Thread 942335112

Does God exist?

>>942335112 (OP)
Yes, anon. And he loves us.

>>942335112 (OP)
Man has many interpretations of divinity, but none of them are truly correct. God exists, but we are not able to define God, because we are too small to do so.

>>942335449
If you were to guess, do you think he loves us or cares about us at all?

>>942335112 (OP)

Yes, he exists, and he is a dick...

>>942335112 (OP)
you need to seek Him out and find Him in your journey

>>942335112 (OP)
no
hope this helps

>>942335509
Think of one light shining on many objects which reflect it, and are illuminated by it.
That's likely how it is. We likely are extensions of the creator in a similar way.
So it's not whether or not God cares that should be in question, but instead the nature of our very being that should be questioned.
What are we in relationship to God, and in what way are we created by and connected to our creator?
It's not about the emotion you feel here through embodiment that matters, but instead your ultimate union with source.
If you realize you are not your beliefs, thoughts, feelings or perceptions, then you're off to a good start. From there, question what you are, then question whether or not this limited state of being and body are you. After all, they had a startpoint in time, and if your soul existed before were born and after you die, then this body cannot be you. It's more like an avatar you temporarily embody or possess, as you search to sate your desires, trapped in its false identity and illusions of the mind.

>>942335112 (OP)
No.

Shut up.

for me, it's Yahweh or the highway

>>942336167
I look like that. And I'm angry that chuds like you believe in stupid myths So what?

Shut up.

>>942336257
it's not all religion anon
you could ask about the nature of the universe at any given moment
and come to the conclusion there is a creative force/effort behind it
people would do that no matter what
again and again
because it is in their nature to do just that
to question and relate their experiences together trying to make sense of what they see

>>942336112
That's interesting, it seems quite similar to what Gnosticism says. Is Christ the key to escape this state we find ourselves in?

>>942335112 (OP)
100%

This world is impossible in so many ways it could only be created. Not a simulation either. Something way better.

>>942335112 (OP)
I'm here. How can I help you?

>>942336384
They don't want to die, anon. But rather than face that, they invented a false hope they cling to and insist everyone else cling to.

>>942336453
No it isn't. The earth has had over 10 billion years to evolve into this. You literally have no idea of how long a period of time that is, anon.

>>942336442
Gnosticism is another belief system. I wouldn't trust it, because it's man speaking for God. Christ was said to have taught a path to salvation, but accounts of his teachings are not God speaking to us, but Mankind's accounting of what he believed to be true. It seems to me modern Christians worship his image and torturous death more than his gospel. That's aside from the point, though.
If you believe you are your body, beliefs and thoughts, what happens after death and you do not find them? If you are faced with eternity of your own choosing, where will you go? Where will your fears desires and doubts lead you?
Should you follow these urges and shadows to countless Heaven's and Hell's, or should you break free from them, and fall to rest?
What comes next is debatable, but many say that fear, guilt and desire bring you to new incarnations of suffering. So I believe it best to let go after you die, and allow this sense of false identity flow away from you.
To free yourself from suffering may be the truest form of salvation.
To understand the source of suffering, understand what makes you suffer. you will find fear, guilt and desire there, creating pools of ignorance for you to wallow in.
Best of luck to you on your journey, anon. the truth is only you can determine your destiny in the hereafter.

>>942337018
Thank you Anon. So they key is to let go, isn't? But do you think there's such a thing as a true self?

>>942336517
more like they see patterns and structure leading them to believe there is most likely creative intent in our universe
who brought up afterlives?
you?
why?
an idea of God does not mean you will live forever
it means death and life are not the end
saying there is more than what we see
you mistake religion for metaphysics and philosophy
the structure and nature of the universe indicates a creator but why would that mean living forever?
>in video games people die
>that means there is an afterlife for them
they are just code/illusion
and there is nothing for them in terms of an afterlife even though they have a creator or creators

>>942335112 (OP)
I'll be sure to ask after I kill myself

>>942337076
True self would be source. We are more of illusion of self, or it seems that way to me.
True self would be what you always were before you were created here on Earth. you are already an expression of divinity, of source, and so perhaps that is where we return to once we let go of all our disturbances.
Rain falls, flows through the rivers, then returns to the oceans, its source.
It depends if you get caught up on ideas or not. You could find yourself in endless false identities, until you break free, and realize you are undefined pure potential.

