Thread 17911975

I can't think of any ways to disprove God. It seems so obvious now that He exists that it is impossible to think of any argument that works. Almost everything boils down to atheists being upset about "evil" or them creating a non-existent cause for the universe.

>>17911975 (OP)
God is real but he's obviously evil and he's also retarded so he thinks he can say that if you understand that he's evil then you're "an atheist" who "doesn't believe in him". there's definitely no such thing as a "good God". If you define God in some retarded way like "absolute goodness" then obviously he isn't real, only the evil God is real.

>>17911986
That's my point. You simply find His ways repulsive, but you're not an atheist. If more atheists were like you we could have productive discussions, but instead they want to bury their head in the sand.

The world simply exists and is unfathomably large, governed by laws of nature that at some level have to be the way they are. Fine-tuning is explained by the world's unfathomable largeness and the hypothesis that constants can vary from region to region. Minds experiencing qualia simply exist because 1) they're unlikely but can exist (we don't fully understand why yet, and might never) and the world is very very very large. 2)

>>17911996
>God not real because of [unverifiable and unfalsifiable claim]
Try harder.

>>17911998
Not saying he's not real, saying we don't know if he's necessary to explain anything. And by he I mean a universal mind/panentheist sort of God, not the creator as described in the Old Testament.

>>17912000
At the time all you have are the conditions of our world and the observable universe, so clearly He seems necessary. You would need evidence to the contrary or else you risk infinite regress or a nonsensical ex nihilo birth of the material world.

The creator as described in the Old Testament can be discarded as a likely explanation with relative ease just following popular New Atheist arguments.

>>17912003
No ex nihilo, far as I understand, if the world simply exists (sometimes in forms that are devoid of recognizable worldness). Direct evidence is unlikely either way, but sound inferencing and some Bayes is useful. Not saying a Creator is necessarily a bad guess either.

>>17912004
You could hand wave those arguments away by claiming that it was a cultural interpretation of a more profound truth.

>>17912016
Bayesian inference is subjective. You're not dealing with mere probabilities but with actual facts of the world. There is no evidence that there is a part of the universe which is unlike ours. Is it possible? Well, we all know about PUN and its shortcomings, but if you want to go down that road then it implies even our natural laws here are not necessarily constant.

>>17912018
Agree, but we have to work out what God we're referring to. Sky father God from Yahweh/El from El/Yahweh the Canaanite God of thunder? Christ mixed with the God as described by Greeks/Neoplatonists? Einstein God?

>>17912040
It doesn't matter, if anything God is unlike what both the philosophers and prophets have said about Him. What is more interesting is that they seemingly determine truths about God through observing the natural world. It implies that God is knowable only through a symbolic understanding of natural processes.

>>17912027
Comes down to what qualifies as evidence. There's a lot we can be really pretty sure about that's only mathematically known, evidence will either come later or never will. Becomes necessary to carefully Bayes-ize.

>>17912048
Certainly, and I think it's important to decouple the idea of God from the idea of an ethical monotheistic God too. At one point when it comes to maker broader claims we have to deal with probability, but it cannot serve as an actual dogmatic statement, but only an approximation whose contours invite investigation.

>>17911975 (OP)
you can't prove or disprove God because if he does exist it would have to be in a purely metaphysical space that we cannot directly access or test. This means any claims against his existence are equally as valid as claims made for his existence. The point of theism is that it's rooted in faith. If you could reliably test the existence of God, then faith would no longer be required to believe in him, he would no longer be a theistic concept but rather a scientific fact.
Religion itself makes claims about the real world that CAN be tested. It makes the claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Archeological, Paleontological, and radiocarbon dating, all suggest this is a false claim for example. So while God could still be real, it's increasingly unlikely said God is the one of the Abrahamic faiths

>>17912056
Faith in God, in the Old Testament sense, was not necessarily about belief in the metaphysics of divinity, but rather in the character of divinity. Most of the struggles have to do with the promises expressed in the Torah. It's the same thing with Christianity. They say Jesus was vindicated with eternal life, so will everyone who follows him receive the same thing? With respect to what you said about the claims in the scriptures being falsified, I don't disagree and addressed it here already >>17912018

>>17912067
This is getting at where apologists are winning ground most right now, as far as I can tell, on my end too. Faith as psychology over metaphysics etc. There seem to be finely-honed psychological facts contained in scripture (and many other stories, but especially scripture) that are simply good and simply true, if not all good and all true. Want to guarantee they're not all good and true, but I've never properly read the Bible. But it also can obviously be interpretized into a torture device pretty easily. Also saying this from inside a culture that's heavily indebted to Christianity, so maybe I would feel this way. I don't know.

