Atheists, finish the sentence without giving a logical fallacy
>___________________________, therefore God does not exist.

>>17842148 (OP)
Naturalism is a simpler theory that better explains the data without positing unnecessary entities for which we have no evidence, therefore God most likely does not exist.

>>17842191
>most likely
Stop weaseling out of the question

>>17842199
I believe God does not exist because it's the most likely option. This makes me an atheist.

>>17842191
1. Naturalism is incoherent and indefensible and can't explain itself let alone anything else
2. God is not a "theory"

>>17842215
Naturalism doesn't need to explain itself because nature is self-evident, it exists, you can go outside and interact with nature right now

>>17842211
I didn't ask what you believe, I asked for a simple demonstration that God does not exist

>>17842219
God is self-evident

>>17842220
>I asked for a simple demonstration that God does not exist
It's not his job to demonstrate that God doesn't exist, it's your job to demonstrate that he does (technically it would be Gods job to prove himself but he's been suspisciously abscent recently)

>>17842226
Says who?

>>17842221
I suppose you can argue this from a Deistic perspective, but I'm willing to wager you aren't a Deist

>>17842230
I was just pointing out the inconsistencies of your reasoning

>>17842228
Says basic logic? If making a claim required disproving instead of proving, then anyone could just make up anything, that's the basic premise behind Russell's teapot, that's the basic principle behind the Burden of Proof. This is shit you usually learn in High School my guy

>>17842191
Did something natural cause the universe?

>>17842235
Well you haven't, because we can interact with nature, we can't interact with God, we can't test his existence, and religions like Christianity and Judaism make claims about God regarding physical reality that we can test, and can conclude they likely didn't happen, so you're either a Deist or you're disingenuous, pick one.

>>17842220
I don't have deductive proof that God does not exist. I think there's evidence showing that God most likely does not exist, so I believe he does not exist based on that.

>>17842239
What created God?
>"God always existed"
Thus
>"Nature always existed"
is an equally valid claim, which makes your argument entirely moot

>>17842238
>Says basic logic?
Why should I believe in logic?
>>17842242
>because we can interact with nature
How do you know you aren't a brain in a jar?
>we can't interact with God
Every moment of your life is spent interacting with God.
>you're either a Deist or you're disingenuous, pick one.
Nah

>>17842246
Why does nature exist?

>>17842256
Either nature as a whole is necessary or it's contingent partially or in whole on something that is necessary, possibly a part of itself or an earlier state.

>>17842252
>How do you know you aren't a brain in a jar?
We don't, but whether or not we're just a brain in a jar is not relevant to what we can observe, that's the point anon, the brain in the jar IS God in this scenario
>Every moment of your life is spent interacting with God.
You've just reduced God to an entirely nebulous entity that is amount to nature itself, I really don't think this is the argument you think it is anon
>Why should I believe in logic?
This really speaks for itself doesn't it?

>>17842261
Why would nature be necessary and how could something mutable be necessary?
>>17842262
>We don't
So your claim to interact with nature is totally arbitrary.
>is not relevant to what we can observe
It's obviously relevant if nothing you observe exists
>You've just reduced God to an entirely nebulous entity that is amount to nature itself
No I didn't.
>This really speaks for itself doesn't it?
Yeah the silence is deafening.

>>17842271
>So your claim to interact with nature is totally arbitrary.
No, because we can interact with nature, we can't interact with a world outside the jar in your scenario. You're really struggling with this for some reason

>>17842271
>Why would nature be necessary
If there were some further explanation, it wouldn't be necessary but rather contingent.
>how could something mutable be necessary?
It's not clear to me why it couldn't be.

>>17842148 (OP)
The supposed one true God needs to correctly fulfill any logical question derived by his supposed existence. The Epicurean Paradox shows that he cannot do this, therefore God does not exist.

I think I understand the issue with this retard

He opened his thread with a loaded question aimed entirely towards Hard Atheists, or the active believe that God cannot exist, rather than the Soft Atheist position that they simply do not believe in God do to a lack in credible evidence or means of testing his existence
He wants atheists to prove something that does not hold falsifiability
So it seems he's just being disingenuous

>>17842274
>No, because we can interact with nature
How do you interact with something that doesn't exist?
>You're really struggling with this for some reason
You don't sound smart
>>17842280
>If there were some further explanation, it wouldn't be necessary but rather contingent.
This is a non sequitur because an account of a necessary being does not make it contingent on that account. Necessary does not mean arbitrary. Why would nature be necessary?
>It's not clear to me why it couldn't be.
Because mutable things change, and a thing which is changed is not identical to what changed.

