Fedoras, what is your favourite argument for theism?
God-botherers, what is your favourite argument for atheism?

>>17749283 (OP)
Easy:
The existence of order is a testimony against the belief in random chance

Atheists uphold the belief that everything was born out of chaos, and everything was purely by chance
The logical conclusion of this belief is that everything must be in a state of chaos and random chance. Which doesn't exist

Everything follows a strict and predictable order with governing laws that no one is allowed to break. This can only mean that the world was designed with precise measurements

And with design comes intelligence. And intelligent designer of everything

Atheism is an illogical posstition to take.
Atheists will never accept this, though.

>>17749290
>first post is a theist who can't read
Kinda emblematic of the whole debate lol.

>>17749283 (OP)
>Fedoras, what is your favourite argument for theism?

The idea of a cloud-dwelling white-haired benevolent daddy who loves me and will let me into a land of eternal bliss just because I said "I believe in you" is admittedly alluring.
If you live in an epoch/country where nobody will persecute you for being a Christian, it really sounds like you're getting a lot for very little effort, you just go to church every now and then to make it clear you're still part of the club.

I really wish it didn't just sound like believing in Santa Clauds for adults

>>17749296
I purposely didn't give a shit, actually

>>17749301
Lying is a sin. Enjoy hell!

>>17749290
>Atheists uphold the belief that everything was born out of chaos
Uh no? That's not a necessary belief for atheism at all.

>This can only mean that the world was designed with precise measurements
>And with design comes intelligence
There are ordered things that weren't designed by an intelligence, for example a beach looks nice and ordered, you might say it looks designed. But you can explain everything in it with non-intelligent processes like erosion. So simply looking ordered doesn't entail intelligent design, you need more to support this argument.

>>17749310
Order as in the Laws of Physics, mate
The existence of Laws demand the existence of a Lawmaker

The fact that you cannot comprehend the complexity of it doesn't make it random.
No, everything is following a strict and unbreakable laws that were established from the very beginning, and shall remain enforced to the very end

>>17749290
You seem to have misunderstood the point of this thread, but let me rebut your point anyway.

Ever heard of the monkey who can write out Shakespeare given infinite time and a typesetter?
Same thing.
Order of some kind will inevitably appear given infinite time for chaos to act

>>17749298

>>17749312
>The fact that you cannot comprehend the complexity of it doesn't make it random.

So you're not qualified to say "I guarantee it's actually not random" either

>>17749312
The laws are uncreated, which makes them supernatural. Atheists believe in the supernatural.

>>17749319
The existence of monkeys and typewriters demand the existence of order that forces them to function as monkeys and typewriters for an infinite amount of time

Do you not realize that the logical conclusion of your "random chance" is that everything must be random at a FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL.

No such thing as atoms and all the given foundations of reality
No strong nuclear force, no weak nuclear force, no electromagnetism

Everything should be random. There should be nothing that does not change at a random interval. Including time itself

But it is not

Order was created
Order was established
Order is enforced
At a fundamental level, since the very start

>>17749324
If it doesn't violate the given laws of reality, then it isn't random. It is just beyond our "current" understanding but it is well within the rules

>>17749319
>Kronos is my God

>>17749326
>Atheists believe in the supernatural.
No. That's deism

Huh, seems like atheists won in this thread too.

>>17749312
Obviously no atheist would grant that there exist "laws" in the sense you use the term

>>17749327
>natural world existing for no reason
NOOOOO

>a God who causes the natural world exist for no reason
YEEEEEEEEEES

this is so dumb

>>17749283 (OP)
Probably Gödel's Ontological proof. It's very rigorous and ordered. A proof fitting of what is being discussed. It's also very limited, which I appreciate.

>>17749454
Unlike some other arguments wherein the presenter atempts to smuggle much less sturdy religious elements (like the Trinity for example) inside a proof for Mono-Theism in the western style.

>>17749283 (OP)
>for theism
Shroud of Turin

>for atheism
Why bad thing happen?

>>17749454
For me? It's Gödel's Ontological proof for the scariest vampire

>>17749465
My favourite is
>if the shroud of turin is real, why doesn't it magically stand up by itself like it used to according to historical accounts?

>>17749468
I don't know if that would work for the Argument. At least the revised one.

>>17749474
You replace the word "god-like" with "spooky"

>>17749449
Natural means "born". So if you are calling it the "natural world", it needs a determinstic parental structure, by definition.

>>17749536
>argument by etymology
Didn't expect such an early concession, but I eagerly accept it!

>>17749536
Wow, I didn't realize that is what I meant when I used the word 'natural'...

Guess I have to laboriously reword my post, so you don't misunderstand me on purpose again, and have to actually engage with it, instead of doing this dishonest clowning
nah, I'm not gonna bother

>>17749327
>world existing for no reason
NOOOOO

>a God who causes the world exist for no reason
YEEEEEEEEEES

>>17749312
Your argument is fucking dumb. You argue for the existence of laws that humans have ascertained about the world but you're too dumb to realize that these aren't laws, merely observations of what humans are able to perceive. The audacity to think you've stumbled across God's laws and then to use those same man-made laws to argue for the existence of God is hilarious.

>>17749638
Humans uses the same word for it in English language, 'law' so it must be the same

>>17749671
peak

>>17749638
P1 Laws are made by humans
P2 Laws of nature are laws
C Therfor, humans made the laws of nature

>>17749283 (OP)
>Fedoras, what is your favourite argument for theism?
I admire the sleight of hand in cosmological arguments

First causes > unmoved mover > monad > ??? > "this necessarily makes (le abrahamic religion) true!"