>>942337152
>more like they see patterns and structure leading them to believe there is most likely creative intent in our universe

They are simply drawing empty conclusions as there is evidence of such a thing

who brought up afterlives?

All religions claim there is an afterlirfe anon. That's why people believe them.
>it means death and life are not the end
no that's you insisting what something means with no logic or reason
>you mistake religion for metaphysics
I mistake nothing anon you're trying to proselytize your bullshit on me even now
>it indicates a creator
no it certaintly does not mean that
>in video games people die
because that's what happens irl:
death

>>942336453
So if he made this world just for us why would he create an almost infinite solar system? We don’t benefit from it, we can’t utilize it, so why create something there is no need for? Makes the Big Bang look more feasible.

>>942337306
godfags still don't seem to get that their belief system reflects a pre-industrial society's interpretation of reality. All of the "supernatural" things they believe can now be explained by science, and there is nothing "magical" about them.

>>942337293
i think you lack the ability to discern and reason
so you
thsi is not about relision
but questioning the nature of life
you know
its complexity and basic structure
it hints at a possible creator
and this is what man does before he asks
>does God exist?
even the fact there is temporal/temporary matter indicates there is an eternal source
something temporary necessitates something eternal for it to exist
it is not i who lacks logic
and you cannot seem to separate religion from basic philosophy, so...

>>942337306
What banged? Where did all that energy originate from, and why is there no single point of origin if it did "bang"?
Also, the idea of a "big bang" was formed by a creationist. A Catholic if I recall.
Emanationism is much more appealing by the way. Stating the universe has always existed in some form, and moves in a cycles.

>>942337270
Okay, that made me think. Is it possible to lose that sense of divinity? I heard that Jesus said there is an unforgivable sin which is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Do you think it's possible to remove our connection with the source/God or are connected with it no matter what?

>>942337609
I don’t know and to be perfectly honest I don’t really care. Guessing about something that you’ll probably never be sure of is a fool’s game.

>>942337753
You lose your connection to divinity by becoming embodied. You have no recollection of what you are. To be embodied is to suffer.
We already are partially severed from divinity here. So yes. We are both part of and separate from source. We are part of creation, yet we are blinded by ignorance, and that ignorance separates us from source.
After all, we think we are what we see in the mirror. We think we are what dies. So yes. You can severe yourself from source, but it was your choice. It's always your choice.
To remain ignorant, or to seek truth, it's up to you as well. Don't mistake illusion for truth. It's too easy to do that here.

>>942338026
Can you help me get closer to the truth? What religions do you think are the closest to grasping the concept? How can I know which is the right approach?

I think it's probably self-denial but what about the left hand path and this Übermensch approach to life?

>>942337979
Following evidence and likely causes tells you something at least. You claim not to care, but I can see you do. You're very frustrated, and that's normal. Being unaware is annoying, and knowing you/we cannot know the nature of our existence yet makes it even worse.

>>942338085
A philosophy I know of is called"BramaYana". The path to the absolute.
It's ancient.
Unbalanced paths in life lead to more disturbances which cause more suffering, most of the time. Sometimes action and a heavy hand are appropriate, but the middle path brings peace, and rest.
>"How can I know which is the right approach?"
Use logic.
Try to remove everything that is not what you are searching for.
The "This is not that" approach.
What is left after you remove all falsehoods is a likely truth.
You will find what you are looking for if you put in enough effort. I believe that to be true. So be your own guide to some degree, and learn to see the world, and yourself for what they are.

>>942337609
The question still is why would god even bother to create it? There was absolutely no need for it but he supposedly created it anyway? The Big Bang still makes more sense. What sort of entity could create something of that magnitude? Trillions of galaxies and your god made them all. Give me a break.

>>942335112 (OP)
No fuck off

Jesus getting off'ed was justice faggot

>>942337462
You have no logical skills whatsoever, as everything you've been posting is speculation you're pushing as fact.
If anything you're reminding us why people would go to war with authoritarians like you to defend their freedom.

