Atheists BTFO by logic

>logic you worship so much
Atheists don't care about logic further than this
>Does it inhibit my degeneracy? y/n? Am I forced to continue being inhibited? y/n?

Prove your first assumption then we talk.

No so fast cuckboy

Wow
Such logic
much compelling
Very reason
Wow

By this logic, wooden pieces don't have "chairhood" in them and therefore cannot combine to form a chair.

I'm not even atheist.

4. is proven by every person to themselves. I'm sorry, mr. NPC cattlegoy-san.
>1. something cannot give (in other words cause) something it doesn't have
That's the foundation of logic. 1 =/= 2, it can't therefore give anything the same principle effects as 2.
>x+1 =/= x+2
>Energy in, energy out - no extra.
etc.
>2. The physical things that form to make a person do not have personhood in them
If they do, the personhood was relevant and active during the big bang, giving rise to all matter... Not a very safe space for atheists to argue over this.
Instead, atheists should argue that nothing can create something, and 1 can become 2. That way, measurable movements and chemical reactions can cause butthurt.

If personhood doesn't exist, human rights don't exist and murder doesn't exist

even if it doesn't exist naturally, our laws are predicated on it existing synthetically

once again, though, all of our law systems depend on different axioms. If you believe people can morally be sacrificed for the good of the whole, then you have a lot less to justify (abortion is better for the whole) than someone who believes humans should be guaranteed their right to life (a fetus is not a person)

What a broad generalization you got there.

No, I'm fairly sure it is 'mindfully assumed'.

> the physical things that form to make a person do not have personhood in them
Cool assumption bro.
Basically, ghosts exist therefore ghosts exist.

also to add to OP's point

how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?

Too bad atheism got trendy, eh? Islam causes terror and violence, atheism causes degeneracy. Be the special snowflake exception, but do not wear it as a banner.

No need for all of that; reality itself BTFOs fedoras.

Fuck off finnfuck why aren't you out sucking Muslim cock?

>euro calling Americans degenerate

Ok buddy whatever you say

When is she doing that naked video about voting?

>physical things
There is no matter, there is only energy vibrating at different frequencies, hence your whole hypothesis is wrong. Also consciousness. Now fuck off with your gay gods, faggot.

I can refute that with a single statement.

>full of shit

Atheists =/= Americans

That's pretty much what it boils down to. They don't want to be held accountable for their actions, and they'll be quick to tell you how very moral they are based on their subjective standards.

wtf I'm a scientologist now

Bullshit. You can make what you don't have and give it. You can't prove the existence of souls.

>If personhood doesn't exist, human rights don't exist and murder doesn't exist

Oh, well then better start murdering people, huh? It's not like not murdering is also based in irrational drives or anything like that, it's just those darned logic machines and axioms in my head that keep me from going postal on everything

At least use someone else's arguments, yours are shit.

The physical things that form to make a computer also don't have the property of a computer, nigger.

Also, the fuck is 'personhood'? I could say 'carhood' embodies the physical properties of a car too, faggot.

>You can make what you don't have and give it.
When arguing over principles such as 1+1=2, it is always an argument with limited factors. You can't just add stuff to it, like 1+100+1=2 and still get away with it.
>You can't prove the existence of souls.
I am the user of my body, not a mindless process in it. That's what 'soul' means, regardless of whether it is emergent-based or connection-based.

I notice no one has refuted my objection.

Because it's not refutable. Let the thread die please.

So if a "carhood" property cannot exist, a car cannot be stolen, robbed, or crashed?

I'm accountable for my actions before the society, not before some hypothetical God.

Define objective moral.

>yet another atheism thread

I think his point was you created carhood. Carhood couldn't have created itself, it needed a creator, hence god creating personhood. I'm on no side of this debate, I'm just not a total retard.

1. Citation needed
2. Citation needed
3. Citation needed
4. Citation needed
5. Citation needed

#2 you fucked up
#4 you can't even define

you argue like every pussy christian that knows they lost an argument. stop being a faggot and address the issues directly.

>By this logic, wooden pieces don't have "chairhood" in them and therefore cannot combine to form a chair.
You are correct. A chair is born in our minds.

The body is secular from the soul
People who argue about the soul and attack atheists on this basis rather than focussing on problems one could solve because they exist in the real world are most likely religious and will waste your time arguing by mostly mis-interpretation of a certain book.