>>17749290
Sophistry. no one except very superstitious (yous) deny the existence of fundamental forces of nature. it's too far to ascribe any particular moral meaning to them

>>17749454
again, it's the same issue with the cosmological arguments. it's not outside the realm of possibility for their to be a deus or monad, but this proof in no way implies the existence of a theos, muchnonetheless a personal, or morally compelling one. Abrahamics will always try to sneak that in though

>>17749454
I think it's just silly question begging, like all philosophical arguments
If you already hold all these realist beliefs about what it means for something to be "good" or "God-like", beliefs about modal logic, beliefs about language and propositions. YES, then the conclusion that God exist drops out of the beliefs you already had (maybe you didn't realize?)
a lot the persuasive success of arguments relies on failing to explain this, and just selling people on it sounding reasonable to string words together

I get off the bus at the first sentence, "greatest possible". Great, according to who? People think different things are great. The sentence doesn't even make sense.

>>17749290
>Atheists uphold the belief that everything was born out of chaos, and everything was purely by chance
Theists believe in the same but with added complexity: a being more complex than all which can be observed simply popping into existence out of nowhere.

>>17749701
>>17749439
>>17749638
It's called Laws of Nature because everything in nature abides by it

It is impossible to break
The fact that it is unbreakable means that nothing is random
Everything is bound by what God has decreed

>>17749629
>>17749449
Actually, God has a reason: us

Everything in the entire universe is worthless to him compared to a single human.
He made humans because he is a being of infinite love who wanted to share his glory with others.
He wants us to rule alongside him in Heaven
But first, we have to learn how to love properly here on Earth and accept him as the person in charge

>>17749732
Maybe, if you are a pagan
We uphold an uncreated God. A being of complete infinitity unbound by time

Why do people assume all atheism is just the belief that "everything is random bro, the only things that exist are things we can currently see" instead of just "we don't currently know everything and no existing religion gives a satisfying explanation"?

I mean I know why, it's ego and stupidity and the need to strawman their enemies instead of just accepting that someone might have a problem with the actual details of their beliefs instead of just dismissing them entirely out of ignorance.

>>17749290
Why are Christians so ignorant of chaos and information? I don't think there's a single Christian who actually understands what information, entropy, chaos, order etc are.
No, order does not require an intelligence. This misunderstanding seems to be at the root of all Christian ignorance of science. Whether it be denial of evolution or the claim that boundary conditions require an intelligent designer to impose them, theists always seem to make this error where they project an unnecessary agent in the description of these phenomena.

>>17749298
I believe in you comes with the responsibility of I obey you.

>>17749861
Order demands intelligence

Order is a set of standard patterns
Patterns require intelligence
Intelligence can tell when something is outside of that pattern and can suppress and prevent it from even happening

If you wake up with a cluttered mess, you'll assume it's the wind
If you wake up with the fridge alphabet magnet telling you to buy milk, you'll assume that someone intelligent did it.

>>17749869
>Order demands intelligence
Nope. Intelligent requires order, not the other way around.

>>17749870
You cannot have order if you do not have a definition of how it should be, idiot

>>17749836
>It is impossible to break
This is nothing like the human laws that got lawmakers!
Probably God got a superpower that makes it so you can't break his laws

>>17749872
Nope. Definitions come after intelligence which comes after order. Models for spontaneous generation of order from chaos are well defined. You don't actually understand chaos, entropy, order, information, etc.

>>17749845
You're just not tracking the conversation
I'm telling you that there is no reason God exist

>>17749885
Duh.
He is infinite. Unbound by time.

>>17749883
>This is nothing like the human laws that got lawmakers!
Yeah, are we entirely sure we're talking about the same kind of thing?
I think laws of nature, and laws of traffic, just are to dissimilar to run any kind of useful analogy that gets you to a lawmaker.

>>17749884
You cannot have a "definition" if there is no definer who will define its nature.

No, there is no "spontaneous generation of order"
Just 4 laws of physics that have existed since the very onset of time

>>17749887
>infinite. Unbound by time.
I don't know what any of that means

>God exist for no reason
YEEEEEEEES

>World exist for no reason
NOOOOOOOOOO

>>17749898
Something bound by time must have a beginning.
Time itself cannot begin inside time
It can only be created by a being outside and unbound of it

>>17749836
>unbreakable
Except if you're Pharos's high priests who transforms rods to snakes

>>17749900
Look, if you're allowed to make up excuses for why it's ok for God to create time, I'm sure atheists can invent something about the beginning of the universe being outside and unbound by time

>>17749283 (OP)
Why the fuck is Jordan Petersen being portrayed as the theist here?

>>17749900
>>>17749898 (You)
>Something bound by time must have a beginning.
Bruh, Jesus is a man. Men are bound by time.
Yet you wouldn't say Jesus had a beginning

What's with asserting axioms that you don't even believe yourself, so silly

>>17749900
The universe is necessarily eternal in both time directions. See the quantum eternity theorem

>>17749910
Nah, you can't
Big Bang was condemned by the scientific field as Christian propaganda. In fact, it was created by a priest no less

It is you guys who are sheepishly pretending it is not

>>17749913
It's 2025, this is what Christians look like now

>>17749918
Infinitely expanding is not eternal. It is still bound by God's laws

>>17749919
beginning of the universe being outside and unbound by time

>Nah, you can't
I just said it, stop lying

>>17749896
>You cannot have a "definition" if there is no definer who will define its nature.
The universe is not a definition.
>No, there is no "spontaneous generation of order"
Lorenz systems, evolution, Kuramoto models of synchronization, synergetics models, Taylor-Couette flow and turbulence, are only a few of many models of order arising from chaos with no intelligent agent guiding the ordering.