>>942335112 (OP)
Yasss, queen. He does exist.

>>942337609
If you really don't know about what the Big Bang is or what it entails you would do well to shut the fuck up in a discussion about it.

Jesus eats his own cum.

>>942338090
You know nothing about me and yet you pretend that you do. No, I’m not frustrated. I don’t ever think about it other than the occasional thread like this one. Idiots like yourself frustrate me.

>>942338443
dun dun dunnnnnn *dramatic music*

>>942338284
I think you are right Anon. So you do believe in good and evil as objective right? I was thinking about the idea of them being subjective depending on the circumstances but if I'm honest I do believe they are opposite forces

>>942338298
The "big bang" is creationistic too, and fails to explain its own logic.
Some say the universe has always existed, because it could not be any other way. These are waves crashing into a wall creating what we see, yet they may not have any real intention behind them.
The idea of a creator or even a non-sentient source does not necessitate a "need" as you see it.
We are too small to see the bigger picture.

>>942338516
Your pre-industrial interpretation of the universe is literally painful to read

>>942338402
all im saying is man will find reason to see meaning in structure
and you are raging over it
because you think the idea of God cannot exist without religion
when the idea of God or a creator was originally an idea built around the fact there is structure to the universe
and the fact people have a connection to God but that cannot be proven
the question is asked though
>what created this?
because man seeks to know
he tries to fill in the blanks
and that was the point i was making

Yes

>>942338618
You literally have a simpleton's understanding of reality--the very goal of religion.

>>942338442
You don't know what rhetoric is, do you?
Sad.
>>942338457
You are clearly upset, and you seem frustrated.
the question alludes you, and so you feel angsty. Whatever. Does it matter?
there's no reason to pay a question emotion.
>>942338570
It's a philosophical query, and transcends technology. in fact, the more we structure our world, the more I see a hand of creation in the universe. Something which transcends the physical limitations of our universe.

>>942338683
>ad hominem
you have said nothing in relationship to my arguments
and instead attacked the person making them
you are projecting anon

no, religion is just a coping mechanism created at a time where people knew nothing

>>942338500 Dubs
I see actions which lead to creative, destructive and preservative outcomes.
the golden rule and simple common sense make more sense to me than an absolute scoring system.
There is willful good and evil, but they are expressions of embodied beings. So, I don't see them as forces in the universe, but extensions of willpower, or conscious effort.

>>942338858
what about the idea of a creator
but no religion to praise it/him
could God or a creator exist
and all religions be wrong too

>>942338866
Makes sense. Thank you for sharing your views and answering my questions, it did help a lot. I have plenty of research to do about the topic

>>942338740
Listen, asshole, the only thing that upsets me is you thinking you know how I feel. I'm very glad I don't know you.

>>942339416
You seem upset at ideas more than anything. There's no reason to be. Not everyone is going to see it the way you see it, or the way I see it.

>>942339462
Will you fuck off already? The fuck is wrong with you?

>>942339616
Sorry I offended you.

I got bbq sauce on my keyboard. You tell me if God exists

>>942340279
>expressed free will
>leading to a mistake of your own causing
maybe? Idk.

>>942338740
>You don't know what rhetoric is, do you?
There's a term for the kind of overconfidence you're exhibiting itt:

Dunning-Kruger Syndrome

>>942338771
You're no debater. You literally responded to logic and reason by attempting to belittle the person making it. You're a Boomer, aren't you? Because this is how your generation acts, especially when your outdated belief system is even questioned.

>>942340279
Random chance is all this world is. No special purpose, none of that silly shit. You can hit the lottery or get hit by a bus and the world is totally indifferent.

>>942338740
>the more I see a hand of creation in the universe.
which is what pre-industrial cultures still believe anon

>>942335112 (OP)
Yes.

>>942335147
FPBP

>>942340566 <digits
You don't argue for the topic at hand, and instead you make inferences of inferiority towards the one making the argument. That's an ad hominem fallacy.
Your claim about me is wrong besides the point.
>>942340678
>Samefag
>old = wrong
>new = right
That's not how it works, and the philosophical question remains, throughout time. It is classic for a reason. It has nothing to do with religion, but instead it questions the very nature of our existence.
You even cut the phrase you are quoting short, because the entire quote reveals what I am actually arguing for. that technology much like nature holds an imprint of intention in its form.

