Thread 17924896

Give me your single best argument for the existence of God. If it convinces me, I'll convert.

>>17924896 (OP)
nah humble yourself first

>>17924896 (OP)
You can start your own church and embezzle donated money for personal use

>>17924896 (OP)
First you have to understand that most seriously misunderstand what "God" means

>>17924896 (OP)
I'm an atheist too but I can easily convince you by pointing a gun and forcing you to believe in god lest I shoot you. This is the best argument there is.

>>17924896 (OP)
Fine.

> Consciousness.

Your thoughts, emotions, sense of *self*.

How does that emerge from random atoms? Science can't explain why you experience existence instead of just being a meat robot. If the universe is just matter, why are you here feeling things? God is the simplest answer. The Mind behind a mind.

>>17924924
What would stop me from lying that I believe in God so you don't shoot me?

>>17924896 (OP)
I Am

>>17924927
>How does that emerge from random atoms? Science can't explain why you experience existence instead of just being a meat robot. If the universe is just matter, why are you here feeling things?

Why would god explain that? What a leap of logic. If anything it disproves god because there are opposing consciousness.

>>17924937
A Faggot

>>17924927
That's a God of Gaps

Not sure you know it

>>17924928
I'll simply deny the internal subjective experience of your mind. If it moves like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. If you 100% display the external behaviors of a god believer, then you are one for all practical purposes.

>>17924971
But they would also be displaying the external behaviors of someone who is pretending to believe to not get shot.

>>17924927
The hard problem stops at "we don't know the full workings of consciousness", which is valid, but the moment it gets stretched into affirming dualism, it turns into something else that is far more brittle.
Just as a simple example: if consciousness isn't physical, then why is it subject to everything we know about physics? Why does it experience the passage of time, which is something that only objects that possess mass are capable of? Why is there a boundary of self, as we would expect of anything comprised of fermionic matter, due to the Pauli exclusion principle? Why does a corpus callostomy create two split consciousnesses that make separate decisions and can disagree with each other?

>>17924974
True, but I'm really just lending Pascal a hand here and making his wager actually matter. You're now afraid of getting shot just like a Christian is afraid of divine wrath/hell/etc. Although, you didn't specify which god I'm supposed to convince you of, but that's just one example.

He exists because I believe in Him

>>17924927
>How does that emerge from random atoms?
The same way complex machines that can do shitloads of cool stuff up to intelligence can be made by combining millions of transistors.

>>17924896 (OP)
yessirreee that guy is a master bater
>kek

>>17924896 (OP)
We don't accept converts

Enjoy.

Jesus won't enter a heart thats closed off from him.

>>17924927
Multiplying numbers together can immitate human conversation and do some math just by multiplying a fuck ton of numbers. Crazy right?

>>17926644
This

>>17924956
If you had a powerful enough computer which could run a simulation of billions of neurons, would that simulate a person? Could you be that person? What if you only exist in a computer simulation that is simulating neurons and the programmer who runs it could do anything to you.

>>17927304
>*Loses an argument*
>W-w-well you're stupid dummy head

>>17924927
>God is real therefore bible
Every single thing stated or purported in the bible needs to line up with valid observations or discoveries about the world that happen in real-time (fractals intelligent design whatever). Treating it like a "One for All" situation where metaphysical correlation from science and your religion meet is never going to guarantee the rest of the belief set because there are infinite holy books and no strict criteria for prioritizing one over the other.
tl:dr you are doing post hoc cherrypicking

>>17927329
That Bible verse is actually my starting argument. It's not that I have lost an argument, it's the argument that I start the conversation in the first place.

>>17927364
You are a dummy. This is my starting argument.

>>17927403
I don't mind, I hear that all the time. But I whole heartedly do believe all atheists are fools, and it's also written in the word of God.

Big mistake.

>>17924896 (OP)
The universe exists.

Why? Either it popped from nothing (nonsense) or something beyond physics caused it. That *something* must be uncaused, timeless, and unimaginably powerful.

Sounds like God. No scientific theory explains *why* there is something rather than nothing. Deny it all you want, but atheism just shrugs at the biggest question.

>>17927541
"Sounds like God" doesn't mean "it's God"
If it's God, then which one?
Or which ones? Not necessarily has to be just one
Is a god we know?
Why can't the universe be it's own cause?
Why it has to be unimaginably powerful? It could be something that only can creare the universe and nothing else

When you this argument you're switching from a Teist to a Deist

>>17927866
>If it's God, then which one?
Christian one. There is no other option.

>>17927875
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

Are you sure?

>>17927897
I feel like all other ones aren't legit.

>>17927911
What do you think the believers of other religions think about your one and the others one?

>>17924896 (OP)
The best one hands down is the contingency argument, which I have never seen represented accurately on here.
>We observe contingency - things depending on other things for their existence. Cat depends on chemistry. Chemistry on various forces. Forces on laws etc.
>Everything about the universe down to spacetime seems to be contingent as it's subject to change, necessarily implying contingency
>The layers of contingency either go infinitely or have a stopping point
>Infinite contingency layers lead to infinite regress, which isn't a logically sustainable explanation
>Thus contingency has as stopping point
The incontingent point is called the "uncaused cause" or "prime mover" since it is not caused but causes reality to exist. The argument then goes on to spell out what incontingency means:
>>> One-ness, since multiplicity presumes various conditions differentiating various entities (such as location). Met/unmet conditions are a subset of contingencies. Hence no multiplicity.
>>>Freedom. Incontingency means there was no prompt to cause, the prime mover did this on its (or as my tradition has it, His) own accord
>>>...