>something cannot give (in other words cause) something it doesn't have
but its made of something that can be used to make up another thing.

>the physical things that form to make a person do not have personhood in them
Personhood isn't a substance, wtf kind of premise is this?

>those lines

she's aging like milk

You don't seem to understand very well mathematics. Anyway. We were talking about personhood, not numbers.

hahahahaha

What always seems to be left out of these discussions is how matter itself breaks these properties. It cannot be destroyed, it cannot be created. It always is, and so it is the origin for everything else.

Also
>I am the user of my body, not a mindless process in it. That's what 'soul' means, regardless of whether it is emergent-based or connection-based.
That's what you think, that's not a proof

>You don't seem to understand very well mathematics.
When you lay out an equation, you move external factors equally to both sides. You don't, however, get to change the rules. Math, physics etc. are reductionist sciences, where limiting the amount of variables is key.

>That's what you think, that's not a proof
Define soul, now. I don't think anybody has ever had a better definition than "the user".

You must be one of those rare true-retards.

I'm honored to have had a sighting.

>math is science
No

>personhood does exist
In what sense? Prove it. Nobody should bother "refuting" this is you haven't even attempted to support your premises. Not only is OP a faggot, but also lazy and stupid.

yeah use ad-homs. it's all you've got.

>logic
couse that's what religion rests on

A soul is "the user". I don't think there is anything driving my body besides my brain. And nobody has ever proven that there is something else than our brain

True, I can not give a fuck about your argument because I do not have a fuck about your argument to give. Sound logic user.

You didn't understand #2 for whatever reason. Your escape from 4 implies that you are a lesser being or rather, a non-being or a craven coward. Personhood is either the emergent consciousness or the soul. The user of the body, the actor in this (quantum)clockwork universe.

>all these kikes trying to make us believe in their imaginary friend

Mfw so many Americucks actually belive in this shit

>I don't think there is anything driving my body besides my brain.
"I don't think." You mean your brain thinks?
You see, you and your brain, they are two separate things. You don't live on autopilot, as every function driven by brain alone, does. Some of the automated features, you can even turn off, like breathing. Heartbeat, though, is out of bounds, you need to use external software (chemicals or physics) to change heartbeat.

Ikr

>kikes trying to make you believe that you aren't just an automaton meant to serve them by paying taxes and buying their shitty products because it causes pleasant tingling somewhere

ITT fedora tippers on damage control.

Explain this

>You mean your brain thinks?
Yes

>Remove yourself from the equation because you want to believe that you do not actually exist as an actor, but as a part of the machine around you
I can operate systems manually. If it was all driven by the brain itself, it'd be autopilot. If you are on permanent autopilot, I guess you're just an npc.

Believe what you want to believe, just don't pester me with it after I told you I don't believe it.
Then let's talk about politics because religion belongs on /his/.

>You will never suck on those juicy melons.

define personhood

I guess you can say it that way.

Those are some nice tits

Soul, user of the body, narrator in your stream of information.

>religion belongs on /his/
If only that was true ...

Atheists = Czechs

Then all of the society would be atomized, and no cohesive group aside from Muslims could ever rise up in Europe. Religion serves a function in society, and namely that function is to share and enforce values amongst the group. Peer pressure can never do it alone, as every single group pushes to separate directions on this.

This is also the reason for all religious wars and their severity.

/thread

My god she's hot.

Nevermind me, I'm fapping to this thread now. I'll read what you wrote in a sec OP

why can't physical things like electrical signals and chemical reactions make a "narrartor in your stream of information"?

can't define something into existence
ontological arguments btfo
teleological arguments btfo

try again op-senpai

>1 something cannot give (in other words cause) something it doesn't have
Wrong, virtual particles

>2 the physical things that form to make a person do not have personhood in them
Pan-psychics like myself would disagree, although we haven't actually solved the combination problem in a satisfactory manner.

Let me help you out with your argument. You are basically just saying qualia is non-physical and so the hard problem of consciousness exists. The physicalists argument is that qualia is a product of the brain, usually pointing to the neurons that observe the other neurons, basically causing meta thinking. Of course they don't quite grasp what qualia is if they believe that.

lern2philosiphy scrub

Well I believe that to be the case and my beliefs should be respected, otherwise I'll throw a tantrum crying about how I'm being persecuted and make another thread saying people who think differently are idiots who deserve to be hanged by the balls and to prove me wrong (protip you can't lel).

