hand, gently gripping. The dog's breathing quickens and it begins to bump it's hips as jesus rocks his hand back and forth. Jesus groans in ecstasy as the dog's thrusting intensifies, and loud dog grunts fill the night air and jesus's other hand begins rubbing his small penis through his jorts. The dog latches onto jesus' upper arm with it's front legs and the dog begins jackhammering the air, his massive swollen erection flopping freely as jesus grips the huge red knot. gouts of hot sour dog semen launch into the moist night air in steaming loops and jesus adds to the grunting as he approaches orgasm. jesus's leg shivers as he unloads the holy ghost into his underroos. Satiated, cowardly jesus scurries back to his trailer to clean himself in his ugly yellow stand up shower. The dog stands there in the dark, confused but satisfied.

That's what jesus does.

Jesus does that.

Not me anyway, but the poster made an argument and was responded to with "you're so stupid". This violates multiple rules in the OP, namely the principle of charity and the divine fallacy.

is that all you got?
I also hate eating liver and organs, what now?

Would you agree that all sincere religious traditions report this same belief in a higher power or powers?

יש לך את הסרטון של עדן בן זקן?

That’s not an actual molecule.

>that doesn't mean the opposite is automatically true by default.
I never asserted as such. Nothing is the neutral stance. God is the baseless assumption.

So unelss you prove God. Nothing or "we don't know" is the credible stance to have. No credible scientist would claim knowledge over anything that happens prior to the big bang, because the laws of nature as we understand them don't work there and don't allow for any predictions.

If you believe in a God that set things in motion at the big bang and then kicked back and let things play out by itself, I can respect that, nothing in science would contradict that.

A personal, influencing creator on the other hand is provably not true.

Maybe jesus as in a weird Mexican

So there really is no proof for Christianity. Then why are you still arguing?

no idea what that video is

>>Believe niggers are equal to whites.
>Believes this but still goes around saying how the kike that said "Every human is equal" is GOD

אוכזבתי קשות

You can’t even make it out what it is, it could be lint floating around.

Here's a molecule retard

...

Molecules are smaller than the wavelength of light, but other molecular structures can be seen under an electron microscopes with carbon monoxide tips. We are just getting into semantics at this point

Your contention is the equivalent of "no u." Even if there were no evidence that Christianity is absolutely, irrefutably the truth, it would be irrelevant. You're whining at me because you're butthurt, not any supposed absence of evidence.

Electron micrograph of a pentacene molecule.

>look son, a retard

>Sure, you destroyed my argument, but I'll claim it doesn't count because I refuse to admit that what you wrote was a critical component of what I asserted.

And because I'm in a good mood I'll refute this too:

Your argument is perfectly consistent, but is missing the entire point. Atheists think there is nothing in the box, Theists think there is something in the box, agnostic people don't know. So far so good.

But you're forgetting something. The contents of the box dictates parts of your behavior. You must either live your life according to the rules of the maybe contents of the box or not. If you don't chose, you default to the "not living by the rules of the contents of the box" part.

This is what makes all agnostics also atheists.

Agnostic Atheist: Not sure or don't know what's in the box, propably nothing, I choose to live my life assuming there's nothing in there.
Gnostic Atheist: I _know_ there is nothing in the box, I'll live my life as such also.

Gnostic Theist: I _know_ there is something in that box, I better live my life as such.
Agnostic Theist: I'm not sure or don't know what's in the box, but I'll assume there is and will live my life that way.

lol I just googled it
wtf

Interesting. At least you’re being honest with me and not being some dumb fedora who makes it out that they have gratuitous erudition.

No, I think you misunderstand. I'm no Atheist looking for trouble. I'm looking for answers.
But the people who worship God never seem to be able to answer my questions so I'm going to ask again: Why Christianity?

>is that all you got?
I've got the dictionary, you faggot. You are hostile to a view, therefore you are not agnostic towards it.

It's a logic thing. Being a kike, you would never understand.

God =/= Jesus, The Trinity, or Yahweh. You don't need the Bible to know God.

Hahaha a kike. I can’t wait for the day you all become extent.

>Nothing is the neutral stance.
Show me an example of true nothingness. I'll wait.

While you're looking around fruitlessly, maybe you should reflect on how UNNATURAL the concept of nothingness is.

משום מה אני מצפה מאדם בארבעצ'אן להיות קצת בקיא בענייני תרבות :/
לא נורא

>1. If God doesn't exist, nothing actually, objectively matters.
What the fuck are you saying? If the cgristian God exists then nothing matters. If all that's important is "the next life" how does anything in this life matter?

we kikes are famous for intellect and logic.
let me explain where you're wrong:
you assume that when I say I hate religion, I mean I don't believe in creationism.
Whereas in reality when I say I hate religion - that's all I mean.
get it?