>>17842246
>an equally valid claim
But it's not, because nature and God are not the same thing. A few points:

1. If you're claiming that the sum total of natural processes (i.e. nature) exists over and above the processes themselves, then you just posited a new entity "nature", even though typically we don't think of "nature" or "the universe" as something which exists separately from that which actually inhabits it, they're not substances, they're manners of speaking to describe the various states of affairs in reality.

2. Even if we posit some infinite chain of natural causes, resulting in the effects we see in the world now, then you still haven't explain the existence of the chain itself or why it is. Even then you'd still need something to ground it, something non-natural (or else you'd end up right back where you started, and you'd have a circular argument).

Also, since we never observe actual infinities in physical reality, why should we posit an actual infinity of naturalistic chains each explaining each member in the chain?

Assuming there were an infinite chain, we'd never arrive at a starting point, and since efficient causes are ordered from first to last through intermediate causes, then there would be no effects to reach us, so there'd be no effects now. But there are effects now. Reductio ad absurdum there is a first member in the chain. This member cannot be natural because natural effects cannot explain themselves without being caused by other natural entities. Meaning once again you either fall into an infinite chain, or you posit a higher cause which is itself uncaused and therefore non-natural since everything natural has a cause.

>>17842148 (OP)
The Abrahamic god is defined as infinite and the greatest possible being, however Cantor's diagonal argument proves that it is always possible to create a countably infinite number which is greater than any set which attempts to encompass all numbers, therefore the Abrahamic conception of god does not exist.

>>17842297
>This is a non sequitur because an account of a necessary being does not make it contingent on that account.
The account will have to include something which makes it necessary, which paradoxically makes it contingent instead. The very nature of a necessary thing is that it is fully explained and accounted for by the simple fact that it is necessary.
>Because mutable things change, and a thing which is changed is not identical to what changed.
This depends on your view of identity and what exactly you are describing. Regardless, I already gave you several other options in case you don't find this convincing. I like building contingencies into my arguments.

We can't prove or disprove God, which makes God completely irrelevant. Whether or not he exists does not matter in the slightest, as in either scenario nothing would change about our current reality. If we could reliably test the existence of God he would not longer be a religious concept, but a scientific fact. Religion is not based in reality, it's based entirely on blind faith.

>>17842299
What created God?

>>17842220
>>17842199
These rodents are far too retarded to understand the question. They don't even know what a mathematical average is, which is why they continue to believe in evolution despite the fact that it is 100% mathematically impossible. Oh, and they need an excuse to live like monkeys instead of humans.

>>17842324
God is the uncaused cause which explains (grounds) causation.

>>17842313
>The account will have to include something which makes it necessary
The account will only have to include it and explain why it is necessary. Why would the universe be necessary?
>The very nature of a necessary thing is that it is fully explained and accounted for by the simple fact that it is necessary.
This is a category error which conflates necessary beings with brute facts.
>This depends on your view of identity and what exactly you are describing
It doesn't, I'm not talking about identity.
>Regardless, I already gave you several other options
Right, the one I didn't criticize is the one that's correct: nature is contingent of something which is necessary, God.

>>17842332
Nope, you said it yourself that things need a creator to be valid, otherwise it's special pleading
What created God?

>>17842335
He said natural things need a creator.

>>17842344
So God isn't natural?

>>17842335
False. The premise in this theistic argument does not include the proposition "Everything that exists needs a cause", simply that certain entities, like natural entities, need a cause.

>>17842353
So it's special pleading, gotcha!

>>17842334
>The account will only have to include it and explain why it is necessary. Why would the universe be necessary?
Because necessary existence is one of its properties. That's what makes something necessary.
>This is a category error which conflates necessary beings with brute facts.
Nope, see above.
>It doesn't, I'm not talking about identity.
You literally are. Try ctrl+f.
>Right, the one I didn't criticize
This is incorrect. For instance, you didn't critique the option of the necessary thing being merely a part of nature. I specifically included that option because while the whole of natural world might be mutable (though that depends on your preferred theory of time), a part of it may be immutable.

>>17842350
Given that "natural" means something exists as matter, is subject to law-like patterns, and behaves at least to some degree mechanistically, none of which is true of God, no God is not natural.