>1 something cannot give (in other words cause) something it doesn't have

>smoke does not have fire so fire can't cause or give smoke

Only niggers need religion to have values.

I keep trying to make an omelette but none of the constituent parts can cause an omelette on their own.
It's fuckin impossible.

>fapping

enjoy your ED, hedonist.

This is why it should be plainly clear (but axiomatic) that n-hood EXISTS. Carhood exists because we know of cars exist. Personhood exists because we know persons exist.

The debate, then, is not whether personhood exists but WHEN it exists and what causes it to exist.

He was not chosen by God, he is a heretic

Is this how you think logic works?

>He was not chosen by God
If we waited for him to actually make a choice, we'd have to wait a long time since, you know, he isn't fucking real.
Now show me your fedora folder.

>why can't physical things like electrical signals and chemical reactions make a "narrartor in your stream of information"?
Because they can only be that stream of information. Never the reader or user of such. Because we are categorically higher than it. Although I admit the possibility (and even likelihood) of consciousness being an emergent property, it will only move the potential of it to the source of it all.

As we know, matter is quite simple and mathematical. It doesn't have consciousness unless arranged properly and with all the right types involved, and even then it requires plenty.
Now, the emergent properties flow nicely and logically, and they never create anything actually new, but something that was laid out as a possibility in the beginning.
>We know this because when creating new type of such property, we can do it again, and the result won't be random.
>ie. it follows a law
Therefore, since we have an actor/narrator involved, it was either as a property in the source or it is a property in every part. It isn't a property in every part, but only a very specific collection of such parts.

The logic works with energy, mass and chemistry. If the narrator is, however, metaphysical, and brains are merely our antennae to it, then we should be discussing metaphysics straight from the get go.

To SHARE values. How many of your kinsmen do you agree with?

You sound like a faggot.

Atheist 4ever faggot

Number 2 is wrong and you're a fucking retard.

Then my impersonation of a religious person was perfect.

How is he less chosen by God than the previous popes ?

So this means one of the religions Neanderthals made up is correct???

>pantheism
>all matter has personhood
Then it should be measurable. ..but how?

>Try to refute this(protip you can't)

I'm tired, I didn't see the sarcasm.

>If the narrator is, however, metaphysical, and brains are merely our antennae to it, then we should be discussing metaphysics straight from the get go.

Please, continue this train of thought.

>I'm tired
Et on est que lundi, c'est pas sérieux tout ça.

>argument is like a game
>you should win in it
Law analogy would be better, as it would enforce the servitude to methodology rather than "winning". (Since losing a proper argument results in increased knowledge.)

>not being a hedonist atheist in 2016 when the world is falling apart anyway
It's 12 PM on a monday and I'm about to get high and drunk, I pity you fags

lmaoing at your life
I agree, but there are conservative atheists that appreciate Christian values even though they don't think they are a holy truth.

t.me

...

How many shekels did they pay you to post this?

We don't know enough about the human brain. I guess the real question is does consciousness come from inside the brain or is the brain just a receiver of consciousness.

I don't know. All I know is that personhood vanishes pretty quickly when the brain is fucked, so one could argue that personhood comes from the brain. Unfortunately that still doesn't answer the question.

>fedora01.jpg
Go on, dump the rest of your folder.

Jesus man. Take a fucking biology course.

>it's all in the brain
>we don't know about the brain
Then the answer to issues (hopefully pic related) could instead be just to change the chemical mixture in your brain. I don't think that is a valid course of action... But it could just be that my chemical mixture hasn't been upgraded yet.

>nothing can exist without a cause
>except god

It's not the brain that sees beauty, but us. I think poets would be better suited to talk of it than I am..

Bible has plenty of parts that I don't like.
>don't be lazy
>don't be cynical
>be in control
>always do the right thing
>be perfect

But we are our brains just as much as our bodies. I have no idea what you're talking about now. What is us, if it's not our physical bodies?

But math is bullshit. 0.9999...=1 is true as well, though wrong from a logical point of view.

Finir les cours à 18h ça aide pas

Youre approaching this from a western pov. If you study the Old Testament, you will learn the difference between what God chooses and what God allows as a result of sustained apostasy.

God allows some leaders to reign as a punishment. God allowed the masons to take over the Roman Catholic Church as a response to the failure of the church to expel the masonic elements from their ranks and label them anathema. Now, the mass has been perverted and there is a massive push for acceptance of heretics and sodomites alike.

