Atheists BTFO by logic

your spelling should be form with some essence

How can you say personhood doesn't exist? It's your ability to think and reason, of course it exists. Well maybe not yours specifically.

Sry. Typed too fast.

From your own mechanism and conclusion, therefore something that creates pershonhood ('god') needed something that was a god to create it... ad infinitum

This is called infinite regress and its the fallacy that occurs every time an appeal to a necessary creator is made. The conclusion you reach demands the same explanation as the thing you're attacking.

You're not seeing the reality. You and I are nothing more than a collection of chemical reactions in a solution under the effects of physics. The fact that you are able to conceptualize your resistance doesn't make it special.

Again, it's all reactant + reactant ---> product. Nothing more.

If my ability to think exists and my ability to reason, than what is my personhood?

A nonphysical cause might be thought

A nonphysical cause might be an eternal soul that always was, billions of eternal souls, without creator

This doesn't disprove atheism at all

If my personhood is made of my ability to think etc. it has no existens by itself.

Personhood. Fucking Kek. Languageness might be tops of your listes

Well refute this

If god exists, god is a person because persons were created in his image, but god isn't person because personhood is for persons and god is a god therefore cannot contain personhood, if god is not full of personhood and he created persons in his image, he would need personhood, but he has none, he is god, not a person

if persons were made of person particles, then personhood would be in them, but god created personkind and would've had to create personhood, which he doesn't have

In conclusion, God isn't a person because people are persons, if god created persons, we'd be gods not persons

You're implying that 'personhood' is a thing. We're mere machines, very complex, yes, but with nothing special or magic besides that.

The logic you said is applicable to life itself. How could life form from a set of non-living things. But then again, we can't even deline the limit between living and non-living things.

5. is a wrong conclusion and 1. has more implications. Its the main reasoning of Nagarjuna in his mula-madyamika-karikas. It's from ca. 400 a.d.

No human on the planet understands where consciousness comes from so fuck off with your bait

Abandon thread. OP went back to his cave to prove god exists.

good job op, let's see how this thread evolves

How do you know thoughts are non physical?

I don't, just providing some alternatives to OPs conclusion that muh god did it

>"I think, therefore I am"

i would bet on consciousness/personhood developing more from foreign chemicals and compounds interacting with the the early stages of neurobiological development than from god

why is it that every 'protip' I've ever seen could be more accurately replace with 'i'm an autist'?

also, what a beautifully concise rebuttal. +1 schmekle for you user.

how does that qualify anyone knowing metaphysical truth?

You understand that we are our own gods right?
>Wut is virtual life?
>We created it like a "God" would create us
>Disprove anything virtual can't expand and learn by itself
>Oh wait you cant because they can
>We are all god.

ITT: retard catholic discoversthe concept of emergent properties and calls it magic

No. A god is ompitente and omnipotent.

Because there would be no questions without the capability to ask them

/thread

says who? the original ideas of gods were neither of those things (especially since they're the same thing, you just misspelled it the first time). traditionally, gods were just superpowerful beings that were not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, or even very smart (not to mention they were usually huge dicks, but the abrahamic god is also a huge dick, so that shouldn't surprise you very much).

shit tier b8

Being able to change and affect every aspect of said virtual life would classify me as omnipotent- relative to virtual life, no?

We come from our parents. They have personhood. Personhood sounds like an archaic concept used by theologians that doesn't actually mean anything. Do deer have deerhood? Do ants have anthood? At what point do we stop being animals and become these special constructs of God? And from what evidence is this determined.

Lol I made that point out of the fact that the fallacies in this threat are retarded but you guys just made me chuckle. I love how I can do this shit in my philosophy classes and people will get butthurt they cant disprove anything I say. Feels good

...

1 Why not?

2 Why not?

3 Why not?

4 Why?

5 Why?

Stating something as truth does not mean that it is true, I know you're lonely, OP, so I'll give you the (You) you crave.

For the bashingle the personhood, the bojangles. For erectum datotum versio da humblescuts.