>>942338740
The Big Bang upsets you because in a nutshell the concept is: "No God Required"-- and that goes against the strict religious upbringing that's taught you to view the world through austerity instead of hedonism.

>>942340775
I cut it short because it was the lowest hanging fruit. Your convictions are not based on any sort of science anon. That's what's offensive about your posts. You seem to forget we live in a world where we have the right to be FREE from what YOU believe.

>>942340628
pointing out you are upset is not undercutting your argument
both are true
and that is not ad hominem
i engaged with your misplaced assertions too
the fact you seem to think the idea of a creator necessitates religion
all im saying, all i have said is that the idea of God is inherent to mans existence
that's not saying much about me myself
but instead mankind's own mind

>>942338858
people used to know nothing. they still don't know anything, but they used to not to too.

>>942340799 digits
It doesn't upset me. its illogical.
The idea was invented by creationists, and implies a God creating the event.
You reply like a bot, since you don't understand what is being said.

>>942335112 (OP)
If an all powerful creater existed there's no way he'd be as retarded as the God of the Bible. That shit doesn't make any sense and there's no reason to believe it.

Just be a good person, try to make the world a better place, and don't worry about how some bronze age sheep fuckers though the world was created.

>>942340858
It is based in observation of the universe and observation of human nature. it's that simple.
You have no idea how to think or how to argue. that is self-evident too.
You seek to undermine me instead of arguing for the idea, or against it.

yes but he looks like this

but God loves us all so you shouldn't judge him by his looks.


(meanwhile Satan is a really evil big titty goth girlfriend)

>>942340886
>all im saying, all i have said is that the idea of God is inherent to mans existence
Another thing inherent to man's existence is curiosity. And our curiosity has led us to the conclusion that God is a man-made concept.
That means it's time to move on.

>>942340917
doesn't matter who came up with it
the Big Bang is undisputed science and you godshits keep falling on your face trying to discredit it. You're flat-earthers.

>>942340982
There is literally no "observation" about the universe that proves the existence of a god. It's your OPINION. Opinions are like ASSHOLES. Everyone has one.

>>942335147
>And he loves us.
All evidence to the contrary.

If there is a higher intelligence that created us, it's mostly likely an eldritch horror we can't even begin to comprehend, and we'd better hope against all hope that it's forgotten us and moved on.

>>942340982
>You have no idea how to think or how to argue.
>It is based in observation of the universe and observation of human nature.
>I don't have to elaborate on this just 'cause.

>>942341036
> has led us
you amybe
sure
but others?
they continue to question
separate from religion and within it
and from a scientific standpoint too
we all question thing sin our own way
and that is what im trying to say to you
it is inherent to our very being to question and to deduce
i hope you understand what i mean now
maybe there is a translation error here
idk

>>942341171
Or an abandoned experiment that got left on and it's starting to become more and more unstable as it decays.

>>942341110
You just don't get it. People see it differently than you see it, and they would claim the opposite. Neither of you can prove your statements in absolute.
that's fine too. No-one has to.

>>942341214
You're not questioning though. You're doubling down on the myth. Mythology is a primitive pre-industrial human process.

>>942341069
>the Big Bang is undisputed science
It's a theory. Also, you don't seem to understand anything I've said if you think I am religious. Are you a bot?>

>>942341276
Science doesn't give a shit if people "see things differentlly" anon. That's why your side demonizes it. Science destroys and disinfects your outdated beliefs.

>>942341192
I am pointing out people question things, and that is in their nature. it is part of what makes them human.
you question this, and think it is controversial. that's funny.

>>942341295
>doubling down on the myth.
you didn't understand what i typed?
when did i?
show me

>>942341339
My side? What side. you seem confused. The Scientific methodology means to constantly question things. it is not something necessarily right or wrong. it's a measured result. one of many.
We are not at odds, but you cannot seem to grasp what is being said regardless of that fact.

>>942341311
You are a religious nut, anon. Religious nuts don't believe the Big Bang happened.