We must pray for the falling church. May they abandon the heresies they have accumulated and return to the true faith.

>What is us, if it's not our physical bodies?
I don't know. Real brains in a jar, connected to this matrix? Abstract, patternless existences interacting with what they can?
We could be an idea, realized by others...

>nothing can exist without a cause
>except god
No. This world was caused, and therefore needs an uncaused cause. Either with multiple separate phases in-between this world and the unmoved mover, or without.
Nothing dictates (not even religion) that God would be the only uncaused existence. You just made that up so that you can pretend to be superior.

>But math is bullshit. 0.9999...=1 is true as well
No, it is false, but we use approximations because we can ignore small factors.

There are different parts of the brain, retards. "Autopilot" and "Thinking" are managed by different parts of the brain, they are different concepts but both are handled by the brain.

>We could be an idea, realized by others...
Pointless hypothetical...

>No, it is false
No it's true. You'd know it if you had studied maths.

>we must pray
Great plan, I'm sure it will change everything.

>No it's true. You'd know it if you had studied maths.
1/3 =/= 0.3333.... 0.3333... is an approximation due to the limitations of our writing (imprinting meaning/information on symbols).

>Pointless hypothetical...
I don't exactly know where to start. Aside from the fact that we can open the Schrödinger's box (like every player can in every game with random elements), it is wild territory for me.

Atheists are much more prone to depression and other anxiety related shit.

Suicides are off the scale the more secularized countries.

Whereas you are correct, I have my own murder planned this week. I just don't see the point in being here.

firm suckleable bait

Wrong. Fuckwit confirmed.

He's right though, infinitesimal doesn't real
>1/3 = 0.333...
>3* 1/3 = 0.999...
At the same time
1/3*3 = 3/3 = 1
1 = 0.999...

You should use fractions if you want an accurate value, as everything after the decimal point is an approximation.

I totally fucked up the formatting in that post though, hopefully you catch my drift

Cause is such a bad word. Time (and physics in general) break down if you go back far enough (approximately 5.39116*10^-44s), so causality is void at that point.

theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

and young, soft, firm, tender, young, suckable bait

Atheists =/= Logic

>can only be that stream of information. Never the reader or user of such. Because we are categorically higher than it

I still don't see why thoughts can't originate in a physical state. You're basically saying god exists because our consciousness is better than matter. What makes consciousness better than matter?

>Therefore, since we have an actor/narrator involved, it was either as a property in the source or it is a property in every part. It isn't a property in every part, but only a very specific collection of such parts

Let's say and earthquake happens and limestone (a base) falls into some naturally occurring acidic water creating CO2. Limestone doesn't have oxygen and water doesn't have carbon, but if they each lend parts they create something new. Neither completely have it to begin with but together they are able to make it. Why can't the many different material properties of human lend themselves to make consciousness?

You can also smell the faint perfume of her bosom from your monitor.

What makes premise 1 true of all things? Seems like you're assuming a god in premise 1

your assumptions are dumb

why cant I give you something I dont have?

>By this argument the universe has a creator
.Therefore YHWH exists and the Bible is literally true

...

>What makes consciousness better than matter?
I said higher, not better. Higher means more options available to us. Or rather, there are no options available to lesser existences. They have a pattern, they follow it by the law and that is it. We can choose.. Only addicts might not fit the definition.

>I can just ignore all evidence pointing to the direction of a creator, because it might not necessarily validate any ideology

>We can choose
That`s a very big assumption you make there.

...

Who says I'm atheist?

I just don't believe your Jew fairy tale

It's also true. If it's not true, then even truth falls to the irrelevant category.

Nobody was talking about you, hipster.

Well personally I do believe that those of lesser race (black and brown mostly) must be exterminated to benifit the planet as a whole

and jews as jews have been nothing but a subversive backstabbing risk

>It must be true because otherwise everything is meaningless

You believe in magic. You're stupid.

>I don't understand argumentation.

>DUDE LE MAGIC SKY DADDY LMAO

youtu.be/Adn44cfYSdc?t=17

h3h3

>it's the only sane axiomatic assumption we can base anything off of
Sure, go ahead and have another. Does it still have everything function logically?
I say no, because it undermines beauty and all virtues, intuition and purpose. It kills the point to even state its outcome out loud.