>>17749927
Order arising from chaos *so long as they don't break the laws set by God

>>17749922
I didn't say infinitely expanding. The universe/nature was not created and had no beginning and thus there is no creator

>>17749931
It has a beginning with precise measurements

The laws set by God are EXTREMELY PRECISE
Had gravity been just 10^-36 weaker/stronger, the universe would collapse/tear apart at the very first 4 atoseconds

To give you an idea of how precise that is:
The observable universe is merely 10^32 meters

Laws that are PRECISE and UNBREAKABLE

>>17749283 (OP)
As an atheist I both like and dislike the Prime Mover argument. I like it for its simplicity and dislike it because like most religious arguments it boils down to "source: trust me bro", because even if you believe in a prime mover there is no way to know if that prime mover is a god of faith X, Y or Z, or if said god even gives a shit at all - you get nothing without first putting your faith in some guy proclaiming to be a prophet.

>>17749945
>Had gravity been just 10^-36 weaker/stronger, the universe would collapse/tear apart at the very first 4 atoseconds

God could not make a universe that sicks together with weaker gravity?
So much for omnipotence..

>>17749845
Not just humans. Israelites. God loves Israelites more than angels in the heavens. He loves Israelites more than anything in the universe. Israel is his inheritance. What he chose for himself.

>>17749945
>It has a beginning with precise measurements
It literally does not. The big bang is not the creation of the universe. See the quantum eternity theorem.
All you're doing is misunderstanding the copernican principle.

>>17749963
God loves them so much that he cursed them with the curse of the 8th decade

>>17749858
You don't accept that God is a rigtheous one like in the old testament. That he detests wickedness and commands to avoid it.

>>17749966
>The big bang is not the creation of the universe

>>17749967
If God punished those he loves the most so harshly for their sins then how much more will he punish those he hates for their wicked sins.

>>17749976
correct

>>17750042
It is, mate
It is where time started, and it is impossible to go any further.

Every other equation revolves around trying to explain how it came to happen

>>17749283 (OP)
one for each: if God isn't real, then how can the hand of a man fit so perfectly around the neck of a goose?

if God is real, why would he create the goose?

>>17750178
And hows bout dis banana? Iz got da egzak shape as da monkies hand now idnit?

>>17749836
"Law" was always an awful term to describe them, and every scientist would tell you this. It's like calling the value of pi a "law." There's nothing dictating that the value has to be that value, and it's literally impossible to get any other value out of a circle. There's literally no "designing" to a circle that you could possibly do to make pi a different value. Likewise, we don't really have anything to go off of to really assume that any natural phenomena can really be any different than what we observe. It's not a "law." It's just there, and there's nothing that shows that it was designed.

>>17751163
Who cares?
It is unbreakable, which guarantees that everything that happens is within those rules. Which proves that randomness does not exist

>>17749866
How can obey someone you cannot communicate with?

>>17749330
Okay, based

>>17751218
I think it's pretty clear you have no idea what you're arguing against. Ultimately nobody disagrees with that, but as you can see there is a disconnect between that and claiming intentional design or that nothing was up to chance.

>>17751290
It cannot be up to chance when there was no chance for it to change at all
It was there from the very first attoseconds and nothing else ever came after

>>17749290
That leaves no room for any chance or personal choice since order was preordained, so you just believe some evil demon is purposely causing all the world's suffering and there is nothing anyone can do about it since we are all just being farmed for our suffering.

>>17749312
So Einstein killed the previous gods of Newton when he used relativity to rewrite the laws of physics and god was only born 100 or so years ago as a result?

>>17749326
No technically they are subnatural since nature arises from the laws.

>>17749329
No, randomness is the opposite of intentional not the opposite of possible.

>>17751318
I think that's the plot of that Neil Gaiman book

>>17749319
That was debunked as a statistically retarded outcome. You are infinitely more likely to have infinite gibberish.

>>17751324
>um actually it's possible but not to the level which I like which is basically the same as being impossible

>>17749484
No, that doesn't work since vampire and spooky do not imply omniscient unlimited power like godlike does, Gödel's Ontological proof only works because the omni label allows rhetorical bridging from the imaginary to the real in order to conflate the greatest imaginable thing with the greatest real thing by breaking the limits between the borders of imagination and reality.

>>17749283 (OP)
juden peterstein

>>17749536
You think plants and fungus and bacteria are born instead of germinating and sporificating and undergoing cellular division?

>>17751328
I didn't say it was statistically possible in any realizable way, I specifically said that it was infinitely more likely to not be possible than to be possible.

>>17749283 (OP)
>Fedoras, what is your favourite argument for theism?
That's like asking what's the best argument for leprechauns.

>>17749290
Who designed the jew in the sky?