>>17912088
I think the massive success of the Hebrew Bible and its successor books in its impact on societies is a good indicator of it resonating to some extent with natural law. And I would argue that anything good at survival is to some extent aligned with God's laws, which are fundamentally the laws of nature.
>But it also can obviously be interpretized into a torture device pretty easily. Also saying this from inside a culture that's heavily indebted to Christianity, so maybe I would feel this way. I don't know.
No, what you say makes perfect sense, but then again that's because the book is not so much concerned about (You) as it is about society. Ultimately it is all about giving up your power for the greater good, but that you handing this power away leads to a situation where you and your descendants are better off. That powerlessness, however, can feel torturous, especially if you have serious intellectual resistance to what is being said.

>>17912108
Well, I mean torture device ie as used by Enjoy Hell minister guy here. For instance, let's say that the strongest/most convincing scripture-based arguments are essentially his/Westboro-like arguments, and most people aren't "elect," and the "elect" can never really be sure if they really are elect--there without a doubt are a tremendous number of Christians to this day, who are living in abject fear of their own God because they've jacked off or been attracted to men or doubted His existence or what have you. That's just torture. And what's annoying is that it IS rooted in scripture.

>>17912127
Or at least a robust system of scripture interpretation* vs just rooted in scripture. Out of my element obviously because I haven't read what I'm talking about.

>>17912127
Can eat people with OCD alive

>>17911975 (OP)
>It seems so obvious now that He exists
ok, where is He?
it's obvious (not just possible, not just reasonable, OBVIOUS) He exists, right? you should be able to point to Him. show us

>>17911975 (OP)
>I can't think of any ways to disprove God.
You also can't disprove solipsism, doesn't change the fact that it's a pointless idea. Godders are constantly shifting the definition of the thing they supposedly believe in and they eventually reached complete untestability. God is something as nonsensical as Bohm's pilot wave or Everett's many-worlds interpretation. Just a meaningless "what if" that is by definition untestable.

>>17911975 (OP)
By the same argument, if you can't prove the existence of God that somehow prove the opposite, which is just as ridiculous because if one can't prove nor disprove God's existence it would follow he exists and doesn't exists at the same time. Or you could simply say I don't know and withhold judgment.

>>17912539
Maybe pointless from the vantage of doing meaningful science (vs theory), but for people interested in the philosophy (which is arguably pointless, I'll give you that) God, Everett/Bohm, transporters, that's the meat and potatoes of the field going back to Miletus.

>>17912695
Philosophy isn't pointless, neckbeard types treating physicalism like the be all and end all of human thought is how New Atheism collapsed in on itself.

>>17912706
Heard who I think of as an arch-physicalist, Sean Carroll allude to this recently in relation to New Atheism (he's also part of a philosophy department now). New Atheism suffers from rampant "engineer's disease," sort of the attitude I think of coming from people like Lawrence Krauss especially, but from atheists as far as you can see all over the internet, that what constitutes "rational" is somehow self-evident and usually conforms to a Penn Jillette BULLSHIT style of rootin tootin if I can't see it it's not real sort of deal (I'm adding to what Sean said).

>>17912730
Now that I've looked up engineer's disease, I probably misunderstood what he was saying. But the physicist style of tackling the philosophy the saturates their field is rootin tootin and sloppy. There's a lot of barely concealed and unexamined common sense all over New Atheism. Some of which is good.

>>17911975 (OP)
>It seems so obvious now that the magic sky man used by ancient priests to make people pay taxes exists even though no one has ever seen him
Huh? Why? If it was that obvious, you wouldn't find doubt about gods'/God's existence cropping up among educated people throughout history even when it was dangerous to express such ideas.

>>17912730
Carroll literally believes in the many-worlds interpretation.

>>17912741
A lot of atheists hate the idea of God because they don't want to follow rules. They just want to masturbate and do drugs and God gets in the way of that.

>>17912760
Godder admitting that "god" is nothing but a tool used for telling other people what to do. Alas, because god does not exist, it's not a very effective tool; power comes out of the barrel of a gun, hence goddism collapsing whenever it is not violently enforced.

>>17912760
>God gets in the way of that
Not really. Since nothing about God can be firmly established and agreed upon, a God can be as permissive as you want. Some people say God wants you not to masturbate or do drugs, others say he doesn't care. There's not even anything in the Bible against masturbating or using drugs. If only a god would answer questions unambiguously through something other than private revelations.

>>17912768
No, God is not a tool, but the One. The atheists have become so rebellious and defiant to the social order that they still would not accept even the idea of a deistic God because they fear losing ground to theists. You deny God because the idea upsets you. You want to do whatever you want. In the end the "Godders" will always win, because we are guided by reason. We are victorious and will continue to be victorious because we understand how the world truly works. You are the diseased, decadent descendants of the unbelieving. All that you labour for will be the inheritance of those who have righteous faith.