Those tits are magic and I believe in them.

Are you able to make a proveable argument, or do you want to continue with "muh feels"?

Christian here. You argument is weak. It requires too many givens, for starters. #4 is the subject of hundreds, if not thousands, of years of thought and debate.

You shouldn't try to btfo atheists until you've at least finished your intro to philosophy class. Even then, you might consider taking a lot more philosophy, theology, and logic before trying.

Who created God? Where does he come from?

You can't use science to explain the metaphysical. An uncaused entity is a perfectly valid description of a God.

You did read the post before, right? I am not arguing about the uncaused part, but about the "the world was caused" bit, making any further discussion based on that assumption void.

Tell me it isn't so finn bro.

Most of the things we call "morals" are nescessary for living together in a civilization

Our ancestors realized this without a cosmic Jew to tell them not to kill etc

...

...

Actually belongs on /x/ unless it is very specifically politically related (someone's politics are this way because religion for example)

What do you mean by personhood?

I don't have a life but I could rape someone and give them one.

...

Never trust a person who can clear their conscience of any immoral act by rationalizing away morality as merely relative.

Satisfying your internal conscience is one thing, but trust, satisfying the conscience of another, is entirely different. You must appeal to a moral standard beyond the both of you. Atheists have no such standard save might makes right. Still no basis for establishing trust.

I said that it is an axiomatic premise. You go with yours, I go with mine. Besides autism, I don't understand your perspective at all. Unless I take into account a revolt that you are undergoing.
Does your world view answer enough about the world? Ah, but enough in your axioms would be.. Whatever you choose. Even if you choose to believe that there is no choice.

>God looked at r/Atheism and took a glance at Cred Forums, He saw the desperation and degeneracy, and merged the two together to punish both. The impure virgin robots summoned a foul frog spirit, and God let it take over. He laughed. We laughed. The ride was over.

You are anonymous. Nobody is pestering you here. You are in the cave of Dagobah, only what you bring with you, here is.

I don't like lying. Be it me or someone else.
>personal freedom is the most important thing ever
>nothing is important, there are no actual choices
Living in a nation of pharisees does not make it easy.

>Following arbitrary rules because someone claimed that they came from a higher, unproveable being is a good basis for defining morality
Lol no.

So you admit that your entire argument here is based on premises that break down when challenged?

this is why I will never have respect for theist beliefs

If you want to argue against trusting the religious because their "rules" are arbitrary, then you're only arguing trust for no one because everyone's rules are arbitrary.

If you're not to be trusted, then on what basis should I consider your argument?

You need perspective man. You live in a pretty good place all things accounted for, there are so many places were life is a hell hole compared to Finland.

Personal freedom if you ask me is a meme. A dangerous one.Try to get involved in more group activities and if things are that bad (psychologically speaking) then you need to see a therapist. If you can afford to be on 4chins you can afford to contact a therapist.

If you give up, then you are homo nigger, don't be a homo nigger finn breh.

Given:
1 something cannot give (in other words cause) something it doesn't have
2 the physical things that form to make a BLT do not have sandwichhood in them
3. Deduction from 1 and 2, the physical things that form to make a BLT cannot give sandwichhood.

Given:
4. Sandwichhood does exist.
5. From 3 and 4, therefore something nonphysical must cause the sandwichhood.

From 1 and 5, therefore this nonphysical cause must have sandwichhood in order to cause it

Try to refute this(protip you can't)

That is why you should heed the call of your ancestral roots instead of worshiping the kike on the stick.

If you weren`t a retard talking out of his ass you would know that there exist universal moral systems that don`t hang on you believing that the other person is telling you the truth.

wtf I love derivative Jew God now

>universal moral systems
Such as?

Kants. Read up on the categorical imperative to get some understanding.

She already did, it sucked, it was all censored

the way these threads go:
>hurrdurr atheists btfo by logic
>(atheists destroy what religiotard thinks of as "logic")
>hurrdurr logic does not apply to god

did not read the thread. are we there yet?

that's the kind of thinking that got us the human rights mess we live in
>"but user, what's wrong if I want to dress as a girl? I am not hurting anyone"

*tips*

shut up and post more of that man made succubus.

i swear she is genetically and biochemical crafted to be a muh dick machine.

You could simplify this even more by just discussing consciousness, biology, and emergent properties.