>>17751218
>It is unbreakable
No, any new discovery can break the laws of physics.
>which guarantees that everything that happens is within those rules.
No, using a physical law for your models just guarantees that your model can't represent anything outside of its modular threshold which is why when new discoveries are made like with time dilation, old physical models have to be discarded and/or amended until they align with the discoveries. Not all discoveries can reasonable fit into all models, we are struggling with the consequences of incompleteness, so we have developed a variety of parallel physical models with overlapping fields to represent things like gravity, EM, nuclear forces, etc right now instead of one single universal theory of everything to explain all the documented phenomenon we have discovered about reality.

>>17751297
No, they can't even entirely accurately predict the energy distribution in empty space because of quantum vacuum fluctuations and they can only partially account for CMBR as there are still elements of noise and randomness that are yet to be explained and all sorts of random signals that pop in and out without complete explanation according to current physics models.

Christbros... how do we refute this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

>>17751362
Except leprechauns don't form the basis of the majority of modern human societies and major world governments don't put In Leprechauns We Trust on their money and train the children of the world super power to pledge allegiance to One Nation Under Leprechauns, so it is much much more trivial.

>>17751365
>break the laws of physics.
lul
if that actually happened, 80-90% of modern science must be rewritten and reinvented
The Laws cannot be broken. it's definition can be improved, however

>>17751369
Which doesn't violate the Laws set by God

>>17751352
>statistically possible
>any realizable way
So you're saying it IS possible.

>>17751374
If the laws of physics are the laws of god, why didn't they appear in a holy book, why did it take several more centuries after the bible before they were formulated?

>Which doesn't violate the Laws set by God
It does however violate the laws of physics that were in place before the new discoveries caused a major paradigm shift in the base models.

>>17751376
No, dividing 1 by infinity is not actually possible which is why I said it can't be realized, you can only statistically get the calculation down to 1 over infinite chance, you can't actually complete the calculation, though, due to the nature of infinity and if you did, the most logical result would be 0 anyway.

>>17751392
Good thing that there is no such thing as an infinite improbability. Ultimately all probabilities within this reality fall between 0 and 1

>>17751427
>there is no such thing as an infinite improbability
There is if you are doing statistical analysis under the assumption of infinite time or infinite objects like in this case.

>>17751387
It is
Let there be light
He suspends the earth over nothing

> violate the laws of physics that were in place before the new discoveries
No, it doesn't. It was there from the very beginning
We made a mistake in our understanding of it

>>17751374
>The Laws cannot be broken.
You're fundamentally misunderstanding science. The "laws" are simply what we observed to always be true. They are a product of nature, not what nature is dictated by. Much like a circle, the value of pi does not dictate the circle, we observed the value of pi from the circle.

>>17749283 (OP)
Best argument for atheism is many worlds hypothesis:
It explains that since you are required to exist to observe material reality, naturally you must exist in a world where such an observer is feasible
It’s a good response to the fine tuning argument which had ofthen been cited as a convincing argument for theism.
t.lutheran

>>17751464
>Let there be light
That isn't a law of physics.
>He suspends the earth over nothing
Has nothing to do with the laws of physics.
>We made a mistake in our understanding of it
Then they are not the flawless laws you make them out to be, you don't understand physics, you have no theory of everything, light being let everywhere doesn't explain darkness.

>>17751476
The laws are flawless. Our understanding of it isn't

>>17751468
Yes. Exactly
And THAT is the definition of order.

If the world were born from random chances, there would be no such thing as order

>>17749454
Only good faith post in this thread

>>17751482
That is a major flaw in your theory if you don't even actually know what the laws of physics are and have no way to actually test their accuracy since you haven't even identified them in the first place.

>>17749948
Kind of good faith, I suppose one can be excused for bringing in his own position

>>17751333
I dunno how you went about determining that a god has to be omniscient
I know that the scariest vampire has to be omniscient, else he wouldn't know your deepest fears or where you are hiding

this stuff is all made-up, there's no fact of the matter of what a god is

>MUH UNBREAKABLE LAWS
Dude, you literally believe in magic and miracles

>>17751604
>I know that the scariest vampire has to be omniscient,
That is not a property of a vampire, though.
God is typically defined with a bunch of omni properties which is the only thing that makes the proof work.

>>17751609
Look, this is all irrelevant to my issues with ontological arguments
Words don't have properties or definitions on their own. Besides, this is the scariest vampire, of course it will have some superpowers a regular vampire does not

I don't even think the omni properties are coherent
I could make up a new term, omni-spooky, and just use is as a huge catchall umbrella fore everything I need for the argument to go through

>>17751623
>Words don't have properties or definitions on their own
Yes they do.
>of course it will have some superpowers a regular vampire does not
But it doesn't have the necessary built in properties to elevate it to necessary existence from imaginary existence like an omnibeings does.

>>17751623
>omni-spooky
Spookiness is not predicated on existence like the omniproperties of sentience, power, and presence, so no amount of implied spookiness would imply necessary existence.

>>17751655
Nta but an imaginary vampire is obviously not as spooky as a real vampire.

>>17751660
Ok, but spookiness does not create the experience of existence, so it does not escalate something from an imaginary existence to a necessary existence like sentience or physical power or presence does for a godlike being.

>>17751667
>does not create the experience of existence, so it does not escalate something from an imaginary existence to a necessary existence
Now you're trying to pull the argument in a different direction and you don't know enough about how it works to make it work.
And let me tell you, it really doesn't work like that.

>>17749454
Lamest proof of God I've ever seen. Could make the same argument for Santa that way.