>>17912750
Doesn't invalidate the point about engineer's disease and "naive realism" when it comes to certain physicists/physics popularizers and their attitude toward philosophy and its contents. That there aren't hard empirical tests for certain ideas doesn't mean they should be immediately discarded outside maybe the professional world of experimental science. Probably many examples of this. A fanciful idea explored by philosophers and mathematicians that's later discovered empirically, either because of the whimsical ideas themselves or on accident. Now is there a "point" to them? I don't know. Many ideas are not of any utility as tools for engineers.

>>17912780
>The atheists have become so rebellious and defiant to the social order
Atheists are a lower % of the prison population in basically every country.
>not accept even the idea of a deistic God
Because it's a silly thought experiment at best.
>You deny God because the idea upsets you
I am indifferent to the idea, but I am indeed displeased by godders godding around.
>we are guided by reason
It is not reasonable to believe in the unreal.
>we understand how the world truly works
When are you building a fusion reactor, bringing peace to the Middle East, curing cancer etc?

>>17912812
>Atheists are a lower % of the prison population in basically every country.
That's because your kind decriminalized the abominable acts that you commit.
>Because it's a silly thought experiment at best.
You reject the idea of a deistic creator, again, because you hate God.
>I am indifferent to the idea, but I am indeed displeased by godders godding around.
You are displeased by the idea and lie when you say that you are indifferent. Those who follow God truly are the ones you hate because they embody His Truth.
>It is not reasonable to believe in the unreal.
You believe that the universe was created out of nothing, who is the irrational one here?
>When are you building a fusion reactor, bringing peace to the Middle East, curing cancer etc?
When will you?

>>17912801
>That there aren't hard empirical tests for certain ideas doesn't mean they should be immediately discarded outside maybe the professional world of experimental science
Sure but no one is saying "stop listening to music and playing golf, that's scientifically worthless!!!"
The point is that people making loony claims that shit that can't be tested exists and that we ought to act as though it does and listen to their personal opinions of what's right or wrong because of this untestable shit can fuck right off.

>>17912823
>That's because your kind decriminalized the abominable acts that you commit.
When are you moving to Iran so you can enjoy your fellow godders who literally kill anyone who leaves goddism like the barbarians you are?
>You reject the idea of a deistic creator, again, because you hate God.
I cannot hate that which does not exist.
>You are displeased by the idea and lie when you say that you are indifferent.
Sorry godder, you're not capable of reading minds, that's just a delusion.
>You believe that the universe was created out of nothing
I don't, but you believe that a thing more complex than the universe was created out of nothing so you're even more unparsimonious than your strawman.
>When will you?
Never, nor do I have to, because I don't pretend to have objective knowledge about everything that exists. You claim to know how the world works though so I'm waiting for your amazing empirically observable achievements. Go solve every problem in the world right now since you claim to know the answer.

>>17912850
>When are you moving to Iran so you can enjoy your fellow godders who literally kill anyone who leaves goddism like the barbarians you are?
Feel free to preach to them, I'm sure you have a much better way of living, right?
>I cannot hate that which does not exist.
You hate those who believe in Him because they obey Him.
>Sorry godder, you're not capable of reading minds, that's just a delusion.
I don't need to read minds, the symptoms point to the root cause, which is your insincere disbelief.
>I don't, but you believe that a thing more complex than the universe was created out of nothing so you're even more unparsimonious than your strawman.
So you do believe that God created the universe then, right?
>Never, nor do I have to, because I don't pretend to have objective knowledge about everything that exists. You claim to know how the world works though so I'm waiting for your amazing empirically observable achievements. Go solve every problem in the world right now since you claim to know the answer.
We will.

>>17912856
>Feel free to preach to them, I'm sure you have a much better way of living, right?
Why? Not in my job description to stop fools from being fools.
>You hate those who believe in Him
Nope, I'm pretty chill. I don't even hate godders.
>insincere disbelief.
Cool delusion bro. You are be basing that on the same level of evidence as your goddism: nothing.
>So you do believe that God created the universe then, right?
Nope, but you do, which means that you believe that he magically popped out of nothing.

>>17912871
>Why? Not in my job description to stop fools from being fools.
No, you just want to keep masturbating and doing drugs.
>Nope, I'm pretty chill. I don't even hate godders.
Hating God means you hate those who obey Him.
>Cool delusion bro. You are be basing that on the same level of evidence as your goddism: nothing.
Your deflection isn't working. We can all see clearly.
>Nope, but you do, which means that you believe that he magically popped out of nothing.
God didn't pop out of anything because He is eternal and unchanging. The universe, however, is changing, and thus cannot have an eternal origin.