There are a few popular objections:
>What if infinite regress is true
Besides not being actually logically feasible (since it concludes a causal chain with no actual cause), it does not produce what we would call an explanation. We literally never accept infinite regress as a logical explanation to anything.
>But isn't God supposed to be walking, talking, angry, happy, bearded man, literally a man?
God is beyond description. We talk of him in conscious terms because those are the highest terms we have. Using inanimate language just degrades the prime mover and although it would appease the naturalist bias many of us have, there are precisely zero good philosophical reasons to do it, not even mentioning spiritual ones.
>But that's speculative special pleading fantasy!
It's a true dichotomy followed by a logical exclusion method.

>>17927965
This argument is one of the worst because it's just a special pleading.
> everything has a reason
> except magical first cause

Also, infinite regress makes more sense
> but it concludes a causal chain with no actual cause
Insane double standards considering that first cause itself has no actual cause but that problem get's ignored.

>>17927973
Yeah if those were the premises, it would be absolutely special pleading.

>> but it concludes a causal chain with no actual cause
>Insane double standards considering that first cause itself has no actual cause
First cause is the cause. And the causal chain has a cause - the First cause. Infinite regress doesn't have this. It's a single standard.

>>17927984
> First cause is the cause.
The first cause of the first cause? That's a circular logic which makes even less sense.
> Yeah if those were the premises, it would be absolutely special pleading.
It's basically your premises just without smoke and mirrors about contingency (everything has a cause) and a magical 'incontingent' points (just not the first cause).

>>17927997
>That's a circular logic which makes even less sense.
The brute facticity of the prime mover isn't an offense against logic, although it will never be an intuitive concept. The (technically speaking) vicious regress of infinite causal chain is an offense against both. Again, we never ever accept infinite regress as an answer. You're ironically special pleading yourself here.
>> Yeah if those were the premises, it would be absolutely special pleading.
>It's basically your premises
Not really, no. That everything has a cause is not a permise I'm starting off with at all. If you insist the arguments are the same, you should be able to show the fallacy on the premises and subsequent steps that were actually written instead of summing it up into absurd simplifications which will obviously not stand to reason.

>>17927965
>>Everything about the universe down to spacetime seems to be contingent as it's subject to change, necessarily implying contingency
If you're a retard maybe.

>>17928024
Einstein was a retard when he predicted time dilation?

>>17928015
> The brute facticity of the prime mover isn't an offense against logic.
It's a special pleading and it's against a principle of sufficient reason. Sufficient reason can't favor termination. If we demand a sufficient reason for every entity/event (per princile), terminating the chain at a *first cause* violates principle. The prime mover is either arbitrary (accepts an unexplained exception to reason) or circular (claims self-causation which is logically incoherent). Termination shifts the explanatory burden without resolving anything.

>>17928036
You do know that principle of sufficient reason is not a logical law, yes? It is a philosophical opinion. That is the reason I explicitly mention brute-facticity, the equally uncontroversial counter-opinion.
Although if your premise is that explanation HAS TO keep going on indefinitely then I completely understand why the prime mover seems either circular or just outright pled into existence. It's because you are coming from an unreflected premise that pretty much just says "there are no prime movers".

Again, if you can show the special pleading on the actual premises and subsequent steps, I will be more than content. Is induction from observation special pleading? Is recognizing a dichotomy? Is the elimination method special pleading?

>convert
Unbaptized shitskin thread.

>>17928044
The special pleading is clear. We only observe contingency (per your premise) and contingent entities, but you magically introduce an exception to it which was never observed.
> an unreflected premise that pretty much just says "there are no prime movers".
And your premise pretty much just says "there is no infinite regress" without any actual argument.

>>17928058
>you magically introduce an exception
Recognizing a dichotomy and applying an elimination method is sadly not magic. Lest all high school graduates would be wizards.

>And your premise pretty much just says "there is no infinite regress" without any actual argument.
Please see argument in >>17927965
>>>Besides not being actually logically feasible (since it concludes a causal chain with no actual cause), it does not produce what we would call an explanation. We literally never accept infinite regress as a logical explanation to anything.
Brute facticity is not controversial. Infinite regress has yet to find a single use among explanations.

>>17928030
No. Good thing the statement doesn't just say "spacetime is contingent."

>>17928065
> Recognizing a dichotomy and applying an elimination method is sadly not magic
Constructing a legitimate dichotomy requires two distinct, observable entities. If one of them has never been observed, then accepting the dichotomy as proof of that entity's existence amounts to magical thinking. For example, we know that matter exists and obeys the laws of physics. One could propose a dichotomy: either matter follows physical laws, or it does not. However, merely asserting this dichotomy does not prove the existence of matter that defies physical laws, especially since we have never observed such a thing. Claims about unobserved, law-defying matter would be purely speculative, lacking empirical grounding. Without evidence, such assertions are functionally indistinguishable from magical reasoning.
> Brute facticity is not controversial.
A brute fact is a non-explanation. Especially considering that Occam's razor weighs against God by allowing the existence of the universe itself to be accepted as a brute fact.
> Infinite regress has yet to find a single use among explanations.
Infinite regress is just a consistently applied principle of sufficient reason. In practice, there is not a single brute fact free from further inquiry into why it holds.