Fine-tuning. And it's preferable to a never-ending fractal multiverse with every laws of physics configuration and one that might contain infinite copies of subjective states. That isn't so appealing when you think about it. Unless the God creator really did make an eternal hell, then it's way worse.

>>17751655
>Yes they do.
Nice argument, bro

>>17751833
I think fine-tuning is fucking garbage
We're supposed to think it's very surprising that the universe is the way it is, and that is somehow explained by a god
Then just kinda forget and stop asking questions, why it's surprising that god is the way he is

All the responses to this is just hand-wavy nonsense about god being good, as if that somehow answers the question

Had God's desire to cause gravity been just 10^-36 weaker/stronger, the universe would collapse/tear apart at the very first 4 atoseconds

>>17749701
>And then God proclaimed 6.67430*10^-11 [m^3*kg^-1*s^-2] and it was GOOD.

>>17752067
Retard doesn't know there's TRUE definitions of words, like autogynephilia, from before humans started using it, floating around in the Platonic aether since God laid the foundations of the earth

>>17749290
Existence is solipsistic. There is no known way to determine if anything outside of what is perceived as your own consciousness exists at all.
Any claim opposite to this is a faith-based, illogical position.

>>17752138
Point is, we aren't random
Everything in our universe was made with precise, strict, and unbreakable laws.

It wasn't the result of constant trial and error.
The rules were set in place the very moment energy was created, and it is to remain in place forevermore

Randomness does not exist

>>17751489
We know what it is
The models may just need some improving.

The fact that the farms were improved doesn't mean that no one knows that plants grow when seeds are dispersed in wet soil

>>17752143
Randomness does exist though.

>>17749283 (OP)
>Fedoras, what is your favourite argument for theism?
God literally exists. Things we attribute to God are present in this world, such as the creation of the universe and its indescribable grandeur. The human side of God is present as the vastness of the human mind, so benevolent and so far beyond individual understanding that it can only be divine. Who punishes the wicked? Who protects the weak? Who makes human life sacred, if not God? Who humbles the proud?
Someone does.
Atheists offer no alternative framework to describe immanence or the might of ten thousand ancestors. Only God offers that.
>God-botherers, what is your favourite argument for atheism?
Religion is mythology.

>>17752174
So long as it is within the rules, it isn't

>>17751321
Randomness means unpredictable
Everything follows a specific rule therefore they are completely predictable

>>17752075
Closer to Truth fan here, it comes down to the "naturalness" argument or something like that. Some of the values of our constants seem arbitrary and like they could be any number of different options. If the beginning of everything really was the big bang state the universe was in, it would be stupidly STUPIDLY unlikely that we'd get the values we have (if they really could be different). A) We're missing something fundamental or B) exist in a multiverse or C) our Universe was designed by some kind of necessary universal God sentience. Option C is the most psychologically pleasing assuming the universal sentience isn't a hell-creating evil cunt. Empty individualism and absurdity seem to grow naturally from the multiverse option, even though right now (and who knows what we don't know we don't know) option A seems likeliest. This is how I understand it as a Closer to Truth available for free on YouTube fan starring Robert Lawrence Kuhn.

>>17752143
>was made
Why think it was made, instead of it simply being what it is
It's not like you ask for a reason why God is the way he is.

I just don't get why you think adding a God on top makes sense of things

>>17752197
>Some of the values of our constants seem arbitrary and like they could be any number of different options.
Right, but I would say exactly the same thing about God's desire to cause those constants, as the constant just falls out of whatever God wants the word to be like.
God's desires seem very arbitrary and like if they could have been different

Then I'm left asking the same questions, just about God rather than the universe. Who fine-tuned God's desires to be the way it is?
The God explanation didn't help


using the term 'desires' super loosely here, just for whatever reason God has to do what he does

>>17752200
Because you have to take your belief down to its logical conclusion
And the belief that there is no maker implies that the universe had to have been a random occurrence. But you do not see that

All you see are constant repeated patterns in a strict order
Patterns require the existence of intelligence

And that leads to the conclusion that the universe was intentionally made with a grand design in mind

>>17752214
If you are asking what made God, then you do not understand what infinite is

>>17752236
This is just some dumb slogan, and doesn't interact with the concerned I raised at all.

>>17752234
I don't get why you don't ask the same questions about God

>>17752214
Trying to believe because I find it preferable now (and also am likely schizotypal). Fundamental desire could be to create a system where minds can exist, no reason other than that behind it, God operates through sentient minds. That there could be other values for constants = possibly God didn't create the world of forms, or created it first and then realized only some forms allowed for physical instantiation of mini-God mind. Evidence? You're asking for evidence aren't you

>>17752248
>>17752243
God is infinite
Infinite means beyond finite rules

Infinite means it remains exactly as it is, no matter where you look, when you look, or how you look at it. There is no past, present, future, back, or front

It is shapeless, timeless, and limitless. It cannot be placed inside any finite definition.

But it doesn't mean that it is beyond comprehension. We were made in his image and we can comprehend that God's nature is love. The universe was made with love and we are the manifestations of his divine will.

In the eyes of a dog, a human is completely beyond their finite definitions. But a dog can comprehend that their human loves and that they can rest easy under their will

>>17752143
>Point is, we aren't random
There is no way to know that "we" even exists outside of conscious qualia.
>Everything in our universe was made with precise, strict, and unbreakable laws.
Everything in our universe is inside your consciousness. You have never experienced a single thing outside of this consciousness. There is no known way to prove any existence outside of your own consciousness.