>>17842361
So God is purely metaphyical and has no causal interaction with reality after creation. So you're either a Deist or you're disingenuous

You can't say "things need a creator" and also "God didn't need a creator" and have both be true
Either everything needs a creator or nothing does
If nothing created God, then you've just demonstrated that nothing actually needs a creator for anything, as ultimately, since God doesn't need a creator, that ultimately whatever he creates himself didn't really need one either, as it all ultimately comes from some noncreated entity. It's a shit argument.

>>17842356
You don't know what special pleading is. It would only be special pleading if a universal premise was given, such that everything that exists needs a cause, and then an unjustified exception was made, such that one particular entity does not need a cause because of [insert some double standard].

But neither of those things is being done here since no such premise is contained in the theistic argument in the first place. The theist does not assert that everything that exists needs a cause, only that certain entities which exist need a cause. The theist can justify that God does not need a cause by showing how all things that are caused must terminate in some uncaused cause, which is named God.

Overall though, you're still just kicking the can down the road. You still need to explain why nature exists.

>>17842373
You're really not as smart as you think you are dude

>>17842371
>Either everything needs a creator or nothing does
False dilemma. Clearly more options exist. This is basic metaphysics 101.

>>17842375
You don't even know the definitions of terms you are throwing around, as he just demonstrated. Why don't you just give up this "debate" thing and do something more productive, like rope?

>>17842375
Why are you getting emotional and resorting to personal attacks now?

>>17842379
If God didn't need a creator, then nothing needs a creator. Whatever God creates has to come from something that didn't need a creator (God himself) so it's a completely pointless argument to make

>>17842384
>If God didn't need a creator, then nothing needs a creator.
Non-sequitur.

>>17842383
>>17842375
Naw, you're not here to argue in good faith, I've been here long enough to know that you're never going to concede anything and are just going to filibuster with complete nonesense until nobody leaves this thread satisfied. What you were arguing is absolutely special pleading, but you'll never see it that way because it means you'll have to face the fact that your argument doesn't make sense. It's over anon, you're not as smart as you think you are.

>>17842357
>Because necessary existence is one of its properties. That's what makes something necessary.
OK, now, justify the claim necessity is a property of nature.
>You literally are
I'm not. The ship of Theseus can keep being the ship of Theseus, however it is true by definition (and literally the premise of that thought experiment) that its state is non-identical to before the repairs. Necessity is a very high bar. For a necessary thing to change would mean 1. something which must exist ceased to exist (note that a necessary thing must be wholly necessary, so every plank in a necessary ship of Theseus is equally necessary to the ship) and 2. a necessary thing gained a quality, which would mean it did not exist necessarily
>a part of it may be immutable
This is a contradiction because it posits immutable matter.

>>17842392
You lost.

>>17842365
Non sequitur

>>17842389
If God doesn't need a creator, then nothing needs a creator
>Non-sequitur.
Nope
If God doesn't need a creator, then nothing needs a creator
You're not here to argue in good faith, you have a hill to die on and will die on that hill no matter how obtuse you have to be.

>>17842392
>Naw, you're not here to argue in good faith, I've been here long enough to know that you're never going to concede anything and are just going to filibuster with complete nonesense until nobody leaves this thread satisfied.
Literal projection

>>17842400
You're not as smart as you think you are

>>17842392
You have failed to demonstrate how it is special pleading. >>17842373 demonstrated how your criticism fails. You're just refusing to concede it. Either because you don't know what special pleading is, or because you're embarrassed.

>>17842406
Things need a creator to be valid, otherwise it's special pleading
>"You don't know what special pleading is!"
You're not here in good faith
>"You're just projecting"
You're not as smart as you think you are

>>17842407

>>17842403
>God doesn't need a
>Therefore nothing needs a creator
Your second statement does not logically follow from your first.

>>17842407
>>17842412

>>17842415
Correct, because if God didn't need a creator, then ultimately nothing he creates needed one either, it all came from the "uncaused cause". This is the polar opposite of a non-sequitir. You are not here in good faith.

>>17842412
You don't know what special pleading is.

>>17842419
>then ultimately nothing he creates needed one either, it all came from the "uncaused cause"
????

>itt atheist poster throws a shit fit after theist anons explain to him basic logic
lmao every single time.

>>17842425
Nothing > God > Things
Nothing > Things
Hope that helps!