>>17928096
>Constructing a legitimate dichotomy requires two distinct, observable entities
Dude what? A dichotomy requires a discrete concept. We can create dichotomies around completely novel n-dimensional mathematical entities that will never ever be observed. I have no idea in what universe you'd get away with randomly putting "observable" into a logical concept, especially seeing that your favored infinity was never observed itself.
>A brute fact is a non-explanation. Especially considering that Occam's razor...
Occam's razor says entities in a model need not be multiplied beyond necessity. You are literally proposing an infinity of them and I'm proposing a finite number...
>Occam's razor weighs against God by allowing the existence of the universe itself to be accepted as a brute fact.
Not when contingency is considered in the model, no.
>Infinite regress is just a consistently applied principle of sufficient reason.
How misleading. It is PRESUMED in the principle of SR. Again, you are just re-asserting your philosophical dogma here.
>In practice, there is not a single brute fact free from further inquiry into why it holds.
Logical law of identity is absolutely a brute fact. On the other hand, not a single explanation utilizes infinite regress.

But anyway, if you understand that infinite regress is never used as a logical explanation but it is your dogmatic philosophical position that there should be one exception - the entire universe - then I'm not even sure there is much use in showning you that elimination method isn't magic. You're commited to naturalism with such zeal that you'd rather commit an explicit special pleading fallacy rather than risk a conclusion that merely feels special. As the saying goes, a naturalist can explain everything naturally as long as you grant him one miracle: the existence of the universe.

>>17928085
That "no" pretty much solved it.

>>17928138
>All words seem to end with an E.
>If you're a retard, yes.
>So you're saying the word "name" doesn't exist?
>No, but that's not what the statement was about.
>HOLY SHIT THAT NOSOLVES IT I WIN I WIN I WIN OOOOOOOOOOOH ROOOOOOAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH LOOK AT ME MAGIC JEW IN THE SKY I WON ANOTHER DEBATE OOOOOOOOH *thumps chest* ROOOOAAAAAAAAAAAH UUUUEEEEEEEEUUUUUUAAAAAAGHHHH

>>17927965
Cause and effect or causation is not necessarily universal as a principle. Better sense organs -> different perspective via sensitivity to more reality aspects

>>17928150
why am I laughing so hard at this image? kek

>>17928181
Also in QM, not every event has a deterministic cause

>>17928138
> A dichotomy requires a discrete concept.
A conceptual dichotomy does not entail that either pole must correspond to an actual, predicative reality. One can deny a proposition without affirming its negation as a substantive truth. Mere logical negation is not equivalent to ontological proof. Framing reality in binary terms [contingent vs. necessary] does not, by itself, validate the existence of either category.
> Occam's razor says entities in a model need not be multiplied beyond necessity
If brute facts [unexplained, foundational truths] are admissible in a metaphysical model, then invoking a primal mover to explain the universe’s existence is unnecessary. The universe itself could simply be a brute fact, a singular *miracle* requiring no further explanation. This model is distinct from positing an infinite regress. It terminates explanatory chains at a minimal ontological commitment. Occam's razor favors this approach over multiplying entities [divine causation] without empirical or logical necessity.
> Not when contingency is considered in the model
It presupposes that contingency must be resolved and smuggles in an implicit bias against infinite regress without justification. Contingency, as a category, is thus a rhetorical tool, not a substantive constraint on metaphysical models.
> Logical law of identity is absolutely a brute fact.
As a tautology, it provides no explanatory power. All substantive explanations transcend brute facts by invoking further reasons, causes, or structures which naturally permits infinite regress. To demand an end to *why* questions [via a necessary being] is to artificially truncate inquiry without grounds. Every claim invites a further *why* [answered or not] and dismissing this dynamic is special pleading.

>>17927866
Still admitting the truth of his argument.

>>17928205
I admit that I don't know how everything started and saying that "you know" it's arbitrary

>>17928239
As for how you make the jump from an impersonal deity to the Christian God? I would put a question to you; Which God is just or moral? One who involves himself in history and judges men according to what they do or one who puts a clock in motion for no purpose? You can be critical but not close-minded or stupid.

>>17924899
>"""humble yourself""""
AKA
>omg Christcucks, you are right, you are right, I am so dumb and need you to explain everything.

is that the humbling you are talking about, faggot?

>>17928287
Do you really think that the Bible has "original" content?
That Judaism is the only religion where a god involves with humanity?
Where a theological justification is given to explain things humanity didn't know at that time?

Morality did born before Yahweh and the 10 commandments
The concept of death and resurrection is older than Jesus
"God" as an abstract being is older than Yahweh, it's a Persian concept
It's not even the 1st monotheistic religion, did you hear about Zoroastrianism? They invented Hell

There were a lot of religions and believers through time who also thought they were the chosen people
Hundreds of religions and civilizations raised and fell

And you think Judeo-Christianity is special in any sense? It's just what survived through time, and it's still changing, and it will be still changing to accommodate to culture

Why do you think there are a lot of versions of the Bible, so many denominations, so many religions? All of them say almost the same shit with different name

Don't you notice how everytime WE, humanity, discover something new God become more abstract? Get farer and farer?

