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 could be questioned ad infinitum, their soundness dictated only by how "obvious" they are to the reader, ultimately arriving at whichever conclusion they wish. tl;dr Screeching "Prove it!" isn't a valid contention to the soundness of premises.
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.
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.
Ryan Allen
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.
Thomas Miller
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.
Kayden Baker
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.
Christian Brown
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.
Ian Parker
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.
Ayden Morgan
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.
Xavier Torres
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)
Thomas Campbell
Why even care about this cuckoldry? Religion truly is, a mental disease.
Zachary Davis
>Response to 1 and 3 Objective Morals don't mean there's a god. You can create axioms just as you can in Math to form a fully consistent system e.g. UPB (Stefan Molyneux's Idea not mine). Since Math is not proof of god and it is also a logical system based on a few axioms just as morality, oobjective morality is not a definite proof of a god. Also ''things'' don't objectively have purpose, since artificial purpose can be created it could also be removed. E.g. : If I use a rock as a hammer it has gained purpose. Also I could throw away a goof hammer for it to loose purpose.
Thomas Richardson
More explicit:
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. Christianity is the largest, most successful movement of all time. God necessarily being competent, this attests to the likelihood of Christianity's truth
Jesus' resurrection 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
The noumenal isn't affected by "what you can form." This is addressed in fucking premise 1. Please read before posting.
Adam Brown
bump, the existence of a monotheistic creator is self-evident. The nature of God is the only real question. As you examine the world religions you see there are only 5 or main ones, of those only 4 actually have a deity, of those only 3 are monotheistic, of those Judaism is essentially an atheistic and dead religion. Putting the remaining religions (Christianity and Islam) under scrutiny, the Holy Books are very dissimilar. The Holy Bible has 66 books that are composed by 40 authors over 1,500 years, each book is filled with prophecies and cross references forwards and backwards the is self-proving, and also has time and again show true with history and science. The Qur'an is a pamplet in comparison, self-contradicting and contains similarities to the Jewish Talmud.
The truth always shows itself.
Liam Martinez
Bump for more discussion.
Julian White
bump
Bentley Richardson
...
Jordan Williams
take this to /lit/ or /his/, seriously. you can't expect Cred Forums, in which there are 1000 posts per second and where a thread dies after 5 minutes of inactivity, to have a reasonable debate on this topic.
Luke Wood
...
James Ortiz
...
Adam Perez
During a discussion on "is there a God or not" ... Why do atheists (apostates to be specific) always bring up Christian dogma when its outside the bounds of the discussion and doesn't address the question at hand? Is it because you've never had a legitimate discussion before and all your circle jerk debates revolve around adhominem and not logic?
Camden Richardson
...
Anthony Morales
Scientists theorize about the Big Bang. It is not accepted as fact, we just admit we don’t fucking know what happened. Maybe in the future we’ll figure that out, but who knows?
Christians insist they know for a fact how it all began. The burden of proof rests on the person claiming something exists. Until you can prove there is a Christian god (and not just some “I exist, therefor I am” circular reasoning BS), there is no reason for people to blindly accept the Christian faith.
Worship the tangible. Worship what you can feel; love, family, the seasons, breathing... just appreciate what’s in front of you and stop pretending there’s something greater out there that wants you to forsake it all for MAYBE a good seat in heaven.
Alexander Walker
You don't expect much more then >LOL SKY FAIRY KIKE ON STICK From modern Cred Forums do you? These idealouges have been molded from childhood to be frothingly antagonistic to any concept of religion or God, even if said ideas more consistent then the current materialist narrative.
Benjamin Perez
Sage because op is an ego driven edge lord.
Xavier Howard
Bump
Mason Foster
Nigger-tier logic meme. May have just posted a pic of the mutt that is your newest, blackest princess.
Kayden Lopez
They also base current science, other theories and their application around theories... Not ignoring it. They also theorize about computer simulation and simulator theory(which is just a cop out not to say the word creation and God).
You seem to be in the >If it's a social construct it can be ignored camp.