>>942341389
stop deflecting with Boomer gibberish anon. Everyone knows what you fucking typed. We get it. You think man "inherently" questions the world and comes up with "god" as the answer. We heard you twice the first time Boomer.

>>942341452
You're anti-science, you're pro-medieval thinking. It's safe to say we are not on the same side, ok?

>>942341571
reminder that 3 unreplied posts means you're posting in a logfag thread

>>942341598
It's literally realizing you're having a drink with the Devil.

>>942341478
So you're either a bot, or trolling. Got it. I am not religious, and the man who created the concept of the "big bang" was Catholic.

>>942341352
>humans question things
>this proves god exists
>i am smart

>>942341541
so you got nothing
and are just trying to make yourself feel big?
got it
stop replying lol

>>942341571
You make no sense.

>>942341700
>durr i finks god essist i rilly do
>so do mens--at walmart
that's all you got lol

>>942341695
No one said that. I said it is human nature to question things, and so the idea of God will remain, even if you abolish religion, man will question the universe, and wonder if there is a creator, and that was the point being made.

>>942341717
science disproves Christian mythology
you want us to reject modern thinking
More like you don't want to face the conclusions we're coming up with

>>942341725
no one said that but you
samefiggin' anon
learn to be honest for once

>>942341743
you're not "questioning" anything anon you're adhering to a known mythology

>>942341770
Science does no such thing, and I was never arguing what you are claiming.
You may as well be a bot. How boring.

>>942341743
>ignorant, superstitious morons who lack curiosity will fill gaps with god
>i'm the first to realize and state this
>i'm a master debater

>>942341800
When? Where? Show me.
All I did was point to human nature versus "Does God Exist" questioning. It will always exist. the question.

>>942341773
you've actually said it a number of times itt
you literally believe man has an "inherent" need to believe in god
and that's been disproven a number of times in the same thread

>>942341826
People make sense of the universe from a human perspective. that is what they do. Sorry for your autism.

>i make up a magical god to make me feel better
>scientists can't lasso this god and bring it to a lab
>therefore, it most definitely exists and the burden of proof is on unbelievers

>>942341803
Yes it does. Every superstition you can point to has been explained by science.
>durr ur a bot
durr ur boring are we fucking even?
your stupid arguments are being destroyed

>>942341843
nope
you can't point to it being said either
i said it is in mankind's nature to question the universe and find meaning in it
so people will always fold back to God as an answer
what does that say about me noticing this, other than the fact i noticed it?

>>942341835
Because let's face it, "God" to you is Christian mythology.

>>942341861
>human perspective has always and will always default to god
>if you don't, you are autistic
>i am destroying you right now

>>942335112 (OP)
You know what? He probably doesn't
But that's ok. You can absolutely believe he does. This won't make a difference

>>942341911 digits (dubs)
Theories are not facts, and the scientific method teaches us to question things.
You have nothing of valuie to say.

>>942341939
God is the concept of a creator to me.

>>942341913
now you're running away from an argument you got your ass handed to you by gaslighting

you think we're hard wired to believe in god
I showed you how science shreds old belief systems
you're not even discussing the topic anymore you're Boomering out so fucking hard lol

>>942341950
Some people will default to rationalizing this world and the universe as a creation. That does not mean all will, anon.

>>942342017
no one runnin' boy
you cannot point to me saying what you claimed
and you cannot prove your claims you never demonstrated either

>>942341973
>The Big Bang isn't real
You're still doing it. Being a flat-earther.

>>942341991
That's nice. Still just your opinion.
Science backs up mine.

>>942342018
>i didn't really mean what i typed with utter sincerity in my last post

>>942342063
You're wrong about me. You're making things up too.

>>942342088 digits
No. What I said is true. I never claimed what you are saying, botman.

>>942342099 checked 99
You understand nothing I typed.

>>942342059
yes I can I'll do it now:
Science long ago put religion to bed as superstition and ignorance anon.
Your side couldn't handle it, so you started putting together things like "The Moral Majority" and "Project 2025" to counter it.

>>942342167
>i argued humans will always default to "god did it", and those who don't have autism
>but i didn't really mean it
(¬‿¬)

>>942342168
>Science long ago put religion to bed as superstition
Doesn't mean a thing, even if it wasn't a sloppy lie.
I don't have a side, and you cannot read. You've proven that.