A thousand years ago he was in garden
We didn't find the garden, he must be in the sky, sitting in a cloud
Hey, we can fly now, and I'm not seeing him up here, he must be in space
I can't find it in space, he must be in other plain of existence

Of course the story would fit! You asshole, it was change to make it fit because otherwise it doesn't and dies
As Greek Gods died
As Egypt Gods died
As Celcitcs
Nords
Romans
Persians
All the North American Tribal ones
The Mayans
The Aztecs
The incas
All the Pre Colobus ones
All the ancient Africans

Unicorns died because we didn't find any, they are just a bad drawn Rino
As we didn't find vampires
Nor werewolves , Banshees, Faires, Trolls, Cyclopes, Sirens, Ghosts, Demons, Sphinxes, Goblins, Dwarves, Elves, Dragons, Gryphons, Leviathans, Titans, Giants, Big Foots, Yetis, Nephilims

And I am ignorant? Fuck you

But of course the invisible god who can do literally everything exist, why wouldn't he?

You can't find it? You dummy one, his hiding!

A contradiction? Nah, you're reading it the wrong way!

You don't know how to explain this? The answer is God, obviously, it's not like humanity has been discrediting God as the answer of why things works for the last thousands of years, how would you think that!

A religión with similar beliefs? They follow the wrong religion, it's obvious that my very specific variation of this branch of this major religion which has been changing it's scriptures and traditions for the last 3000 years it's the correct one! How you dare to think that your very specific variation of a branch of a very specific religion is the correct one, are you a fool?

It's obvious that Yahweh is the real one!

>>17927965
>things depending on other things for their existence
This does not lead to either infinity nor an ur-thing. Objects simply do not have definite properties independently of one another from each other's point of view, it's that simple. Superposition, wave-particle duality and Bell inequality violations put the notion that everything is neatly well-defined into a huge bind.
Or, as the Buddha says:
>If this exists, then that exists. If this ceases to exist, then that also ceases to exist.

>>17924896 (OP)
Because ill kill you if you don't. Fear of death is a great motivator

>>17928395
At least the Jewish and Islamic versions have an excuse for being hidden on account of its oneness and indivisibility. The Christian version explicitly introduces the Trinity which allows it to manifest and walk on the ground like an ordinary piece of meat.

>>17924971
>>17924974
kek

>>17928429
All religions have an excuse

Or it's a mountain
Or a cave
Or the God left a 1000 years ago
Or lives in clouds

Or my favorite one, another plain of existence where we can't go unless we're death! But only if you follow these specific set of belief that are 100% original and are not copied from those more older religions what says very similar things!

When a I was a kid and a teenager I didn't even though about religion

As an adult I started to think more about the topic, and after investigate and a lot of menta exercise, I fucking HATE religion

It's a machine of ignorance, enslaves people since young, attacks when you're too young to critically think about it, and treats you with eternal punishment if you don't follow

How can this be moral at all? How can be moral enslaves people's mind? To scare them and restrics their life until death for false promise?

I hate religion, I wish all Christianity, all Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Paganism, all fucking believes die, it's incredible how easy is to fool someone, I can't believe it...

>>17928365
>>17928395
>>17928471
You are such a lying faggot. Your 'research' was probably watching Zeitgeist or some other dogshit and taking that as gospel truth.

>>17928483
>Zeitgeist
Did you just wake up from a coma that started 17 years ago?

>>17928483
Oh, wow! You discovered me! Of course I'm lying!

Of course your belief system is the One and True Belief System
Of course your invisible and omnipotent entity it's the true one, the one you believe in, and not all the others invisible and omnipotent entities who hid! Of course, what a fool I am!

I mean, the book that says that this specific god exist was written by this specific god, who is the same the book claims that exists, it's not like a circular logic

How fool I am! Can you believe it?

Who in hell is Zeitgeist??

>>17926644
why?

>>17927541
Where did god come from? Theism just kicks the can down the road.

>>17927911
there's no difference between a magic elephant in the sky and a magic jew in the sky.

>>17927965
if god can exist without a cause then the universe can exist without a cause.

>>17927541
This doesn't explain why there is something rather than nothing. You've just started from the fact that there is something.

>>17928500
Not denying the allegation. Read a book, boomer.

I'm not saying that there's nothing! I'm not even saying that there's something!

I'm saying "I don't know" and that it's stupid to claim know what it is!

It's not that hard to understand

>>17928526
Sorry

I want to pick the guy below you
>>17928541

I didn't even copied the thing

I'm going to sleep, I'm tired as fuck

Been reading through this threads since ages and it just seems like you fags just want perpetuate this debate charade.
It's a humungously gay culture.

>>17924896 (OP)
Proving God exist doesn't prove that Christianity is the true religion lol, what are you going to convert to.

>>17924981
How exactly does the consciousness experience time? Is it any different at age 15, 30, or 60? I guess you could argue people that decelop alzheimer's become less conscious, but how can you prove this is the case, rather than the consciousness simply losing the means to express itself? The same argument can be made for babies, I doubt anyone would argue babies aren't conscious, and one could argue that their limited mental capabilities are simply a result of their phsyical bodies not having sufficiently developed to allow their consciousness to fully express itself

>>17924981
The boundary argument is also lackluster, any abstract concept can have boundaries. When I picture the concept of a cirlce I know it has boundaries because I know that a square is not a circle. Then if the concept of the circle can have boundaries, why not the concept of the self?

>>17924896 (OP)
The world is far too evil and unpleasant to be the work of random chance.