Parker Brooks
>Scientists theorize about the Big Bang Prior to the discovery of the background cosmic radiation in 1960, the consensus among atheists was that the universe was eternal, had always existed and would always exist, and ANY notion of a Creation event was a purely Religious idea. Obviously atheists were eternally BTFO, Genesis 1 was essentially proven... So (((they))) decided to employ Cultural Marxism techniques by adopting this as their own creation story, and pretending like they were never wrong. I'd guess that you and most Fedoras are completely unaware of the history of your own religion, even such a complete destruction of it within the last 50 years.
Charles Hernandez
>Objective Morals don't mean there's a god. Yes, it does. Otherwise they're subjective.
Thomas Hughes
>Assessment of soundness necessitates a -claim- of plausibility if it is to be relevant, else premises' antecedents could be questioned ad infinitum, their soundness dictated only by how "obvious" they are to the reader, ultimately arriving at whichever conclusion they wish. Read this again until you understand it.
Dylan Hughes
two kinds of morals: a) coming from game theory b) arbitrary shit. a) would be objective without a god.
Landon Collins
>Prior to the discovery of the background cosmic radiation in 1960, the consensus among atheists was that the universe was eternal, had always existed and would always exist, and ANY notion of a Creation event was a purely Religious idea. it is still a religious idea. biblical creation has nothing to do with the big bang.
Josiah Nelson
Game theory morals aren't objective because they're based on a subjective framework of thought ("game theory"). God's morality is objective.
Asher Martin
>objective morals spooky
Anthony Ramirez
Bump
Gabriel Hernandez
1- premise 2 is false. Things do not objectively matter.
2- premise 1 is false. Atheistic idealism is possible
3- premise 3 is false.
4- premise 1 is worded poorly, and is false if you are talking about monotheism.
5- premise 2 is false and 3 does not follow
6- premise 1 and 2 are contradictory
7- premises 1 and 2 are false.
8- premise 1 is false
9- this entire line of argument begs the question, since premise 3 assumes both meaning and logic
10- this argument leads to infinite regress
Not going to do the rest because there are too many.
Andrew Morgan
argument 3 premise 3 is false
Luke Thomas
>subjective framework of thought ("game theory") I guess we are done here, you have reduced your argument to absurdity without my help.
Chase Reyes
Define God. If by God you mean an intelligent designer/creator who is responsible for the Universe's existence and the laws of reality, then yes. If by God you mean the Christian, or any other religious deity, then it's a lie.
>1 >1. If God doesn't exist, nothing actually, objectively matters. No, if an afterlife doesn't exist, nothing objectively matters to you. >2. Things actually, objectively matter. Nope. Subjectively, sure. >3. Therefore, God exists. (modus tollens from 1) Nah
>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. Those four being? >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. Nonsensical babble. >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. You're one to point out fallacies, so... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps That said, which conscience is not 100% understood, we know why we have it, species that don't have it, and how it's a positive trait from an evolutionary perspective. Anything beyond that is speculation on either side of this argument. >4. Therefore, to believe consciousness is only a product of the universe is irrational. Just as irrational as claiming water means moisture.
>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. There is no objective morality. Morality is determined by one's surroundings, be it your country, state/city, friends, or family. >2. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. Yeh >3. Objective moral values and duties do exist. No it doesn't. >4. Therefore, God exists. negative.
Charles Lewis
The only way (that we know of) to experience the universe is in the form of consciousness. Then it actually makes sense that the one who created our ways of perception through our personal traits, has a personality as well.
Liam Cox
argument 7 premise 2 is either false or meaningless
Lucas Richardson
argument 8 is just bullshit - premise 1 is making and unwarranted ontological claim, premise 3 is just meaningless and there is no logical reason for the conclusion.
Easton Richardson
argument 9 premise 1 is false (and irrelevant - objective "mattering" or meaning" is not required for existence or subjective mattering and meaning) (also this is plying on an ambiguity in meaning - between value significance and signifying)
Sebastian King
argument 10 premise 4 is false
Alexander Rivera
argument 11 - premise 3 is false. It may be advantageous, or it may not be so disadvantageous as to be bred out.
Brayden Lee
dude stop
Jackson Rogers
argument 12 denies the reality of quantum physics and random causeless occurance. things can be causeless.
(such as your God)
even if it was true that things cannot be uncaused, this would not show us that this god was anything other than a causeless cause of the big bang. Not much of a god really.
Ryan Thompson
argument 13 premise 5 is false.
Adrian Gutierrez
...