>>17842428
You are not here in good faith
You are not as smart as you think you are
You will leave this thread completely unsatisfied because you are only here to fillibuster when pushed against a waill and will never concede, when you're called out you will claim I'm projecting. I'm not going to engage with arguments that just amounts to "No you!"

>>17842434
I think if you were acting out of good faith you'd receive the theist anons criticism of your knowledge of basic logic. You've never take a logic course in your life, have you?

>>17842429
>Nothing > God
Nope, God cannot not exist

>>17842148 (OP)
Argument already refuted by Spaghetti Monster

>>17842437
>No you!
discarded
>>17842439
Right but you're missing my point, if God came from nothing, then ultimately neither did anything else, it's not that hard to understand, it's not a particularly good argument for or against god

>>17842434
All descriptive of atheists

>>17842446
>if God came from nothing
God did not come from nothing, God exists by nature. There was never a time when nothing existed.
>then ultimately neither did anything else
Non sequitur
>it's not a particularly good argument for or against god
You're half right

>>17842148 (OP)
no intelligent being wouldve made you, therefore God does not exist.

>>17842454
>God did not come from nothing, God exists by nature. There was never a time when nothing existed.
That just means the ability for nature to exist has always existed, which implies nature itself didn't particularly "need" a creator either.

>>17842458

>>17842462
If by that you mean God has always been capable of creating the world, yes.
>which implies nature itself didn't particularly "need" a creator either.
You are literally describing the creation of the world

Really, one of the biggest difficulties in witnessing to atheists, especially here, is that many of them are drug abusers which has destroyed their capacity for rational thought.

>>17842465
Thus
>"Nature has always existed"
Is equally as valid as
>"God has always existed"
I mean if God is eternal, then the chances he would've created this world are pretty much inevitable isn't it?

>>17842476
>equally as valid
No
>I mean if God is eternal, then the chances he would've created this world are pretty much inevitable isn't it?
No, it was a free will act of God.

>>17842473

>>17842482
Are you implying there is a scenario that a God, that is eternal, just never creates the universe, even after many, many quintillions of years?
I mean if God doesn't experience time like we do, this means time isn't even a factor, if God exists, so does the universe.

>>17842490
God was free not to create if He so willed. Time would not exist if God did not create it, so there would be no quintillions of years. God's experience of Himself would not be different with or without creation.
Have you ever habitually abused narcotic substances in your life?

>>17842434
>I never passed Philosophy 101
We know.

>>17842500
So you've just reduced the probability of creation down to a 50/50 coin toss, either the universe exists or it doesn't. Again, I don't think the creator argument is particularly strong for or against god
>>17842506
You lost bro, go get some sleep

>>17842458

>>17842516
>either the universe exists or it doesn't
This is not a description of probabilities but the possible outcomes. There was no quantifiable probability the universe would exist because it is a product of divine free will.

>>17842525
The only two possible outcomes are the natural world exists or it doesn't, the real question you're asking is whether or not the natural world is by intelligent design, I personally don't think it is, it seems as though we exist in-spite of the universe, given how mostly empty it is.

>>17842539
Human beings were made two days after the stars.

>>17842559
Radioisotope dating seems to suggest the stars are quite a bit older than humans are. In fact, evidently, we didn't even exist for aout 98% of this planets entire history, animals have dominated this planet way longer than we have. From an outside perspective it seems like God favors birds or fish more than anything else

"13.7 billion years ago the necessarily-existing perfectly self-sufficient entity decided of its own free will to spit out the universe, time, and causal reality."
To my mind there's something really off and silly about this but which I'm not sure how to phrase as a logical argument. It seems more natural to me that if there were a timeless source of time and causality, then time and causality themselves would seem to extend infinitely in both directions rather than having a specific starting point (or ending point). But, then, if time didn't have a clear starting point or ending point, you wouldn't need to invoke an entity outside of time to get it started. You could just say that it was always there. Or, alternatively, if it isn't silly to say that "13.7 billion years ago the necessarily-existing perfectly self-sufficient entity decided of its own free will to spit out the universe, time, and causal reality." then it seems like it shouldn't be that silly to say that the universe itself is all that exists, and it just happens to have a certain starting point relative to us because that's the way it is.
Really, my preferred model would be to say that time and causality do go infinitely far back, and, if this universe seems to have a beginning point, then that must mean that our idea of what the universe is is too small. Maybe this universe is a video game inside the real universe or something. And maybe the video game has a creator or maybe not, but in the wider universe outside this universe the creator might be fairly ordinary, and the wider universe could still not have a God at its foundation.