>>17927308
>If you had a powerful enough computer which could run a simulation of billions of neurons, would that simulate a person?
Yes, and they would be conscious.
Could you be that person?
No, because I am in my own brain by definition.
What if you only exist in a computer simulation that is simulating neurons and the programmer who runs it could do anything to you.
If you're trying to imply this programmer would be tantamount to God, and therefore we can infer God's existence from the existence of our own consciousness - why should I not suppose our cosmos is controlled by a group of agents quite far from omnibenevolence, as is often the case in comparable really existing world simulations, and in emanationist religions.

>>17929251
>How exactly does the consciousness experience time?
You are experiencing it live right now. You can only measure time by experiencing it. You wouldn't be able to be conscious of clocks ticking or past/present/future without your consciousness being subject to the passage of time.
>Is it any different at age 15, 30, or 60?
It is clearly mutable over time given how its experience changes and you think dynamically evolving thoughts.
>>17929256
>The boundary argument is also lackluster, any abstract concept can have boundaries
OK but we are assuming consciousness is real unless you want to argue that it doesn't exist. It perceives the self and the not-self.
>When I picture the concept of a cirlce I know it has boundaries because I know that a square is not a circle
This is a definitional boundary. Consciousness has a physical boundary. You can't be conscious of what it's like to be any external object to it. If consciousness was not derived from fermionic structures then it could leak all over the place and even pile up in the same spot like a Bose-Einstein condensate rather than being consistently local and well-defined.

>>17927973
How many times does it need to be explained to you that the premises of the cosmological argument don't include the supposition that everything which exists has a cause? You literally do not know what special pleading is.

>>17929385
Not him but the special pleading comes when you run into a wall when realizing that causality eventually needs either infinite regress or a first cause, none of which make sense when viewing reality through a purely causal lens, and then you declare one is more valid than the other when both are pure guesswork based on nothing (so his claim that infinite regress makes more sense is also special pleading). All that this proves to me is that determinism is an incomplete view which cannot explain why things exist at all in the first place. It does not lead to any clear alternate conclusion as to what the right answer might be.

>>17924896 (OP)
The real approach is social and emotional. Making it about logically proving existence is already a category error. Finding the right people is more important than finding the right arguments.

>>17927965
>We observe contingency - things depending on other things for their existence
Moses observed YHWH, therefore he is a contingent being.

>>17929359
You don't experience time though, you only experience the present, the here and now. You don't experience the past, you only have a memory of it but, whether it happened 5 minutes ago or 5 days ago doesn't matter, it is still the same sort of memory. And the future is invisible alltogether. A better argument would be the experiencing of space, as we can clearly situate ourselves within space and grasp the space around us. But this is only possible through our own physical bodies. But the mind can be aware of far more than that, think of particularly vivid dreams which are both timeless and spaceless. And ultimately, your argument can be reversed: if consciousness is physical, how can it experience things that aren't?

As to the physical boundary, are you sure on this? I'm by no means a druggie, but the term "out of body experience" exists for a reason. I guess dreams, and just thoughts in general, could be considered experiences beyond the physical as well.

>>17924896 (OP)
God is real. You most likely don’t believe in God because you’ve been lied to over and over about a good God, but God is in fact evil. Once you think about our God being evil He becomes way more credible.

>>17927541
>popped from nothing
vs
>super jacked fella outside material universe

how one is consideres nonsence, while second one obvious alternative without any additional proofs

>>17929413
>You don't experience time though, you only experience the present
OK to clarify I mean you experience the passage of it through changing states, not that you "experience" the past and future simultaneously. In fact, if consciousness was not a part of a system of massive particles, the distinction would be meaningless. For instance, photons, being massless, have no rest frame and no experience of time. emission and absorption are the same thing due to relativity. Without mass, you can't really perceive the passage of time or even actual distances in spacetime due to lacking a rest frame which is incongruent with our conscious experience.
>out of body experience
Parapsychology utterly fails at reproduction and scientific rigor though. See Crumbaugh spending 28 years failing to get any practical results, or mass OBE studies not getting anything that could be replicated and at best getting very sparse witness testimonies that "something weird might have happened", thought it stops at hard to explain rather than verifiably real and explained explicitly through consciousness leaving the body.

>>17929417
God is good, by definition.

Jesus and lucifer are both morning stars, but it is the state of being that is not resurrected which we call fallen, and God allows to remain fallen. When Jesus is observed, he is lifted up, and ascended into heaven, which is in the midst of us.

>>17927965
>onething must have an cause
Why? Could you proof that everything must have a cause?
And even if everything we see around us today have a cause, can you proof that the world must had s cause?

>>17929391
>infinite regress or a first cause

When the immovable stone is moved, you will see an empty tomb. Do not be alarmed or afraid, he is not there, he is risen, and in the empty tomb are two angels.

The Son of God is Man
The Son of Man is God.

But I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I divide the waters, and seperate the weat from the chaff.

You will know them by their fruits

Israel is luke warm, as it is the wrestling of God and Man. But I know your deeds. I know if you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, if you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold. I am
about to spit you out of my mouth.

Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

Faith without works is dead.

Talitha cumi

>>17929474
Logic is two premises, and a conclusion.
A marriage of points.

Each conclusion becomes a premise for more marriages. The chain of logic is a tree of mariages of points, which branch out on a number line, in multiple directions. centered on zero. And zer is the value of the present moment, which you are experiencing right now.

Look around, and its already gone.
Nothing. And nothing created God, according to everyone's logic.

In the beginning was the logic, and the logic was with God, and the logic was God. The point was with logic in the beginning. Through the point, all things were made; without the point, no thing was made that has been made. The point was mixed with life, and that life was the truth of all mankind. The truth shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome the point.