Ayden Sanchez
argument 14 I am not sure if premise 1 is true.
premise 5 however is not true - or at least does not do you much good. Given your theory then in some universe a version of me with a million dollars and a nine inch cock and a blonde supermodel for a wife who is into sub play and ball licking exists. So fucking what, it does not exist here...
Jaxon Ortiz
For someone so autistic you think you'd think you should have some reading comprehension.
what does premise 1 of fifteen mean? what do you mean by exist here?
what does it mean to be a product of the universe - in any possible universe the concept of 1+1+2 is true, but only because of the concepts of 1 and 2 and addition. - but these concepts do not need an author, let alone an absolute transcendent mind (whatever that may be - sounds like typical undefined mystical garbage to me) - they are discover able by human minds, but these are just ways of describing the universe. They do not have to be thought by anyone - they are merely true because of the facts of the case, not because of someone knowing them
You realize, of course, that the accompanying is an example of the strawman fallacy?
Nathaniel Garcia
what does it mean for a cause to nev=cessarily assume the greatness of its effects? again this is meaningless garbage. Why can a small person nto think of a large one? or a huge one? of a person bigger than any person has ever seen? why not then think of a tiny tiny person, smaller than any ever seen? imagination is a wonderful thing. I can think of the perfect woman (did I mention the blode who likes licking my balls... that is a good start. also has true blonde pubic hair, not to thick but not too little)
so there is no logical connection (no therefore) between the nature of the thing imagined and the person imagining it.
and we can imagine things that have no cause in nature.
Ethan Howard
17 premise 4 is simply wrong. It isn't even false. it is just meaningless, without huge unpacking and definition, and if that is done it is clearly questionable. and wrong.
premise 5 - what is meant by agency, and why does will necessarily have it? why would this will/agency need to be omnipotent to cause the universe? why not just really potent, but not omnipotent? premise 7 is false unless you argue that omniscience is a power - needs argument. 8 is simply false. evil genius could have done it. what else explains ticks and lyme disease? 9 is false 11 - where the hell did that "therefore" come from - you need a lot more steps of argument to get to that
Nathaniel Powell
>But whatever has a beginning is caused by something else How is this false? Everything is caused by something else and only thru God's Will are we able to exist in the here and now. Please tell me what exists yet is not caused by anything else, other than God? You seem to be saying things are false and then providing nothing in the way of proof. I will stick with the foundation set for us by guys like Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, not some idiot with a UN meme flag. lol. kys.
Oliver Taylor
argument 18 premise 6 is false
so is premise 10
so is 11
Connor Perez
You think God is a person tho. Like if God was just an abstract concept regarding origin then thats okay. Most creationists think it's a concrete being that reflects our likeness. That is the part I think is retarded.
Isaac Phillips
Hey goys get in here! The christturds are givin each other handjobs! >people whom hate jews, ironically worshipping a jew.
Andrew Lopez
argument 19 premise 6 is false. again you are playing with a objective subjective distinction without defining what these terms mean - and I think playing fast a loose.
Ayden Gray
God here, AMA.
Joshua Stewart
>how to strawman aquinas Pseudo-intellectual
Gabriel Stewart
For all I know you dont exist and you are just some Russian spam bot.
Logan Fisher
argument 20 premise 6 conflates physical laws and physical "things". this is wrong.
although 8 is correct...
11 however displays a lack of understanding of probability (and infinity)
the probability of any one world arising in an infinite series is 1. because in an infinit series all wordls exist. ALL worlds. Even this one.
not by design, just by the nature of infinity.
if you subscribe to that sort of idea at all.
Camden Torres
argument 21 is so dense with illdefined terms that need unpacking as to be nearly meaningless.
premise 8 is highly questionable, 10 even more so, 11 even more than that, 12 is false, 13 relies on an equivocation of significant value and intention (meaning)
and 24 again leaps the boundaries from qualities of a possible being to full on existence of one with a whole heap of baggage on the trailer - which god? whose God? what has this 'god' got to do with the creation of the world, the flood, the holocaust, my not having a blonde nymphomaniac ball sucker on tap?
Blake Hill
My personal favorite contradiction of the Atheist crowd is how they'll jump all over black science man or hawkings claiming this universe is a simulation without the irony even registering with them for a split second.