See you injected feelings at
>things objectively matter
By that logic we can also say they objectively don’t matter plunging you into an endless loop of insanity
Such meaning would only logicly exist in the form of complete independance from god
We can assume such a god would not want us to worship him
He would engineer us act entirely on our own for ourselves
Observe yourself
Divinity is all too often confused with the higher self
The god is you

>God said every human is equal.
No, he never said that. He listed several white ethnic groups and said THEY are one in Christ. He never said niggers were our equals. That is a misinterpretation used by libtards to manipulate idiots who don't understand what they read.

I guess it worked on you.

>you all become extent.
What did he mean by this?
Jewish empire?

זוהי לא תרבות

So to make sure I’m comprehending this correctly some molecules as of right now we can’t see and others we can through a very powerful microscope. Am I right or not even close.

>. He listed several white ethnic groups
Lpl lol, just kek ok..ok let's hear it
Which groups

>not understanding that "too" implies you've already refuted something
Nigga, "Prove it! WAAAAAAA;_;" doesn't constitute a refutation.
>Why Christianity?
You've already dismissed my answer to this. Do you really think asking the same question over again is witty? Something tells me you're too young to be here.

חוששני שדיברתי בלשון סגי נהור

נו, שוכנעת שאלוהים קיים?

>become extent

thanks me too!

Nothing in an abstract sense, not nothing in a physical sense. We know empty space isn't actually empty, I mentioned so above.

For example, say you put down an object in a place, then leave. When you come back after 3 days and it is still in the same place, what's the reasonable assumption?
a) Nothing happened to it
b) Someone moved it, then moved it back.

Hahaha extinct.

Hahahaha

>Nigga, "Prove it! WAAAAAAA;_;" doesn't constitute a refutation.
I asked for no proof. I simply refuted the box analogy and the fact that true agnostics don't exist . There is more than assertion of knowledge in your stance on religion.

The reasonable thing to do would be not to make any assumptions about something you don't know.

Your ideas are dumb as fuck OP and you're a faggot for putting them in premise-conclusion format for no reason.

כן
בלשון סגי נהור

>propably nothing
Nope. Atheists pretend they know, and there's nothing agnostic about that.

By far the most revolting aspect of atheists (and there are many such aspects) is their cowardice, their blanket refusal to admit that (1) they absolutely believe there is not a God and (2) they HATE the very idea of a God with a vile malice matched only in the heart of Satan.

Atheists wriggle around like worms on hooks when you confront them with the fact that the "I'm not convinced" position is called agnosticism and what they are is BELIEVERS in a religion that asserts a universe can exist without a creator.

How many frightened Christian spam threads do we need? Go be insecure somewhere else.

>Nothing in an abstract sense
>But God in an abstract sense is a cheat.
>But nothingness in the abstract is real.
>But God isn't.

I think you just lost. Fuck off.

>I simply refuted the box analogy
Mary's room?

>You're frightened of us.
No, we just think you're demonic assholes.

Do you know what an assumption is? It precedes experiment.

>Nope. Atheists pretend they know, and there's nothing agnostic about that.
Agnostic Atheists make up the overwhelming majority of atheists, none of them assert with full knowledge that there is nothing. They just choose to assume to live their life as if there was nothing. That's a big difference.

Agnostics are the biggest fedora tippers in these threads these days. You just don't like the label.

You're not that special.

Word play, nothing more. What is your argument even at this point?

>take axiom of thing being or not being
>thing = god or not god
>therefore christianity

yeah, no.

Well, you simply linked a post with no argument. Nothing in that post said anything about the believability of Christianity.
I genuinely think that if you want to state something and let everyone appreciate it and give you compliments with no talking back, you should be on a Christian subreddit right now. But don't worry I will wait for the next Christian thread to come around and wait for a real Christian who actually might give me some answers

>retarded Christcuck fails logic
When you say "God" you're meaning the ded kike on a stick and his bitch daddy that makes you suck his cock daily.

For the most part your conclusion is right, but for the wrong logical reasoning. Something must come from nothing, therefore there is a "God" of some kind.

Is it your dipshit god who allows his followers to be raped by the jews on a daily basis? I doubt that. Your religion is responsible for the destruction of the white race, it overwhelmingly condones mixed marriages and immigration.

>I simply refuted the box analogy and the fact that true agnostics don't exist .
You did not "refute" the box analogy. Sit down with a box like that and any atheist. Put a gun to his head and ask him if the box is empty. Don't let him open it. Tell him if he guess's wrong he'll die.

He will admit he doesn't know, right after shitting his adult diaper and begging for his mommy.

NONE OF US KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. We have leanings, of course. Nobody knows. You cross out of agnosticism land only when you lose the ability to admit you don't know.