>>942342117
No I'm not. You're literally parroting Medieval Era groupthink all over this thread. Because anyone believing in a "Big Bang" would be half-burned at the stake.

>>942342193
I never said that, so...
I said humanity will always find reason to see God's handprint in the universe, bu that does not mean all see it the same way.

>>942342244
>i never said that
>now, allow me to say it again
(¬‿¬)

>>942342237
Not true. you reveal you cannot read, but hey. That's fine.

>>942342207
Yes you do. You are anti-science and your worldview is socially backward. We call them Republicans around here.

>>942342277 doubles dubs
You can't read/comprehend English very well anon.

>>942342302
Wrong about me. You only care about making yourself feel less alone, and pathetic.
Try being honest for once, loggy-bog.

>>942342307
>i keep doubling down on my asinine statement
>you're too dumb to comprehend english
(¬‿¬)

>>942342282
Yes it is. Stop Boomering out. You hate the Big Bang because it makes your stupid religion look dumb.

>>942342338
>loggy-bog
You've actually checked all the boxes anon
you really want to go there?

God isn't real. Fucking cope. We're all going to die. Use your time here to make peace with that.

>>942342353
>>942342367
>>942342414
>samefagging
>namecalling
>no point being made
yawn
but hey
you do you loggy-boggy-pollywog
'gnite

>>942342446
literally logging down

>>942342476
based lmao

>>942342446
>namecalling
>you didn't agree with my unfounded statement based entirely in emotion
>i didn't call you autistic for not just accepting it
(¬‿¬)

>>942342518
>doesn't get it
>trolling on sunday because he has nothing better to do
sad
get a life fren

>>942342572
>get a life
>by believing in stupid outdated made up faggot shit liek me

imagine calling everyone a believer in order to make-believe you have anything of value to say

>>942335112 (OP)

Yes. It is highly probable and logical.

In his Proslogion, Anselm defined God as:
“That than which nothing greater can be conceived.”

Then he reasoned:
Even the fool (the atheist) can conceive of such a being in the mind.

But if the being exists only in the mind and not in reality, then a greater being — one that exists in both mind and reality — could be conceived.

Therefore, the being that truly fits the definition of “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” must exist in reality.

Conclusion: God exists necessarily, not contingently.

Fast-forward to the 20th century: Kurt Gödel (yes, the incompleteness guy) created a formal version of the argument using modal logic (logic of possibility and necessity). His version goes like this (simplified):

It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
A maximally great being would exist in all possible worlds (because “maximal greatness” implies necessary existence).
Therefore, if such existence is possible, it must be necessary.

Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

If it’s possible that God necessarily exists, then God necessarily exists.

Alvin Plantinga refined Gödel’s argument into what’s now called the Modal Ontological Argument.

Logicians like J. Howard Sobel, Graham Oppy, and even Bertrand Russell agreed the argument is logically valid — the reasoning structure is airtight.

Russell famously said:
“It is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies.”

>>942343039
>It is highly probable and logical.
stopped reading

>>942343039
Also, consider Simulation Theory.

Imagine if we can create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality and that these simulations are populated with artificial life (AI) which are also capable of creating simulations that are indistinguishable from reality. And so on ad infinitum.

Then there would likely be infinite simulations and only 1 reality. The probability then of you existing in the 1 reality vs yet another simulation is, for all intents and purposes, 0. And this does not even include parallel simulations which are also all creating simulations within simulations.

We are reasonably confident that this is, in fact, achievable - that is, a simulation indistinguishable from reality populated with artificial life.

Now, remove 2 preconceptions. The first being that the simulations are actually identical / to the 1 true reality, rather than just indistinguishable from each other. This is not a contradiction. We could create a Matrix style simulation with altered features - for example a functional Magic system guided by its own rules and laws and mathematics, but otherwise indistinguishable from our "reality".

The second preconception to remove is the idea that the 1 reality is populated by more than 1 being. We are talking about a being whose knowledge and mastery is sufficient enough to create a simulation that is as vast and complicated as our universe.

Combine the two by imagining that the simulations are "life" simulators and the added feature is mortality.