David Adams
absent agency what you are describing would be no metaphysical explanation of origin
it must be personal; capable of choice and election
Alexander Torres
>Our creation implies God cares which is why children in africa get worms in their legs that crawl up into their eyes and blind them.
Josiah Garcia
>show true with history and science. yeah the value of Pi is 3
the earth stopped rotating.
the moon is a lamp that shines with its own light.
diseases are caused by demons
if you eat mushrooms you will have visions. Oh, sorry that one is right...
Jacob Long
isiah 40 22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
in other words it is a flat disc with a dome over it.
flat earth theory,
Oliver Brown
None of us are real, we’re all spambot2000s shitposting to each other. Get with the program or be reprogrammed.
Kayden Hall
>Things actually objectively matter
You haven't demonstrated that. We're just supposed to accept that? Also, you don't provide evidence for why things don't matter in the absence of god. There are plenty of belief systems that give adherents a sense of meaning in the absence of belief in any god.
>2. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 3. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
God could exist and not create objective moral values. And again, you provide no evidence for your contention that objective morality exists. Many people think that belief is nonsense.
>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.
Except for practically all East Asian religions. That's millions of people not believing in a God for millennia.
>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.
Said object wouldn't necessarily need to be God.
>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.
Those statements directly contradict each other. Also, there are countless human desires that don't rely on real objects to fulfill them. I'd argue most desires are emotional, i.e. fulfilled by immaterial feelings.
>1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
There is no way to verify if what we discover is an eternal truth. If there was, philosophical debate wouldn't exist.
>1. Good things exist.
People do not all agree on what is "good," therefore it's subjective. Things exist and we apply value judgments to those things. Even if we accept that objective good exists, that doesn't necessitate God as a source of good. You've also opened the door here to the Problem of Evil.
Jayden Brown
job 38:19 does not say light moves.
Alexander Long
you really think that no one had noticed before Ecclesiates that the wind changes direction? total crap!
Xavier Reed
I want to believe in God but I'll always question it and at this point I'm too far gone for redemption. At any rate good thread OP.
Thomas Cooper
I'm an atheist but I think devout and practicing Christians, and more specifically Young Earthers, are absolutely based.
Ethan Anderson
why stop, I am having fun here
Andrew Ortiz
>Assessment of soundness necessitates a -claim- of plausibility if it is to be relevant, else each premises' antecedents could regressively be questioned ad infinitum, their soundness dictated only by how "obvious" they are to the reader, ultimately arriving at whichever conclusion they wish. Post in this thread only if you have read this until you understand it.
Wyatt King
Protestants might think God is a person. Catholics do not think that. Thomas Aquinas tells us that God is pure actuality. No potentiality. Go read Aquinas by Edward Feser if you want a beginners guide. And by beginners guide i mean some of the most complex shit you will ever read.
Jace Jenkins
God it would suck if someone had proven that you can't prove the consistency of any complicated mathematical system of axioms.
It would also suck if someone had proven that two completely different sets of axioms are both "relatively consistent" even though both can't be true, thus making the axioms subjective choices anyways.
And it would really suck if someone had proven that any consistent system of axioms is incomplete unless you have an infinite number of axioms, aka more than any human could come up with and effectively use.
James Turner
no, the guy would need other coloured paint to do that
Jayden Scott
all the godless retards bitching and whining ITT is so telling lmao
Isaac Nelson
>Look mom I posted it again!
Isaac Flores
Ok I will bite - how does god's will ensure our existence now? can you detect this will in action?
but more to the point, while I hesitate to mention Hume, I shall anyway - your notion of causes is merely expectation following consistent co-incidence. it is illogical to speak of causes - we never see them. ever. they are not objective, subjective of products of will.
or if you are less crazy than Hume, try quantum physics (and yes, I did say less crazy) which shows us that things can (and experiment has shown they do) spontaneously come into being from nothing.
Ayden Mitchell
How can I be an amerimutt if I am a russian bot??
Hudson Wright
Nothing objectively matters you fucking retard, everything is subjective, including morality.
Ryder Ross
Are you subjective?
Noah Williams
you drank the whole pitcher of leftist kool-aid
Nathaniel Torres
You have autism
Tyler Miller
It's always a leaf.