Atheists pretend they know.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

>Agnostic Atheists
>Square circle.

Please kill yourself.

see

Lack of belief is not belief in lack (of something).

Funny, because I was just thinking that hypothesizing is pointless and actually creates a higher risk of committing a fallacy of the single cause, i.e. starting with the conclusion and matching evidence to it accordingly (which can be done with any conclusion, which may be why this is also called the reduction fallacy), rather than drawing your conclusion from the evidence.

>Nothing in that post said anything about the believability of Christianity.
Something tells me you would say this about literally any argument a Christian gives you, because you're an idiot.

>ded kike on a stick
I can't imagine what it's like to be as ignorant as you are.
inb4: But it says he's a Jew in the bible.
Yes it does. What it doesn't say is that the degenerate mutts running around today CALLING THEMSELVES JEWS are actually Jews like in the bible. That's because they aren't.

>My source is Wikipedia!
Seriously, kill yourself.

If you start with the conclusion, it's very easy to get to it the wrong way, because usually multiple ways get you to the same conclusion.

Like say a house burnt down, how did this happen. If you start with the conclusion that it was an arson, it's easy to find "evidence" for something like that, even if it's not true at all.

The scientific method works by theory -> experiment -> conclusion for a reason.

>Wikipedia is the source of truth!
Wait, I'm sorry: Cut your dick off, THEN kill yourself.

Better than the source you're using: Your ass.

see

Wikipedia has zero credibility. ZERO.

Nice ad hominem but you could take the time you use to insult me, to try and give me an actual good post but you don't, since that would take brainpower and actual knowledge of your religion

"Agnostic atheism" is redundant and the existence of a wiki article on the concept doesn't magically validate its existence. "Agnostic" implies "atheist," not to be equivocated with classical atheist, which is the only purpose of your redundancy. An agnostic is also an aclassical-atheist, but you don't follow with that, do you?

>Insults you while criticizing you for insulting him.
Let me guess: atheist, right? It's the faggoty double-standard that gave it away.

Name an objective source of manmade definitions that I can use?

>Definition of agnostic
> : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
>2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

>Definition of atheist
>: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism

If you disagree with it at this point then you disagree with the very definition of the words itself.

**Lack of belief is not the same as belief of lack (of something)**

ATHEISTS deny the existence of God.
AGNOSTICS remain open to the possibility.
And LIBTARDS try to change words that have been defined for generations to win their bullshit self-contradicting arguments. It's why suddenly "gender" doesn't mean the same thing as "sex."

see

uhh, indeed?
It isn't an ad hominem just because it's an insult, idiot. It's not even an argument, but a presumption based on your apparent stupidity.
>to try and give me an actual good post but you don't, since that would take brainpower and actual knowledge of your religion
I already did. Why would I try to pull something else out of thin air to have you smugly reject it again? Kill yourself, kid.

SO ITTS A BIG OLE POOPY HUH??? I KNEW IT WADS A CONSPIRACYY!! PFFFFFTTTTPP!

You're full of shit.

t. read the thread

I said in an earlier post I'm not an atheist. I asked him nicely several times for answers but he just throws some insults around. He could disprove my statement that he is an idiot by giving me an answer, but he won't. See

Oh, so YOU're the ultimate authority on the definition of atheism?

Get the fuck outta here.

Typischer Amerikaner. Was erwartet ihr von ihm?

IMM AN ATHEIST IM ONLY 12 PFFFTTTTPPPPPPP!

Yes, I do disagree with the definition, written by atheists, and your using of the definition for support that you're correct somehow is a definition fallacy (no joke).
>**Lack of belief is not the same as belief of lack (of something)**
It isn't possible to be aware of a concept and not hold a belief about it; being aware of it is "believing about it." Either way, "lacking belief" is irrelevant because being without knowledge (agnostic) implies your nu-definition of "atheism," and is, AGAIN, therefore redundant, presumbably only for the sake of subversion.

insults or answers is a false dichotomy, idiot.

>You're full of shit.
No, I'm really not. My 1967 American Heritage dictionary defines an atheists as (n) a person who denies the existence of God.

That definition, which stood for CENTURIES, has been rewritten in the last twenty years to serve the whims of faggot atheists in academia who are cornered by the fact that being honest about their own BELIEF SYSTEM causes them to lose arguments about a question that is inherently unknowable.

You do NOT get to redefine "racism" as something that only whites can do.

You do NOT get to redefine "gender" as some sort of non-biology-controlled mental state.

You do NOT get to redefine "atheist" to mean AGNOSTIC because you're losing an argument.

Verpiss dich arschgeige.

So, you are saying you are a Pupezoid? Because you don't believe in Schmalzspeck, which is the highest deity in Kackwurstianity.