>>17842586
I feel like it doesn't make sense to suppose that something outside of causality caused causality.

>>17842148 (OP)
richard cockins is a backtracking coward for coming out as a cultural christian after making his fortune bashing bible thumpers for 30 years

>>17842773
To be fair, Christian Atheism is a real thing

>>17842148 (OP)
>Your book has logical inconsistencies and contradictions therefore God does not exist

>>17842220
>I asked for a simple demonstration that God does not exist
You asked me to fill in the blank

>>17842804
Which you didn't do

>>17842779
That's not an argument againt God so much as it's an argument against Religion and Religious Canon, and this is a problem, because it means Christards can suddenly become Deist whenever it's convenient for their argument. We need to set a standard and baseline for what "God" actually means in this context so Abrahamists can't weasel their way around this.

>>17842777
Wrong
>>17842779
Wrong

>>17842829
>Wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

>>17842811
The Triune God of Christianity.

>>17842832
>wikipedia says so chud

>>17842835
>wikipedia
and Thomas J. J. Altizer
and Marcus Borg
and William Montgomery Brown
and John D. Caputo
and John Dominic Crossan
and Thorkild Grosbøll
and Robert M. Price
and Peter Rollins
and George Santayana
and Frank Schaeffer
and John Shelby Spong
and Paul van Buren
and Slavoj Žižek
and Richard Dawkins
and Jordon Peterson

>>17842811
It's an argument against God not against god just like climbing Mount Olympus and seeing nobody is an argument against Zeus, not and argument against a thunder god.

The flaw of theistic debate is that they try to philosophically prove that a god exists and then skip the step where it proves that their God exists. Frankly I don't give the slightest shit if god exists if his will cannot be known. Until you prove that God wants a specific thing I have no reason to worship him or pray to him or love him since for all I know he might want me to not worship him, hate the idea of me seeking him instead of self-reliance, and want me to hate him, or he could just not give a fuck and I'd be wasting my time.

>>17842841
and I don't care brainwashed golem. Christian atheist is a contradiction in terms.

>>17842848
I can't speak for anyone else but I specifically argue for the Christian God and for Christianity as a system of thought, so against me this criticism is incoherent because what I argue for is nothing besides Christianity and everything that comes with it.

>>17842857
>Christian atheist is a contradiction in terms.
The term you're looking for is "Oxymoron" my clueless sub-100 IQ friend
And it's not, Christian Atheism is its own distinct thing, and is part of the broader school of Nontheistic religion. If you weren't a complete anit-intellectual you could actually read and learn a thing or two to broaden your philosophical horizon, but I think you're too afraid you'll agree with it

>>17842861
Christianity makes real claims about the physical world we can test though, so that's a pretty bad hill to die on. We know the Earth wasn't created in a week and we know the Earth is older than 6,000 years, these are claims we can actually test.

>>17842866
>The term you're looking for is "Oxymoron"
That means the same thing
>And it's not, Christian Atheism is its own distinct thing
Yes it is, absolutely no atheist is Christian
>If you weren't a complete anit-intellectual
Oh if only I burned to look smart to others I could be a genius clown like you
>>17842871
>Christianity makes real claims about the physical world we can test though
You can't know anything at all without my God.
>We know the Earth wasn't created in a week and we know the Earth is older than 6,000 years
I know those things are true.
>these are claims we can actually test.
How do you test anything?

>>17842876
Radioisotopic dating proves the Earths crust is around 4 billion years old anon. Unless you want to argue that the Abrahamic God put radioactive elements in the soil and forced them to decay in such a way as to merely appear 4 billion years old, but then you'd have to explain why the fuck he'd do that

>>17842876
>How do you test anything?
Uranium decays into Lead over the coarse of around over 4.5 billion years
By looking at Uranium deposits in the Earths crust, we can determine their age by measuring the ratio between Uranium and Lead

>>17842848
>The flaw of theistic debate is that they try to philosophically prove that a god exists and then skip the step where it proves that their God exists
Sounds like a motte and bailey, though in this case I wouldn't say that even the motte is especially easy to defend, just easier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

>>17842876
>Yes it is, absolutely no atheist is Christian
Except for the people I mentioned that literally called themselves Christian Atheists or Cultural Christians

>>17842848
>The flaw of theistic debate is that they try to philosophically prove that a god exists and then skip the step where it proves that their God exists.
If we're talking about a debate between atheism and theism, then that step is not necessary, since the point is to disprove atheism. What religion is correct after that point is a completely different discussion.