Any claim and belief made of existence outside of your solipsistic experience is without proof, and thus an entire unwarranted, faith-based belief.
Whether you believe there's God out there, or it's random, or a simulation, none of it is provable and is an entirety arbitrary distinction.

>>17752263
Yes, everything is the product of belief and faith.
The question is whether your belief holds up to the evidence

Also,
Idiot. Life is not a simulated game and acting like one just drives you into main-character syndrome

>>17752274
>The question is whether your belief holds up to the evidence
The inherent problem with that attitude, is that the evidence itself has to hold up to evidence, which has to hold up to evidence, which continues ad infinitum. You believe that (empirical) evidence is important for your belief, but what evidence do you have for this belief in itself?
Pondering this, you run into the Munchaussen trilemma,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
Which points out the obvious epistemological tidbit, that there is only three ways to try to futilely end this cycle of seeking evidence for evidence for evidence:

>The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition presupposes the truth of that very proposition
>The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
>The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended

And because as you can see, none of these actually satisfy the requirement for proof, there is no actual way to use these methods to verify anything at all, with any true certainty.
Thus, the effort to see if your beliefs stand up to evidence is entirely impossible. Deep down, in the end, it is all a faith-based, unproven belief. It is entirely arbitrary what you believe.

>Idiot. Life is not a simulated game and acting like one just drives you into main-character syndrome
It is entirely arbitrary.

>>17752282
No, the hypothesis comes first then you put it into trial and error
The existence of God can only be a matter of faith because it is impossible to create an objective evidence of his existence using finite means.

Seriously, just try it:
What could possibly be an objective and undeniable evidence of God?
Breaking the Laws of Physics and doing miracles? What if it has always been possible, and our previous assumptions were just wrong? What if he just have advanced tech?

You can't
You absolutely CANNOT prove it objectively

But there are 2 things that you can do
1. Disprove the assumption that he does not exist
2. Prove that his nature is that of truth and love, and you can just have faith in him

He already came in the flesh and proved that he loves us beyond limits. He never spoke a lie and he never harbored ill will. Assuming that he has ulterior motives is exactly what led to the first sin

>>17749283 (OP)
It's kind of obvious that "the world" cannot assign qualia to itself if it's purely materialistic.
Objective qualia (e.g. an "explanation") would require God.

This is why turbo atheists tend to double-down on the idea that nothing is real or actually exists. Because to anyone who thinks about it long enough, if things exist, so must God. If no God, then things do not exist.

>>17752313
It is also entirely possible that your personal experience of existence is simply an illusion, and the rules outside of your existence are so fundamentally different, that the non-deistic explanation is entirely clear and obvious.
You do not know.

>>17752301
>1. Disprove the assumption that he does not exist
Let's hear it then. Big if true

>>17752318
That only serves to add another layer without answering any question

Or rather, it is non-sequitur when considering that our true form is our soul. The flesh is merely temporary

>>17752324
Read the thread

>>17752327
>without answering any question
Welcome to existence. The only truly honest, rationality-driven answer you will ever find for yourself is: "I don't know."

>>17752313
Feeling is that there's a non-sequitur cooked into this. Explain how that's the obvious conclusion.

>>17752330
"I don't know, but I have faith in him"

>>17752318
>It is also entirely possible that your personal experience of existence is simply an illusion
Yeah that's what I was saying. No, it's not really possible. But again, if you preclude God from even existing at all in any way - you WONT accept it in any wise - then yeah you can just cope and say "it's all fake bro."

And by "not possible" I mean, it requires more assumptions than simply accepting reality as real. If it requires excessive assumptions it is most likely not true. There isn't a conceivable reason your consciousness is playing a trick on itself (which is what "illusion" would really mean). Now, is your consciousness wholly sufficient to perceive reality? No. But this doesn't imply illusion.

>>17752329
You talking about this >>17749290 ?

>>17752331
If all that exists is purely material, there can be no "meaning" to anything.
See OP >>17749283 (OP) in which "the world explains the world" is asserted.
At best, human minds assign (admittedly arbitrary) meaning to existence which is purely subjective and therefore ultimately not even real. Which means it isn't an explanation at all, and it certainly isn't being provided to us by the material universe.

>>17752337
>And by "not possible" I mean, it requires more assumptions than simply accepting reality as real.
Acceptance of "reality" is an assumption. It is more simple to not accept anything, to remain in acatalepsy. Your argument works against the point you are trying to make.

>If it requires excessive assumptions it is most likely not true.
You have no way of proving this statement. Occam's Razor has no actual definite proof for it.

>>17752356
If that is your actual position then there is no reason to not simply ignore you forever and move on.
You’re just arguing with yourself, anyways, I guess. I wouldn’t want to argue with myself for no reason since nothing is real and nothing matters.

>>17749290
>The existence of order is a testimony against the belief in random chance
What order are you even talking about ? You just claim there is order made for us yet fail to prove any of it. We already know with quantum cosmology by Dawkins for instance that the universe could've arose from *nothing*, based on luck. You're just making up an ad hoc pattern in things and calling it an order, when the reality is just random.

>Everything follows a strict and predictable order with governing laws that no one is allowed to break
No we merely observe a causal chain of event and deem it "order". In reality, a different result could've came about in which other lifeforms could've observed a certain "order.