Luis Gray
What part of "everything" was difficult? Skip to the next part of the shitty point you're trying to make. It's called being accountable for your own actions, you quivering pussy.
Robert Miller
God is dead. Your tarantula venom doesn't work for me
John Cook
Wew you seem pretty objective
Hunter Morales
Name one thing within the universe, which, without any other object in the universe, is capable of making itself exist.
Then tell me how something making itself exist within spacetime would not violate conservation of mass-energy. Also if you think Quantum Mechanics somehow gets you out of this, you're brain dead. Just for kicks try explaining why a verified deterministic partial differential equation which explains the movement of particles in time and space gives rise to a probability distribution when you take its norm in complex Hilbert Space.
Jason Rogers
>God is dead. Your tarantula venom doesn't work for me
Liam Foster
What does it mean for things to not objectively matter? It would mean that there is no universal set of rules for determining the relationship of things to each other, and placing things as "better" or "worse" than other things.
But if there is no universal set of rules for determining the relationship of things to each other, then you cannot claim something is false objectively. Well, you can claim it, but you can't expect anyone to take it seriously, because your claim is meaningless. It's relationships to other things is undefined.
Since your claim has an undefined relationship to his premise, anyone can claim that your claim actually supports his premise, and be just as "correct" as you are.
Thus, if things do not objectively matter, things both objectively do matter and objectively do not matter. In fact, if things do not objectively matter, asdlkjfaljl is a valid conclusion to your argument, and so is any other conclusion.
Now, in the normal system of logic, whenever any conclusion is valid that typically means that you've started from a false premise. This is called the principle of explosion. Looking at the two systems, one allows me to make logical arguments, the other allows anything, and in effect destroys any capacity to rule out options.
The demonstration that things objectively matter is that you are trying to argue against it. You're appealing to something outside your own system of logic.
As to whether things can matter in the absence of God, I would say no, but that's its own argument.
Joshua Jackson
While the idea of a loving and intelligent creator that will preserve all of our essence in it's most perfect form in a divine like heavenly state where no evil exists and lions lay with lambs, to me this is too perfect an idea not to be a complete man made fantasy
Reality is cancer, reality is disease, reality is parasites, reality is brain damage, reality is genetic errors, mutations and organ failure
The more you look at the human form, the animalistic features, nostrils, hair, ears, mammal flesh, you realize that we are not spiritual creatures separate from anything else, we are living organisms that are adaptive and reactive to our unique environment
Breathing air, skin pigmentation, our eyes which are just narrow holes that translate light into information in our brains, bleeding, pulsating
Everything in terms of life forms are reactive to their environment, you have energy, you have molecules, you have cells, life has been seen in science to originate from nothing, abiogenesis, it begins in the simplest form, then mutates, then duplicates, and it becomes more and more advanced from simple building blocks to defining genetic systems, and we are an end result
We are the product of bacteria. An organic reactive echochamber.
What happens when you die? You lose consciousness and your body permanently decays, gets broken down and redistributed as energy back into the earth. That's it.
I do not believe we retain consciousness after physical death, and I honestly do not care, because I had no consciousness pre-existence, everything outside my own consciousness has no affect on me and thus does not matter.
The ultimate goal of God is to give importance and semblance to a short physical life and answer questions for someone who will shortly (within 100 years or less) return to non-existence.
It's a satiate. It's a system designed to appease your senses. To give you peace of mind. But it doesn't change the nature of this reality.
Julian Jenkins
I think you are confusing scientific and physical truth with moral and philosophical idealogy which is completely subjective to the person that perceives it
An equation is a truth, it can be proven. Moral relativity, or any feelings based structure is not as rigid.
ie. 2+2 = 4. True. It's an objective truth.
A woman steals a loaf of bread from a rich man for her starving infant son. Is this action morally reprehensible? That is subjective. Would the benefit of the woman feeding her child outweigh the cost of the man losing his property? etc.
It is why mathematics and most sciences do are the same no matter what country you go to, but laws are completely different.
You are trying too hard to find some sort of loophole that will objectively prove the existence of your preferred deity, and it's not that simple.
Isaiah Evans
What does it matter? Theyre are plenty religious people who dunno if god exists and many non-religious ones who dont know. This kind message turns people of, it's a personal matter.