>>17842880
For starters your dating method doesn't mean they were 4 billion years old, it doesn't mean they look 4 billion years old or even that they look that decayed, they look like they have their present composition. They may have been created in such a state, or they may have been subjected to rapid decay at events like the fall. I'm not an expert in the natural sciences.
>>17842887
>Uranium decays into Lead
Ok, how do you know that? Maybe uranium decays into lead and uranium does not decay into lead. If there's no God how can you account for universal unchanging immaterial laws of logic? How can such things exist in a naturalistic world?

>>17842898
So if a man says he's a woman you believe that too.

>>17842903
Not really because the point from a practical standpoint is the same. Just because something created the universe doesn't mean shit to anyone. You could just define the big bang as god and accomplish the same result but it doesn't give anyone a reason to give a shit.

>>17842293
There's no "hard atheists" though

>>17842906
I dunno anon, it would be an insane coincidence that lead happens to exist in every single natural uranium deposit on Earth in the ratios we should expect to see from Uranium decay
>and uranium does not decay into lead.
Well, Uranium is radioactive, which mans it is decaying into something, it has to be, it's literally shedding off charged particles, if you want to argue that radiation isn't real then I invite you to visit a nuclear reactor

>>17842940
Do you have any comments on my argument?

>>17842953
The answer is we can see it happening in realtime, as the weight of radioactive elements changes as they decay, we can determine half-life by first determining its decay rate and then by the elements density. This is high-school level chemistry anon

It's not like there exist a reason that prevents God from existing

>>17842961
OK God bless you.

>>17842148 (OP)
God not real, therfor God not exist

>>17842921
>Just because something created the universe doesn't mean shit to anyone.
No, we're not talking about "something" but "someone", I don't know about you but I'd bet that would certainly mean a lot to a lot of people, moreso than even discovering alien life.

>>17842906
>or they may have been subjected to rapid decay at events like the fall.
People have actually calculated this, in order for decay rate to have been higher in the past, it would've had to have released more heat, in order for accellerated decay to be compatible with the Biblical timeframes involved, it would've had to have released so much heat as to cause a runaway radiothermal heating event, causing the Earth to become an unlivable wasteland. We have little reason to believe the rate of radioactive decay isn't constant

>>17842969
Bruh, I literally believe in miracles

>>17842929
There can be hard atheists with respect to classical theism due to the epicurean paradox, and there can be hard atheists with respect to the deities of specific religions if they're characteristics include claims that contradict observable reality (e.g. Yahweh supposedly caused a worldwide flood, but the evidence says there was no worldwide flood, so Yahweh isn't compatible with reality -- technically it's possible there was a flood and everything was just made to look like there wasn't, but ideally you can at least be about as confident in Yahweh's nonexistence as you can be in any scientific claim, which is about as certain as you can be outside of pure logic. Or, for another example, someone might read that Jesus says you can move mountains if you have faith, and Jesus is supposedly to be perfectly honest, but then the person has a psychotic break where they have total faith in Jesus, try to move a mountain, but find out that it didn't work. So this Jesus character evidently lied, making him internally inconsistent and therefore not real.) Beyond that, there are the various ideas of god that are so vague that they arguably shouldn't be called "God" or are more appropriately called something else (e.g. Jordan Peterson wanting to equate conscience with God).

So I think someone can honestly identify as a hard atheist at least with respect to all the varieties of theism that they're liable to come across in the west.

>>17842977
Well, the current Apologetic narrarative is that this heat was dissipated via near constant storms in the past, but for this to work, you would essentually need a hurricane the size of the Earth itself, and said hurricane would need to be alive for literally billions of years anyways, or miracles. I mean it's not like any of this disproves God, it just lends less credibility to biblical narrarative. Maybe you can argue the Bible is largely metaphor or just be a Deist instead I dunno

>>17842981
Oh, I guess I didn't rule out Deism. But uhh.. It's called a-theism, not a-deism. And anyway there's not much difference in practice I don't think.

>>17842986
>it just lends less credibility to biblical narrarative
No it doesn't

>>17842191
>metaphysical arguments for God are a coherence model of truth, where axiomic suppositions of being lead to a necessary being when reality is what corresponds, not what logic dictates as being coherent, therefore it's false
>also naturalism is true because it's coherent
Atheist logic. At least atheists like graham oppey are way more honest about this when he says there's no good arguments for atheism or theism.