So what is the Son of the Parthenon?
"So what", is the Son of the Parthenon.

Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

Look around, and its already gone.
I am nothing, and nothing created God, according to the logic of everyone.

whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.

>>17929439
We’re talking about God here. Don’t bring up fictional characters from a stupid fictional book.

>>17929439
>>17929829
>Jesus
This character didn’t achieve much. The world is still a horrible place. What did he do exactly?
>Lucifer
The people that invented Christianity were probably flooded with many questions about why the world can be so cruel, so they created the character of Lucifer for him to take the blame instead, when it actuality it is God who’s to blame.

Reddit atheists can't understand how basic logic works. They don't know that an argument is structured with premises and a conclusion. They don't understand how basic fucking inference rules work. This is why that one reddit atheist anon who always screams about special pleading is a good example of how retarded online atheists are. It's actually embarrassing. Literally has never taken a basic fucking introductory class on logic most likely lmfao.

I think that because these silly religions exist certain people are less likely to believe in God. To some people it’s just very obvious that they are scams and I think that they start believing that God is also a scam because of them. You must separate God from religion (scam).

https://youtu.be/r5fW-Qjh_YY

>>17929851
All this yapping and no attempt to prove God exists.

>>17929851
They understand logic better than you do. Your problem is that you use deductive reasoning to attempt to prove God, whereas you work your way backwards from a God that must necessarily exist, which makes it very easy for someone to call you out and your only answer is to just have a complete crashout.
If we use inductive reasoning instead, which instead of relying on a presupposed premise we extrapolate what is possible to know from what we can observe, we see no direct evidence for God, and so we can simply avoid the problem of having to argue whether or not God is necessary in the first place.

>>17929851
Any information derived from axiomatic reasoning can only be true in the abstract sense, it tells you nothing about the real world outside of relations among ideas.

>>17929851
Thank you.

>>17930299
It was proven above in the contingency argument. The only objection to date is "but I have an opinion that explanations should go on infinitely".

>>17930311
He wasn't the one making the argument.
>you work your way backwards from a God
Not in the premises.
>If we use inductive reasoning instead
As we did after observing contingency.
>we see no direct evidence for God
Meaningless rhetoric. You set no criteria for a God-observation.

>>17930324
This is a very fair objection. The contingency argument really only holds water if our understanding of logic is correct and at least somewhat complete. Which is a massive if. But I don't see the objectors addressing the completeness of logical laws. I see them performing special pleading while claiming that elimination method is magic.

>>17930336
>You set no criteria for a God-observation.
Well, if God is personal, and presumably also has agency, then he should be capable of speaking for himself or providing his own criteria so-to-speak
If God is more abstract, say either he exists purely within metaphysics, or in a Pantheistic way, then one has to ask how he is distinct from naturalism in the first place.

>>17929411
"Observable therefore contingent" does not follow.

>>17928200
>Mere logical negation is not equivalent to ontological proof.
Correct. Which is why the argument uses observation, induction, deduction, elimination, all possible methods to approximate a conclusion. It was still completely bad faith to pretend dichotomies only apply to observed entities.
>If brute facts [unexplained, foundational truths] are admissible in a metaphysical model, then invoking a primal mover to explain the universe’s existence is unnecessary.
Again, it is necessary when contingency is reflected in the model.
>It presupposes that contingency must be resolved
Yes, something needing an explanation needs to be resolved by an explanation. Are you challenging that? You, who base your entire case on the principle of sufficient reason?
>Contingency, as a category, is thus a rhetorical tool
No. It is an observable attribute.
>> Logical law of identity is absolutely a brute fact.
>it provides no explanatory power.
The goalpost was "not a single brute fact free from further inquiry into why it holds". It doesn't need to explain anything.
>Every claim invites a further *why* [answered or not] and dismissing this dynamic is special pleading.
In which case you declare the entirety of logic to be based on special pleading (law of identity), and you do so based solely on your dogmatic position about the principle of sufficient reason.

Said simply, you're performing an explicit special pleading fallacy and you're wondering why logically sound exceptions to this seem special.

>>17930349
>providing his own criteria
We might have a misunderstanding here. You're making a claim about what evidence you see. And you're doing this while not being able to recognize a single piece of evidence, since you didn't set any criteria to compare it against... You're essentially saying "there are no measurements of [thing we don't know how to measure]". Duh. That means nothing.

>>17930336
>It was proven above in the contingency argument.
No it doesn't. That's not how proof works anon. The Contingency Argument is just that, it's a possible argument for God, but it's not proof of God. In fact, it can also be proof that there is no God, because one could just as easily argue that the Universe itself is necessary and everything within the universe is contingent.

>>17930352
>You're essentially saying "there are no measurements of [thing we don't know how to measure]". Duh. That means nothing.
Right, and thus we don't have evidence for God, either because he doesn't exist, or he does, but it's impossible to prove he exists, even by your own standards

I don't even really understand the point of trying to find logical or scientific basis for God in the first place because the point of religion is that it's rooted in faith. If we could prove God exists, he would no longer be a religious concept but a scientific fact. In fact it would also likely be very easy to root out any false religions and doctrines from that point on and we'd have a universal truth

>>17930353
>it's a possible argument for God
If you knew nothing about it besides the name, this would be a defensible position. But >>17927965 shows clearly step-by-step how empirical observations, logical induction, elimination method and logical deduction arrive at exactly one conclusion. That's what evidence is. Data + reasoning put into a model.
>one could just as easily argue that the Universe itself is necessary
One would have an extremely tough time arguing this since everything about the universe (again, down to spacetime) seems to be contingent.

