>Ancient books said it, so it's le true!

>>17760997 (OP)
Regular reminder that Chud Anon is a brown Filipino who RPs as a white supremacists because black children stole his rice bowl

>>17761000
Yeah, I'm thinking he's back.

>>17760997 (OP)
>worshipping anything external to oneself
Lmao

>>17760997 (OP)
Even as a polytheist I find this argument weak. You know there were a lot of "ancient books" written about the Gods plural across various cultures for thousands of years before Judaism itself was even invented, right?

>wow mainstream archeology can document the growth of monotheism out of middle eastern goat herders god yahweh
>b-b-but God made man, man didn't make God they aren't stories!
>200 thousand years of homo sapiens evolution pre yahweh
Erm he was just waiting to reveal himself or something! Smdh

>>17760997 (OP)
>I am mentally unable to deduce the possibility of a deity and its attributes

>>17761213
Most historians agree that Jesus Christ was a real person, and Bible itself answers about the Nations and God. If conviction and stories are your argument, why should we believe you when you say that your uncle touched you?

>>17761245
>Most historians agree that Jesus Christ was a real person
Most Christian "historians" maybe, most real historians accept he was more likely a Jewish mythic folk hero

>>17761245
Just because there may or may not have been a Jewish medicine man known as Yeshua 2000 years does not disprove the fact that we can observe the creation of monotheism out of similar stories. Like some Jewish priest may or may not have existed that anointed people with what the primitive people at the time thought were holy miracles. Okay it's just another story. Can I see the material archaelogical evidence for the garden of eden?

>>17761275
Monotheism and the belief in 1 deity can be logically deduced, if you constrain this definbition to a being that is all powerful and all benevolent, it comes out as God. Simply said, nothing would impede this being since if it could, it would be even more powerful. (The ontological argument and free will defense cover the details here).
Miracles itself are a bad a rgument from your side, since they are a reason people are faithful, they believe in them. People arguing deny religion but say that they'd be convinced if a miracle was percieved by them, so why would i in that case just say that you're dellusional if you've percieved it?
As for archeological evidence, the book of Genesis emphasizes spiritual truths above literal interpritations, even though some might say it's fully true, they could also mean it as God subsiding on another plane of reality different to us. Even so if you ask a fundamentalist, they would tell you about the area which it was set in (Mesopotamia) being flooded and destroyed in the last glacial maximum.

>>17761245
Your post is a series of disjointed thoughts. You're just throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks. The absolute state of christfags.

>>17761313
>Monotheism and the belief in 1 deity can be logically deduced

Nope. You're wrong.

>>17761257
Go back to plebbit before i rip your eyes out.
Any source will tell you that in historicity concering Jesus, most scholars, Theist, or not accept Jesus as a historical figure, the question of divinity is divided of course.

>>17761320
>Grrr grr i don't understand the argument in question so i think it's wrong

>>17761335
I notice you didn't show me logically why there's a magic Jewish faggot in the sky.

>>17761340
Well if you're already accepting that there is one, you're probably yearning to meet, good luck there, i'm not a homophobe btw, you do you...

>>17761353
ESL word salad response. Did Mother Mary show up on your taco or something Paco?

>>17761363
Everyone needs their own conviction, and it is up to the individual to accept or reject the grace of the LORD. The reasons for it may be simple, but never meaningless.

>>17761386
>Monotheism and the belief in 1 deity can be logically deduced

This was the claim. Back it up.

>>17761327
Bullshit

>>17761394
As i've mentioned before, ontological argument delves deeper into this. To sum it up, you can think of a being that is eternal, all powerful, all knowing and all benevolent. Anything more powerful, more knowing, or more good would replace it, so it could be imagined as limes in math if you will. If all of these values could be quantified it could always approach the one to God, but God would be the limit of it. Hence, if there were multiple gods, they would not be all powerful, and something would've been needed to create them, chaining a line back to something else more powerful. What you're essentially doing is asking if we constrain this being to a definition, and then examining how people see a deity and if it applies to this definition. Nothing exists to prevent this being from existing (other than the illogical, as nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God, since it's not reality; we can't percieve it). If you take your time to classify other metaphyiscal phenomena like evil, suffering and free will, like many religions did, this being would still not break the definition which we've constrained it to. (Hence, if there is something - it's a single deity.) So now that we've deduced that this being can exist, we can ask ourself it if does. The last part of this is dependent upon personal conviction and religion, as theists accept it while others don't.

As opposed to
"My ancestors said it, so it's true "?
That's literally what paganism is.

>>17761452
>To sum it up, you can think of a being that is eternal, all powerful, all knowing and all benevolent.

No such being exists.

>Anything more powerful, more knowing, or more good would replace it

No such beings exist.

>God would be the limit of it.

No such being exists.

>Nothing exists to prevent this being from existing

Nothing exists to bring such a being into existence. Monotheists can not state from whence their creator came.

>>17761457
The pagan gods are flawed and not omnipowerful, so their existence is far more plausible

>>17761465
The burden of proof is now yours since you're making the claim that it doesn't (or can't) exist, so bring empirical, or at least logical evidence. Asking what created God and whether God exists is 2 different arguments, you cannot state a different one since you'd first have to accept the first answer first.

>>17761483
>Monotheism and the belief in 1 deity can be logically deduced

You still haven't demonstrated this logically.

>>17761483
God cannot exist because omnipotence is a self contradictory property as established by the omnipotence paradox.

>>17760997 (OP)
Imagine believing in any man made religion