ADDERALL ADDERALL ADDERALL ADDERALL

>>17912882
>Hating God means you hate those who obey Him.
NTA but most Atheists aren't Misotheists. In fact, Misotheism requires you to believe in God, which Atheists don't. You can't hate something you don't even believe in. If an Atheist just wanted to hate God, they wouldn't call themselves an Atheist, they'd call themselves a Misotheist

>>17912882
>No, you just want to keep masturbating and doing drugs.
But I'm a straight edge teetotaler while Western godders arbitrarily pretend that alcohol is totally fine.
>Hating God
I cannot hate that which does not exist and I don't hate godders just because they're different than me. Do you hate all other different godders because their brand of goddery is incompatible with yours?
>We can all see clearly.
About as clearly as one can see god (who can't be seen on account of not existing).
>God didn't pop out of anything
Ah cool then shit can just exist without needing to "come from" anything? Then no need for god.
>He is eternal and unchanging.
Then he has never done anything and is a static object so you don't believe in any of his supposed actions, because action implies changing states.

>>17912730
>>17912740
I mean, New Atheism was a very myopic and imo almost strictly American (Internet in the 2000s might as well have been the 51st state) phenomenon, with some contribution from the UK. In itself it was mostly an attack and reaction to against the hegemonic pretensions of the American Christian right during the GWOT years. It was bound to collapse in itself because it only existed in opposition to that. You can see how it quickly dissolved into nothing after that because the conditions required for it to exist ceased to be.
Atheism by itself is not something you can build a movement on. Being a purely negatory statement. It was always transitory.

>>17912918
And, IIRC, while this very forgotten now. They also fear-mongered very hard against Islamic fundamentalism. So it was I guess a twofold reaction against what was perceived as fundie encroachment on society. Christians and Muslims.

>>17912918
That's right, I'm just old enough to have caught the bulk of it as an internet boy (I'm a woman now of course... for now...). Fully tethered to the post-9/11 GWB stretch, I think Sam Harris has called it a "publishing phenomenon". Still more or less sold on the bulk of their arguments against fundamentalists and literalists and certain behaviors and stances of let's say the Catholic Church. It's really only been since 2020ish that I've started to see big podcasts with "reason" and "sense" and "experience" etc. in them properly grappling with rich theology and carefully thought out and explored faith. Gobble that shit up man. Give me a good podcast with a big brain logo and a reasonable centrist man man... Undoubtedly another "publishing phenomenon" not unlike new atheism right now that's pulling back, sensibly, in the other direction. Probably really got kickstarted by Jordan Peterson, or whatever think tanks found him and exploded him (assuming it wasn't all organic).

>>17911975 (OP)
>>17912018
>cultural interpretation of a more profound truth
That's the main issue
Very few are bothered by thin conceptions of absolute realities
It's the original stories that have retreated into metaphor and non-literalism over time
They also claim everyone else's version is actually their own, why not the other way around when you're more and more admitting how much more loose your story's association is to Absolute Realities?

Religions aren't completely right or wrong they're just very rough approximations with a few insights to still glean away. Panpsychism is pretty popular with physicists today but you should not LARP as a pythagorean most of what they believed was wrong, same for 3rd century Christians, so much that is wrong wrong wrong.

Easterners simply say God is "not this, not this", or "the Dao that can spoken is not the true Dao"

Most of the reason people cling to religion is emotion or guilt, and yes this "evil" is very troublesome for Christians, since for any denomination that happens to be the correct one, there is an extremely high chance that denomination's soteriology precludes >99% of all humans who have ever lived from entering heaven. This is completely unacceptable if you aren't a psychopath.

>>17913155
>that denomination's soteriology precludes >99% of all humans who have ever lived from entering heaven
I should also mention for the versions that do not do this, like "just ask Jesus to save you once" or "just get baptized", are morally vacuous. The authors of the bible were cunning but did not make their system scalable with modern population size/modern data entering the picture.

Basically, salvation hard? 99% go to hell, salvation easy? too meaningless. If the church adopted something like annihilationism or purgatory more successfully probably would last longer.

>>17911975 (OP)
I don't know what caused the universe. But I also don't have to make something up as an answer. Nothing requires a god. Like if I drop a rock that requires gravity, not God. So there simply isn't any difference between God and unicorns, just stories made up by people who where so full of themselves they couldn't admit they didn't know the answer.

>>17911975 (OP)
>You caan't disprove god because I want to believe in god, also you are a tranny
riveting

>>17912823
Religitard copes

You have no problem that your god was created out of nothing lol

>>17911975 (OP)
Just disprove the functional necessity.

God that controls weathers
God that controls luck
God that controls earth quakes
God that controls disease
God that controls birth
God that controls death
God that controls happiness
God that controls misery
etc

Whats left is a God that someone says exists but has no causal efficacy on the world.

>>17911975 (OP)
there is a special hell for those that invent ontological proofs of God.