>Not worshiping and following the lifestyle of the greatest known deity

Christfags and Dawkinfags need to fucking step up

>let me start my argument off with an assumption

Yes. It's called a premise. It's something that both parties should agree on, so that the argument can proceed.

Here are some others -
>2+2=4
>All squares are rectangles
>Cred Forums is a website

If you disagree with them, challenge them. That's part of the refuation. But no one goes all the way back to prime axioms just to establish their starting point.

So, you're saying universal moral systems exist

and they don't hang on my believing that the other person is telling the truth

and to demonstrate this

you point me toward books -written by other people- who you claim have the truth.

that sounds so remarkably familiar... I wonder where I've encountered something like that before?

That`s comparing apples and oranges.
Not that I expected anything less from someone so retarded.

Your moral system is based on the assumption that it was handed down by higher entity of some sort (God in short). It breaks down the moment you take that away.
My moral system remains consistent no matter who is responsible for it. That I pointed you to the person responsible for it is just a matter of convenience, not a necessary requirement, since it`s not an appeal to (higher) authority.

Theist beliefs and dogma also refute themselves with simple logic.

Psalm 147:5 "Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit."

Colossians 1:16 "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him"

Theist claim that their god is omniscient but also claim that they are given free will.

This is not possible as an omniscient god would know all states past present and future and thus all information would exist in a closed system where all probable outcomes are predetermined through gods will alone.

It also refutes any possibility of an oppositional force such as satan as all creation is for god and of gods will. god and satan are one and the same.

What?

I already worship kek

Nice try Cletis.

Ignore the assumptions your "assumptions" require to make the argument.

>This is why you Christian fucks never win debates

Belief in superstions, occult, religion, pseudoscience and deities is irrational and illogical

Our human brains are designed to be rational. It's why our parietal lobes and cerebellum are so large. However, on occasion, we may suspend disbelief and engage in irrational thinking. This is useful in making hypothesis, predicting outcomes, recognizing patterns and working with math ourside the "counting numbers".

Belief is not inherently harmful as long as we don't suspend our disbelief for too long. Religious believers live in a constant state of compromised rationality and cognitive dissoance. They delberately damage their ability to reason by poisoning their critical thinking skills. over time, they become incapable of discerning fact from fiction.

This becomes painfully obvious when believers attempt to rationalize their nonsense. Their fallacy-laden statements and sloppy explanations may sound right in their impaired minds (solipsism) but they make it abundantly clear they can't grasp any scientific or philosophical concept properly.

>Islam causes terror and violence,
All the Abrahamic religions share a shameful history of atrocity and violence

>Your moral system is based on the assumption that it was handed down by higher entity of some sort (God in short). It breaks down the moment you take that away.
Excepting of course in the instance that that higher entity is.

But putting that aside for a moment I haven't said anything about my moral system. I could just as well be an atheist following atheism to its logical conclusions. There is no god, and no morals either. You're still in the position to demonstrate objective morality exists. Please, tell me more about my moral system!

>My moral system remains consistent no matter who is responsible for it. That I pointed you to the person responsible for it is just a matter of convenience, not a necessary requirement, since it`s not an appeal to (higher) authority.
Kant couldn't live according to his moral philosophy. The system might be consistent, but it certainly wasn't consistent with reality.

>Atheists have no such standard save might makes right.

(1) Men created morals
(2) Then men invented gods to enforce their morals
(3) The most irrational and ignorant can always be counted upon to fall for it.

Works. Every. Time.

Your quotes doesn't have anything to do with your question:"If God is omniscient/omnipotent, what is the sense of the free will?"
The answer it's simple:1)God is righteous,therefore will let you to do whatever you want ..2)Free will is the expression of God in humans.

Yeah, but belief that laws of physiques, time and life can emerge from nothing makes you stupid.

Free will cannot exist in a universe where god is omniscient.

If all information is known and predetermined by god it means that choice is an illusion.

what is 'moral'?

I understand your point.you are wrong.

>this doesn't prove that God exists

what the fuck is going on with that dress

It's simple logic and i'm not the one making the claim of having an omniscient god. The quotes show directly that Christian dogma claims both omniscience of god but also that all creation is of him and for him.

If all information is predetermined than you do not have choice. No matter how many options you are given you will always make the same choice as the outcome was predetermined.

That means that god has willed into existence creation that will violate his covenants because he is the originator of all will and information.