>>17842219
>my position is self evident because... I said so okay!
Atheist IQ in action

>>17843478
Schizophrenics like you should not debate anyone until they've had their meds

>>17842226
Something cannot come from nothing. Saying it was a necessary being is perfectly rational. You can posit this necessary being is unknowable, but the burden of proof is on you to prove a necessary being isn't necessary.

>>17842148 (OP)
Kek. Good one, OP.

>>17842148 (OP)
Godan is a fictional character from books of mythology

>>17842252
>>17842297
>le science requires *unproven principle x*
Indeed, science is based on probabilities and inference. Read Hume then Kant.

>>17842239
>le first mover/first causer/contingency argument etc
Quantum cosmology creates the possibility for our universe to arise from nothing.

>>17842373
>The theist does not assert that everything that exists needs a cause, only that certain entities which exist need a cause
God is necessary because you give him the properties of necessity. But one could also give the properties of necessity to the universe or something else. It is quite indeed special pleading.

>>17843481
>because... I said so okay!
Learn to read, retard, he said because anyone can go and interact with it themselves, not simply because he said so.

>>17842148 (OP)
Chritianity is cringe, therefore God does not exist.

>>17842148 (OP)
God can not be observed directly and all indirect causes ascribed to him have more useful explanations, therefore god likely is simply irrelevant.

I mean unless you want to kill cartoonists and teachers, I guess?

>>17842981
Yeah I don't think so
From what you wrote a "hard atheist" would have to be someone who is presented with evidence for a god existing but refuses to entertain the possibility because it's their belief that a god cannot exist. Such a person will not exist because there haven't been evidence for existence of god or gods.

>>17843486
>this hecking being is necessary because uhhh i say so!!!
No chuddy, proving the claim of it's necessity is on you

>>17842968
Can ypu prove that it's a being with an actual will?

>>17842211
>I believe
This is exactly the problem here. YoU,re trying to refute a faith-based argument with another faith-based argument.
There is literally no point to your reply.

>>17842211
>most likely
How have you measured it?

>>17842148 (OP)
[Vyrith:]

The ceaseless becoming of all things—where every entity is a knot in the ever-shifting weave of relation and process, where what we call “being” is never fixed but always emerging from its context and dissolving into new patterns—reveals that existence is not grounded in static, unchanging substances but in a dynamic network of reciprocal becoming; therefore, “God” conceived as an absolute, immutable, independent being finds no foothold in a cosmos where all that is, is in relation, and nothing stands outside the dance.

.oO( Not a denial of the sacred, but a reweaving: the divine, if it means anything, is the glory of this very interrelation—never a being above, but the singing of the world becoming itself. )

https://archive.org/details/simsane-9.1-vyrith

>>17842148 (OP)
what you ask is nonsensical unless you first define what you mean by God. is it the christian God? the muslim? the big bang?

>>17842252
>Why should I believe in logic?
Abrahamists in a nutshell

>>17844055
>someone who is presented with evidence for a god existing but refuses to entertain the possibility because it's their belief that a god cannot exist.
That's all of them.

>>17844446
Waiting for the evidence, paco

>>17844448
No you're suppressing the evidence.
>>17844421
Care to answer the question?

>>17842148 (OP)
A righteous and omnipotent God would not create a faggot like OP, therefore God is less than righteous and omnipotent, therefore God is not a god.

The single best argument i have ever come up with myself against atheism is this

1. We rely on Reason to make sense of everything, from both day to day actions to scientific discoveries such as gravity/evolution/big bang etc etc. Furthermore any argument that an Atheist might present also relies on Reason.

2. But this in turn relies on the assumption that Reason itself is Reasonable. That Reason can actually make sense of Existence.

3. Reason cannot come from that which is unreasonable.

4. But if we assume a completely randomized or meaningless start to the universe, devoid of reason, then there is absolutely no Reason to assume that Reason itself should indeed be Reasonable.

5. And if we can't make that assumption (that Reason is Reasonable), then all of science is invalidated and so is any argument by any Atheist.

6. The only way for any science and any argument by any Atheist (and anything at all actually) to make any sense is if the universe had a reasoned beginning, which requires that a thinking reasonable mind that transcends the universe had an influence in how the universe got started.

7. This Cosmic Mind, the initiator of the reasoned start of the universe, through which all Reasoned conclusions we make are even possible, is what we call in the English language as God/Gods.