>>17752234
>And the belief that there is no maker implies that the universe had to have been a random occurrence.
>But you do not see that
Yes, that's quite literally how it is. The universe was a random occurence. Did you think there was an inherent meaning to all this ?
>>17749283 (OP)
>Fedoras, what is your favourite argument for theism?
The fact that religion appeared everywhere on Earth, and that most of them had certain loose principles found in everyone of them (e.g. belief in something after death)

>>17749454
Godel's proof only works if you presume his religious premises to be true (e.g. thinking that omniscient, necessary cause etc are all already true). Really, the only thing it proves is that if god exists in one universe, it must exists in any.

>>17752257
This does not answer why God is such that he creates this world, instead of another world
God got a superpower that lets him do anything, so it seems extremely improbable that he would create this specific world!

What explains this?
At least with naturalism there seems to be some sort of constraints on the parameters that can be fine-tuned, with God anything goes
Theism have the exact same problems that proponents of fine-tuning arguments say naturalism does.

>>17749283 (OP)
Jordan Peterson couldn’t explain a dog

>>17752301
>What could possibly be an objective and undeniable evidence of God?
It doesn't have to be undeniable, God could just be the best explanation.
Besides, I'm a gullible retard, if someone prayed in the name of Jehovah for wet wood to catch fire.
I would be a worshipper on the spot. I wouldn't even try to think about checking if the wood was rigged with some kind of trick

>>17752453
>The fact that religion appeared everywhere on Earth, and that most of them had certain loose principles found in everyone of them (e.g. belief in something after death)
I figured this was just explained by human biology, fear of death + the ability to make-up stories to feel better

>>17752543
Easy: Because he is Love, and with love comes the desire to share

God doesn't need us
He wants us
He wants us to partake in his glory but in order to do so, we must first become beings of love as well.
We are made in his image, and our duty is to act like him. You cannot covet one's glory without acknowledging the sacrifices

The entire design of family structure is designed to emulate God's will
Starting from the joy of partaking in creating new life, to the love and sacrifices, up to the sorrow of losing the ones you love

It was all designed specifically so that we could understand him.
And these lessons are what we shall take when we return to Heaven, our true home

>>17752453
A world with specific, unbreakable laws is incompatible with the belief in random chance.

Everything is flowing in a specific pattern kicked off from the Big Bang. It is orderly by precise design

>>17751316
It does, once you consider that living organisms were made with a soul

Soul are allowed to follow or reject the design that God has set - at least within the realms of the 4 unbreakable laws

>>17752626
>It was all designed specifically so that we could understand him.
You're incapable of understanding how the universe doesn't have an intrinsic meaning but that we assign meaning to it and think it was designed for us rather than us emerging from it

>>17752640
>A world with specific, unbreakable laws is incompatible with the belief in random chance.
Why would that be ? Random chance created random events from which emergent properties arise. Is this too hard to understand ?

>Everything is flowing in a specific pattern kicked off from the Big Bang. It is orderly by precise design
Genuinely, how so ? How do you prove that it is a specific pattern ? Because we emerged from it ?

>>17752650
Because you cannot break the Laws of Physics, dumbass
So long as you are bound by its Laws, you aren't random

Randomness must exist at a fundamental level, otherwise it isn't.

>>17752657
And how do laws of physics prove that random chance can't exist ? How can you say that these laws weren't made at random ?

>>17752626
More slogans!

>Love
Is a 4-letter word, that does not explain why God made the world this way, instead of another
are you incapable of honest engagement? You would never accept such shitty explanations from people who disagree with you

>>17752640
A world with specific, unbreakable laws is incompatible with the belief in magic and miracles.

God is just humanity without the existential angst. In other words, He exists but people will always deny it.

>>17752657
This is just dumb, why exactly does laws entail determinism?
(I don't expect you to answer, btw)

>>17752657
>Because you cannot break the Laws of Physics, dumbass
Which proves ? Constraint doesn't entail meaning

>So long as you are bound by its Laws, you aren't random
Why is that ? Can't laws be random too ? What fundamental goal do they have ?

>Randomness must exist at a fundamental level, otherwise it isn't.
Quantum cosmology seems pretty random to me, same with the bigbang... Do you want to segway this into why a universe requires God ?

>>17752675
Sure it can
It is within the Laws that the Holy Spirit can intervene

The same applies to the Malovelent ones

>>17752657
>Randomness must exist at a fundamental level
What do you think is the difference between randomness existing, and randomness existing at a fundamental level? Genuine question

>>17752678
when you reach the outer limits of linguistic argument about God, this is literally true btw

>>17752703
maybe there are no laws, and it's ALL intervention all the time

>>17752703
>unbreakable law got an exception where someone may break it

>>17752666
>>17752682
>>17752692
Existence of unbreakable Laws implies the existence of a Lawmaker
Lawmaker implies Will
Will implies Intelligence

It's really just that simple but you will never accept that fact

You can witness a man rising from the grave, and you'll still say that God is not real
And that's your problem

Physics is matter and energy.
God is morality and choice.
Together they make up the nature of reality as we see and experience it. I don't find them mutually exclusive at all.

I don't think God is some kind of entity with a personality and will. I think it's a personification of morality. The concept of right and wrong as a character. I don't believe in the bearded man in the sky, but I believe in what he represents.