You now arrive at a hyper intelligent immortal being whom created our reality/universe (or at the least the very first one if we are a sub simulation).

This is God. And all you have to do is take a highly probably simulation theory and remove 2 preconceptions.

>>942343310
>because you are actually quite dumb
Sad.

>>942343382
not him but I couldn't get through it either
except you seem to think possibility=reality
lol

lololol

>>942343456
Look up the names involved.
These people are logicians and philosophers who laid the ground work for ontology.

Your inability to "get through it" is a reflection of your intelligence and comprehensions, not of the weakness of the argument presented.

>>942343340
>and all you have to do is divide by zero

>>942343678
The ability to divide by 0 was patched out in v257.33

It was allowing simulants to exit the simulation via an infinite recursion loop.

>>942343677 dubs 77
not him but i read the first big post you made
and it makes sense to me
some of the posters here seem to be trolling or maybe antagonistic bots
because they don't understand what is being said, or they're pretending not to at the very least
it's been happening throughout this thread

>>942343677
>Look up the names involved.
idfag who said what, god existing is neither logical or likely
you're starting with a conclusion that there must be a god, based on nothing beyond wishful thinking, and bending over backwards to rationalize why this must be the case

>>942335112 (OP)
no OP, God is just a concept created by humans to cope with what they do not know.

But believe what you want yk, they're good teachings and morals at the end of the day.

it's strange how much effort you are putting into reducing complex arguments into meaningless unrepresentative lies

>>942344372
the teachings in religious texts aren't unique, they're found in plenty of other works humans have created, you know, because we're the ones who came up with them in the first place
and you don't need religion as a basis for morals

>>942344787
Where do morals come from? Why is it that humans collectively agree on moral principles as shown in their holy books?

>>942344819
>Where do morals come from?
what do you mean? we invented them, they don't exist innately out in the universe
the same as laws, culture, myths, superstitions, we made them up
>Why is it that humans collectively agree on moral principles
we don't, not every culture across human history, even currently, has the same morals
there are very few that are common, and even those are flexible depending on circumstances

>>942338683
An em dash. It’s an AI!

>>942335112 (OP)
Nope.

>>942335112 (OP)
If there were a God who was both all omnipotent and omnibenevolent, the world would not be as it is. Therefore if there is a God (note: gods are excepted - polytheistic pantheons aren't as all-powerful as monotheistic Gods are typically claimed to be), then he's either: evil; or, not really all that powerful after all.

>>942335112 (OP)
Everything is explained here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Retconned/comments/1m0px7o/attention_at_least_one_rapture_has_already/

From the post:
>And don't be deceived by the fact that the masses aren't talking about this info. In actuality, this info is the most important thing on the planet right now—by far. Nothing else even comes close.

>>942336070
>no
See this .... >>942350102

>>942350145
>reddit
no thanks

I am an atheist and I love Jesus H. Christ

>>942337753
>Is it possible to lose that sense of divinity?
it's possible to be demoralized to the point of not feeling a divine connection. if you come from God, you return to God after death. wretched souls get some kind of custom made afterlife of their own choosing.

>>942350213
what do you love about him?

>>942350662
Character, as an atheist I tried to find fault in what he believed, but for someone from 2000 years ago, he was biased but in a very unbiased way, almost secular traits, which I find really appreciable

>>942351306
>as an atheist
As an actual atheist, his babble comes off as something a deluded cult leader would tell some suckers to get them to obey him. A Charles Manson type with massive delusions of grandeur. That is, if you're reading it from the point of view that he's just some asshole in Jerusalem and not filled with magic powers from outer space.

Half of his shit is just "trust in me and everything's fine" and "leave your family to follow me". Okay, but if you don't have magic powers that's literally worthless, you're wasting our time with nonsense and ruining our lives. And 12 guys? The son of the omnipotent super-being that created the universe was so lacking in persuasion that he barely got enough devout followers to fill two minivans? (I know he had like 100 random worshipers by the time he died, still the population of Earth was like 200 million people back then).

>>942351766
This is definitely not your take, even Matt Dillahunty wouldn't describe Jesus as a cult leader, it seems like you watched a bunch of Bart Ehrman videos to form an opinion

>>942341142
Imagine what you look like