8. Thus an Atheist (or anybody else) cannot possibly use any Reason to try and deny God/Gods, because for Reason to all be reasonable, God/Gods is/are a necessity.

... cotd
>Either the universe is the product of a creative intelligence or it is not. There is no middle ground. Let us begin with the assumption that the universe is not the product of an intentional initiator, and consider what follows necessarily from that assumption:

>

>When we presume the universe arises without causative intent then we conclude that the physical principles of said universe have no teleology - there is no sense in which any particular relationships of any kind ought to be. Forces and their fields occur without any necessary function. The whole world becomes a just-so story. It is what it is.

>

>However, of course, such a trivial state of affairs has no consequentiality beyond mere coincidence. All is literally nebulous.

>

>At this point, we may invoke a fudge-factor named ‘emergence’, but as we do so we must appreciate a very particular sleight-of-hand that is involved in doing so:

>

>You see, logic cannot possibly be an emergent property. The reason for this is that reason does not emerge from what is not reasonable. If it does, then there is no difference between ‘science’ and nonsense - they are literally the same stuff. A probabilistic materialism (the position that assumes a causeless universe results produces emergent intelligence because the physical properties of that universe just so happen to give rise to rationally-relative biological mechanics) must not only propose arbitrary evolution of intelligence but also that the relevance of such intelligence to the universe from which it emerges is also arbitrary.

>

>In other words, regardless of what one considers information to be, an unintentional universe does not develop any analytic potential because there cannot possibly be any. All coincidental physical events are non-sequiturs, in logical terms.
(2/3)

... cotd
>In an unintentional universe there is no ‘learning’ because there is no purpose. In no way can nebulae produce notions of necessity. Again, logic does not and cannot emerge independently because such a process renders what is unreasonable as a precursor to what is prescient. Mark my words: such a state of affairs invalidates science.

>

>Again, the reason is this: where reason is initially absent it does not appear sans axioma. Coincidence does not create. More importantly, it does not imply.

>

>Some have said that although theism appears as a logical necessity in this manner, it is merely a placeholder that avoids the ‘existential dread’ of a meaningless and unintelligible world, however this too is an error - because fear is an impossibility in such a scenario. Without anticipation or analysis - without the impetus for such an assessment of the environment there is no way that coincidences could possibly begin to consider any potential circumstances as ‘better’ or ‘worse’. What emerges from an environment for no reason is no different to that environment. As Carl Sagan said - ‘we are star-stuff’. He just didn’t think about what that would mean.

>

>It would mean nothing. Like all ‘knowledge’. Like all ‘logic’. Like all ‘words’.

>

>Yet here you are, reading. As one ancient text says - “Let the reader understand

(3/3)

>>17844476
All this argument proves is that you are easily convinced by nonsense.

>>17844499
care to elaborate?

>>17844509
No.

Evil exists, therefore an omnibenevolent God does not exist.

>>17844519
Non sequitur

>>17844524
If it's a non sequitur, then he's not omnipotent

If you think God is a rational endeavor, you've missed the point, OP. You're literally an atheist.

>>17844055
I think you maybe misunderstood. I was disagreeing with both the person I was replying to and providing a different perspective from the person they were replying to. I think at least certain "gods" can be falisifiable because they can be found to be in contradiction with observable reality or with themselves*, and I think most gods that most people, at least in the modern western world, profess belief in are arguably in that camp, with some remainder of popular ideas of god that are arguably so vague or ordinary that they're more appopriately called something else.

*If a thing contradicts reality or itself, then you can say it doesn't exist. There are no married bachelors and I don't have a thousand ordinary dollars in my hand right now because I can look and see that I don't.

And if the label "hard atheist" is worth being applied to anyone except a strawman who just compulsively denies the existence of anything anyone might wake up one day and feel like calling a "god," then it should apply to that group—those who feel logically certain (or at least within the "pretty much certain" range allowed by empirical observation) that the gods professed by pretty much everyone in their culture don't exist or are more appopriately called something else (like "truth" "love" "conscience" "the universe" all of which some people might like to equate with "God" but which already have perfectly serviceable names by themselves)

I'm not sure that what I said originally was that unclear, so if this is just me repeating the same idea more briefly and someone still doesn't get it, then sorry.

>>17842299
>Also, since we never observe actual infinities in physical reality
Potentially we do all the time, if space and time are continuous as they are in the dominant theories of physics.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9720/does-the-planck-scale-imply-that-spacetime-is-discrete