At the end of the day classic Abrahamic faith boils down to worshiping what amounts to a sadistic quantum computer that has determined all probable outcomes.

>Yeah, but belief that laws of physiques,
One certainly needs good physiques to hold up the world

>time and life can emerge from nothing makes you stupid.
From nothing? If you're referring to the "big bang", no scientist suggests there was nothing. That's just a strawman the real idiots have glommed onto because they lack the critical thinking skills to recognize what a terrible fallacy it is.

First, the beginning as far as we're able to tell was all the atoms packed in a hot, dense space. Science starts from the premise that the atoms were already there.

Second, just because the religious extremists and microcephalics are incapable of proving their gods, atheists are in no way obligated to present any competing claims or make any alternative suggestions how the universe came to be what it is.

This is why people laugh at you

>In order to define what makes up an objectivly moral system its maker must not be an hypocrite
Are you even able to pretend that you are making an argument?

>what is 'moral'?
Morals are whatever men decide them to be. Morals "refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group" according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Who is this

>Are you even able to pretend that you are making an argument?
Sure. But seeing as I am not, that is neither here not there.

At any point you want to demonstrate that
>universal moral systems
actually are

That would be great.

The categorical imperative is by definition a formal and necessarily universally binding rule on all rational agents.
It`s not my fault if you are too dense to understand that.

>Try to refute this(protip you can't)
Still trying to make sense of it (Protip: You can't)

Yes, I find it most perplexing that Kant was unable to live according to this necessarily binding rule... it seems that such a thing shouldn't be possible... by definition.

But let's get down to brass tacks. What maxims do YOU will should be universal law? Further where the two of us disagree, by what method should we settle our disagreement?

How does that prove the existence of your god and not the existence of R'hllor?

Aristotle or one of his fanboys, apparently.

I do not see the point of discussing anything at all with someone who can`t even understand that a universal binding moral rule is only binding if one, suprise, wants to act moral at all times.

>Suicides are off the scale the more secularized countries
Homicides are off the scale in religious countries.

Which brings us full circle You don't see the point in continuing because you can't defend the bankruptcy in a moral system that you can disregard at your convenience... all the while condemning a moral system that can be disregarded at one's convenience.

Follow atheism to its logical conclusion - there are no morals.

>God allows some leaders to reign as a punishment.
Do your gods kill children to punish parents?

>define personhood
As soon as the ink dries on its incorporation papers, that corporation becomes a person with superior constitutional rights to any natural born citizen. That's true personhood in America.

1 How do you cause something if you already have it?
2 There is no personhood without the building blocks.
3 that's saying the same thing as 2
4 Evolution exists.
5 Every effect could have a cause that isn't god and fallible people defined causality.

>Free will means there are no morals
Bringing you to your logical loophole: Even theism still assumes free will.
Just because morals are ignored dosn`t mean that there aren`t morals, anyway.
I think your problem is that you still believe that some abstract concept of punishment in the afterlife makes people act moral and therefore consider the failed moral system based on this punishment superior, despite all evidence pointing to the contray.

But who am I for expecting anything less from a moron.

To go back to your previous post: Discussing what maxims I will should be universal law is moot, as I neither have the time nor space to count all covering all possibilities, nor does this serve any point at all in discussing the moral system itself.
To your second point: For what reason do we need to settle any dispute over what is moral? Each man has only to answer to himself, and every man has supreme moral agency over himself.

All you have to do is debate the existence of an objective reality, vs a subjective reality. No assumptions, just what are the logical conclusions of both? Objective reality wins out every time.

And really, everyone at this point should be intelligent enough to stop pitting evolution and creative design as mutually exclusive. I don't understand how people still think like that in the 21st century.

/thread

>implyung humans don't give chairs chairhood
>humans have chairhood in their minds/imaginations to give and with hands/tools they can give it form

He's not really a false prophet, more like a false pope.
>An anti-pope if you will.

You don't have a clue about maths, do you ?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
Here is for you. I don't mind people who don't know things but it's annoying when people don't know things but pretend they do.

Don't do that. We need you down here. The western culture is in danger, you can't escape like that.

>being accountable before the society is somehow a sign of degeneracy
Wew lad

There is no god faggot.

if you want to tug your dick to katy then there is a thread here
>
please contribute

fuck this, idk how to link to another board correctly
just go to the catalog on /hr/ and youll see it

thanks dickhead