If y'all want proofs that are expressed in two simple sentences, then these are : follow the commandments, for the pure of heart shall see God. For a more analytical proof you will have to invest a bit of attention and effort and read an argument instead of guessing what it says.

>>17930371
>we don't have evidence for God, either because he doesn't exist,
>or he does, but it's impossible to prove he exists,
Or he does and it's possible to prove, but you'd never know since you never set any criteria. Any case, the fact you have no way of recognizing evidence renders your statement "I don't see any evidence" completely moot.

>I don't even really understand the point of trying to find logical or scientific basis for God
The western man knows no other medicine against existential anxiety besides analysis.

>>17930372
>But >>17927965 shows clearly step-by-step how empirical observations, logical induction, elimination method and logical deduction arrive at exactly one conclusion.
You don't actually know what empiricism, observation, and logical induction are anon

>>17930380
>Or he does and it's possible to prove, but you'd never know since you never set any criteria. Any case, the fact you have no way of recognizing evidence renders your statement "I don't see any evidence" completely moot.
The burden of proof in on the one making the claim
So let's see your claim anon, let's see your evidence for God, let's see what YOUR criteria is.

>>17930381
Oh my bad.

>>17930388
That's a nice kneejerk reaction but I'm not coming to you with a claim. I'm pointing out to you that your statement is completely moot.

>>17927965
>The incontingent point is called the "uncaused cause" or "prime mover" since it is not caused but causes reality to exist.
Why should we believe the Prime Mover is a God with agency and not some other metaphysical force?

If God is eternal, and thus has infinite time to create the universe, then the chances he'd create this universe will always be 100%

If God exists outside of time entirely, then you've reduced Gods own agency down to a 50/50 coin toss, either he creates the universe or he doesn't.

If you can't prove that God has personal agency or free will, then he is no different from any other naturalistic positions regarding the nature of reality.

>>17930392
>I'm pointing out to you that your statement is completely moot.
At this point your argument is that the ultimate nature of God is not knowable, which is an argument for Agnosticism, not Theism.

>>17930397
>and not some other metaphysical force
Forces are caused. And I understand this seems like I'm nitpicking, but there is a near infinite set of terms that naturalists would like to replace God with - a force, a field, a spark, a hole, an entanglement, a loop... All things imply contingency and that are beneath the level of personhood and agency. Prime mover would not be beneath those things, it would be far above what we imagine as personhood and far above what we experience as agency (which completely violates naturalistic metaphysical, and thus linguistic, bias). So the appropriate way to think of Him would be personal - that's the highest thing we can conceive of, so it's the best linguistic approximation.
Also, causing (reality) on His own accord (since he was not prompted) is agency per excellence.
>chances
If the Prime Mover were subject to statistics, surely so. But then he would be contingent.
>you've reduced Gods own agency down to a 50/50 coin toss
Again, statistics, contingency.

>>17930406
I'm not making a statement about God's nature. I'm telling you that "I am not aware of any measurements of [a thing idk we'd measure]" is moot. It's not even a reflection on you or your intelligence, I just want to make it clear that we cannot conclude absolutely nothing from not seeing evidence when we didn't even agree on how to spot it. Do you disagree?

>>17930410
The worst part about arguing with you is that you are too stupid to understand why nothing you say makes any sense.

>>17930416
So you're no arguing in favor of Agnosticism or Theism
You're arguing in favor of Ignosticism

Do you agree?

>>17930417
I am quite bad at dumbing things down, I admit. I have no idea why you're not getting it but with joint efforts we will work it out.

>>17930422
No, I disagree. I'm arguing against making moot points. This is not inherent to any of the three ism's.

>>17930426
>I am quite bad at dumbing things down, I admit. I have no idea why you're not getting it but with joint efforts we will work it out.
No anon, you're just dumb. I remember thinking this way when I was a teenager. You're no better than retards like Terrance Howard who throw random words about reality into the air that don't make any sense and when you're called out it's everyone else who are the dumb ones
>Personal agency is above contingency bro!
Doesn't make sense. You're not being coherent right now.

>>17930430
>>Personal agency is above contingency bro!
>Doesn't make sense. You're not being coherent right now
Things I never said do tend to be quite nonsensical, I have noticed that pattern too. Do you have a question?

>>17930430
>You're no better than retards like Terrance Howard
kek, forgot about this guy
I think he's actually just a schizo, he now seems to be claiming he's not arguing in favor of theism either. His entire argument just boils down to what Soft Atheists believe anyways, but I'm sure he's going to come up with some schizo retort because he doesn't even understand what atheism is.

>>don't make moot points
>heh so you abandon theism now?
the absolute state of this thread

>>17930432
>All things imply contingency and that are beneath the level of personhood and agency. Prime mover would not be beneath those things, it would be far above what we imagine as personhood and far above what we experience as agency
My bad, you're saying that God is just above our understanding, and logic regarding basically everything, and thus arguments against God are moot, but arguments for God aren't moot because you are very smart and smart people use double standards

This schizo;
>God is above contingency
>God is above agency
>God is above logic
>God is above coherence
>God is above making sense
>Yet we should expect God to be evident
Cool argument bro

>>17930440
You're getting better, these are different things I actually said mingled into one big lump.