>>17752715
>Existence of unbreakable Laws implies the existence of a Lawmaker
Nope, it implies the creation of laws. Laws don't have to be created by a lawmaker. In the case of physics, it just implies its creation, amounting to the creation of the universe

>Lawmaker implies Will
What will did the Big Bang have ? What will did quantum cosmology have ?

Why horse around and give vague answers ? Either make this coherent or admit you don't have an argument

Belief in God is belief in humanity. That which created civilization, is highly moral, has ultimate authority, and is the template from which we are all mere images. God vouchsafed your birth and takes care of you after death. God is human.
>>17752715
they're not unbreakable, they're not even real laws. They're just interpretations of natural phenomena from our perspective . . . like God.

>>17752715
>You can witness a man rising from the grave, and you'll still say that God is not real
Why you keep lying about this?
I already told you I'm gullible as fuck, and would be a Christian the moment I saw even a pathetic miracle

>>17752714
Yes, the difference is "Authority"

No civilian is allowed to enter the authorized zones
But come and say that you are with the leader, and you were granted permission to enter, and you may do so.

Jesus said it outright that he is sharing his glory with all who believe in him

Unfortunately, the devil believes in him, too!

Existence of shoes implies the existence of a shoemaker
Existence of mold implies the existence of a moldmaker
Existence of ocean implies the existence of an oceanmaker

Mold implies fungi, oceans implies wet, shoes implies feet

WET FEET FUNGAL INFECTION

>>17752734
Don't call it unbreakable then

>>17752735
those are all just pathetic little words though, most of humanity wouldn't understand them far less stone & water

>>17752738
It is. If you are purely flesh

>>17752739
>those are all just pathetic little words
you're so close to getting it

>>17752735
Everything implies everything else without enough steps. It's like the WikiHitler game.

>>17752734
Why do you keep avoiding replies ? Can't you defend your argument ? Cmon...

>>17752742
Oh yeah? I'm going to swing a pendulum in your direction and it won't swing back.

\
\
..0

see? atheists BTFO!

>>17752742
Except if you're Pharaoh's high priests

besides, you don't believe people are pure flesh - you believe in souls

>>17752746
with* enough steps. I'm sleepy. Sleep implies bed.

>>17752743
We use catch-all terms for things that are indescribable. I've been saying it all thread, you're the one who's blind.

>>17752750
Souls can reject their divinity and thus reject the authority that the Lord wants us to have

>>17752758
Why do you turn away from every argument ? I understand that you rely on faith for your belief but at least have the courtesy of saying so from the beginning rather than affirming things without any background or proof.
And if you're baiting, genuinely, why ?

>>17752758
The high priests, though
Turning rods into snakes is not a part of physics

>>17752775
The devil shares his authority with the unbelievers

>>17752781
At least you're consistent.

Imagine believing in humans who can do magic, haha. Satan does it

>>17749283 (OP)
I don't proactively argue religion, but if someone else starts shit I just bring up Epicurean logic. You don't need anything else. They either seethe and out themselves as a brainlet or they start coping immediately and making claims in direct contradiction to the alleged omnipotence of their own deity.

>>17752763
remember when you argue with a christian on /his/, you're probably arguing with this guy https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/17719038
and it's not Christianity's fault or his fault, he's part of some algorithmic dead internet psyop to demoralize Americans.

>>17752804
Suppose I'm an open theist, and don't believe that God know people's free choices, etc. There's no such thing as omniscience in that sense, it's just people have confused themselves into thinking there is.
>then why call him god?
Because he's really really really powerful, made the word and loves us

>>17752821
So he’s not omnipotent.

>>17752821
>There's no such thing as omniscience in that sense
Then you've stripped him of divinity and the argument is no longer a theistic one, but a hypothetical discussion of extra terrestrials. Do you think the reason he hasn't shown himself to mankind or made any efforts to prove himself is because, being a nondivine, fallible mortal (but very very powerful relative to us), perhaps he died?

>>17752351
Well, I just reject your hypothesis. How would something's subjectivity make it unreal? Every experience is subjective. Everything known to exist exists as experienced through our subjective experience machine in some form or other. Cars, even mathematics and trains, even if the underlying logic is abstract and at some level unchangeable. What exists might not all be subjective, but objectively it is subjective when experienced. This might not have anything to do with the topic of the thread but I think what you said is wrong.

>>17752814
shut it down!

>>17749283 (OP)
If god were real, he wouldn't have allowed Russia to exist.

>>17749861
>Not a single taste of theology
>FUCKING CHRISTIANS AND THEIR STUPID FUCKING TALKING POINTS!!!!!
Atheists are rabid

>>17752763
Have people not figured out yet that online christians are almost entirely paid shills and bots? Of course they argue in bad faith and ignore any point you try to convey. Christians are mindless cultists, they would still act in practically the same way even if they were genuine. The subversive jewish political movement that is their communistic reinterpretation of abrahamic theology must be forwarded no matter what, it's what their investors paid for. Theyre just lying whores, it's that simple. The internet is filled to the brim with every variety of these scumbags

>>17749290
>Atheists uphold the belief that everything was born out of chaos, and everything was purely by chance
No we just don't beleave that God is the answer.

>>17755715
If it isn't by chance, then it is by intention by a conscious, almighty being - aka God

>>17757154
This does not follow. You get an F!

>>17755715
A blind man says he doesn't believe that the sun is the cause of the heat.