Top notch bait. You're a leaf aren't you?

You can't disprove that I am a complex chatbot.

So you don't think that if there was an omnipotent being we would be able to detect it? Omnipotent also encapsulates omnipresent.

>my philosophy classes
Cuck detected

...

Jesus. How egotistically blind are you?
Protip: The people aren't butthurt and you probably look like an idiot most of the time.

Its called critical thinking, deep thought and analyzing arguments. Dip fuck

could an omnipotent being kick itself in the balls so hard it couldn't have children anymore?

My professor encourages it? Its called making people analyze arguments and find holes in them. Fallacies are a thing ya know.

typing like a mongoloid isn't a fallacy; it's just being retarded. but, i'm sure with that extra chromosome, you knew that already.

No. The universe doesn't have children. It is the only omnipotent being in existence.

Id like to believe youre a troll,
but people this stupid do exist...

>fallacy
"LOGIC
a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.
"the potential for fallacy which lies behind the notion of self-esteem

Takes 5 seconds to google search.

Please be trolling noob. I study philosophy and its wankers like you that fuck up actual discussion. "Hurr durr i schooled them so hard they couldnt even rebuttal lemayo". You think you know some shit because you outwitted some 20 year old second year philosophy student picking easy filler subjects? You aren't analysing or thinking deeply about anything but your own self-perceived intelligence and depth of character. Go suck kant's decaying cock you pretentious rat.

And the clencher? You're boasting on Cred Forums of all places.

fuck it, you win. i hate it when people pull this one, but you're too dumb to talk to so i concede. gratz, i guess

>You're boasting on Cred Forums of all places
And what are you doing?

I dont actually make bullshit up whenever I speak, only when dip fucks talk about how god must exist because
>HURR HOW CAN WE COME FROM NOTHING

Oh god. He really is autistic...

You realize my first post was a bunch of bullshit right? It has support but its not really a sound argument. Im bored and waiting for my 11:30 class.

Im not bragging about how I thought I owned some goy in my philosophy class. I'm calling you out on the bullshit you clearly do type

Throwing around buzzwords like "fallacy" doesn't make you a philosopher. Just like saying hurr durr before an ad hominem doesn't make it funny.

Go back to class kid.

Don't blame god, blame his mother/sister and father/brother.

God damn it would take hours to pick apart your horrendous argument. Just to point out all the retarded ass "logic" you use. It's a waste of time, this is some bottom of the barrel bait.
>Made me reply.

how to check mate an atheist

If we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys.

I didnt say I thought I owned people, im stating that its funny to see people get butthurt because my arguments are just as retarded as theirs.

Deep

>If we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys.
If we came from Europeans, How come they still exist?

>consider nothing
>(the absense of anything)
>for nothing to exist there has to have be/been something

So, because we can't explain it, God. Doesn't really win any argument, OP.

If we came from god how can god still exist lmao

...

i also want to know

lol

>If we came from god how can god still exist
RELIGION BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

Prove 1. If using physical evidence, show relevance to non-physical 'personhood.'

Not arguing with the logic. But what gives you the credibility to assume that the immensly intricate and complex nervous system of a human isnt enough to somewhere between all the neurons firing form a concience and within this a person?

pro tip: don't try to use "logic" if you don't understand what logic is

Quantum logic is different from your normal logic.

That probably influences consciousness pretty heavily.

...

...

#1 makes no sense

>Personhood
per·son·hood
ˈpərs(ə)nˌho͝od/
noun
the quality or condition of being an individual person.
"personhood does exist"
"therefore something nonphysical must cause personhood"
that's a huge, uneducated, leap of faith kind of jump.
Your "logic" is irrefutable because you didn't apply any fucking logic....
But hey, if you wanna believe in some special deity like zeus or allah or humpty dumpty, that's your thing..... just dont shitpost about it here

also this, get fucked

Id say read up on abiogenesis however...

You seem to be a typical ameritard and I dont think you could ever understand actual science.

So Id suggest you just kys.

not OP here, but deffs second this guy

...