>God is just above our understanding
In essence, yes. The Prime Mover argument really only gets to one of his key attributes, not to his essence. Coincidentally it's the attribute that plays the biggest role in the definition of God - freely creating the universe.
>arguments against God are moot
I don't see why they would be. "I don't see what I can't recognize" is moot, sure, but arguments against God in general? Who knows.
>double standards
Not making moot points is a single standard. If you saw any point I made that you find to be moot, please point it out. Preferably something I did say.

>>17930446
Woah an argument nobody made doesn't make sense! Again!
It always re-assures me a little bit that the only way atheists can deboonk the contingency argument is by completely rewriting and rearranging it into some absurdity that vaguely resembles the original. Couldn't take down the actual thing, huh?

>>17930452
Anon, YOU are an atheist.

>>17930458
Ok then.

>>17930462
You are, you just don't know what atheism actually is. In fact you don't seem to understand what a lot of things are.

>>17930465
I'm sold, say no more. Ordering The God Delusion from Amazon right now.

If God doesn’t want you to know that He exists then it will be impossible to prove that He exists. That’s the whole point, He is testing you. I really hope that you don’t do anything bad just because you think that He doesn’t exist. This is exactly how He gets you.
Everyone just assumes that God is the nice guy but He’s just an undercover cop.

>>17930452
The only way you can support the contingency argument is by diving deeper and deeper into wordsalad whenever someone brings up any interesting points or counterarguments
>It's not wordsalad you just don't understand
Here's what you said
>In essence, yes. The Prime Mover argument really only gets to one of his key attributes, not to his essence. Coincidentally it's the attribute that plays the biggest role in the definition of God - freely creating the universe.
>>and not some other metaphysical force
Forces are caused. And I understand this seems like I'm nitpicking, but there is a near infinite set of terms that naturalists would like to replace God with - a force, a field, a spark, a hole, an entanglement, a loop... All things imply contingency and that are beneath the level of personhood and agency. Prime mover would not be beneath those things, it would be far above what we imagine as personhood and far above what we experience as agency (which completely violates naturalistic metaphysical, and thus linguistic, bias). So the appropriate way to think of Him would be personal - that's the highest thing we can conceive of, so it's the best linguistic approximation.
>Also, causing (reality) on His own accord (since he was not prompted) is agency per excellence.

>>17930469
>Atheism is when God Delusion™ on Amazon
You are way less intelligent than you think you are.

>>17930477
>Here are three sections I did not understand
Devastating critique to say the least.
I have to repeat - do you have a question? Do you want me to point out to you why doing something without being forced to do it is called agency? Do you want me to take you through metaphysics 101 (essences, attributes...) now that we're half an hour into a metaphysical discussion? Do you want me to explain why "a force" is below personhood?

I'm not sure how to help you, brother. You're confused and you're blaming it on me as though an argument that was found intelligible across cultures, across continents, across religions and across millenia must be mere word salad now that an Anon didn't get it...

But what do I know. Turns out I'm just an atheist.

>>17930481
Now that is a solid argument. Perhaps I will be enlightened by my own intelligence after reading the God Delusion (trademarked intellectual property). I'll get to it. Science bless you! *tips fedora*

>>17930497
>Do you want me to point out to you why doing something without being forced to do it is called agency? Do you want me to take you through metaphysics 101 (essences, attributes...) now that we're half an hour into a metaphysical discussion? Do you want me to explain why "a force" is below personhood?
No, because I already made arguments regarding this. Your response was wordsalad. You have a hill to die on and do not want to actually engage in good faith.

>>17930504
>wordsalad
I concede fully to this counter-argument. Merry Sciencemas, El Atheisto signing off.

>>17930502
That's right anon, atheism is when you tip fedoras. You are a very intelligent person and we're all dumb. Reducing God down to a presupposition makes you very smart. I bet you think you look very intelligent, when everyone lurking and reading this thread totally agrees with you and doesn't at all think you're a schizo.

>>17930497
>>17930410
>>17927965
Easily the dumbest person ITT. I estimate your IQ to be 100 because that's usually where peak Dunning-Kruger starts

>>17930519
The most frustrating thing about arguing with this asshole is that I DO understand his arguments, I just think the premise behind them is completely contrived, and his rebuttal to this is that it's somehow rooted in logic and I'm dumb for not understanding logic. Midwits are the most annoying people to deal with.

>>17930528
>>17930519
He also doesn't even understand his position, because he's reduced God down to a logical syllogism, which imo kinda misses the point of believing in God because if you're just going to reduce him down to the metaphysical prime mover, then you have little reason to be religious.

The reason God doesn't seem to exist is that before creating the universe he used his omnipotence to forgo his omniscience (to make things more interesting), and after creating the universe he used his omnipotence to forgo almost all of his power and become part of his creation. Long story short, it's me. I'm God. This has been the worst decision ever and I'm terribly sorry to everyone involved. Also I've decided to identify as an atheist because, for all intents and purposes, there is no "God" at the present time.

Most Atheists understand how the Prime Mover Argument works, they just understand that it's not good evidence or proof of God.

Can Christians inform me how you can make the jump from the existence of God to him being reincarnated as Jesus? The acceptance of the idea of God is one thing, but for the actual Abrahamic God of Christianity to be the one is an entirely different thing, especially when there's evidence of a plurality of different interpretations and contradictions within the Bible (there being multiple Gods with El ruling over them all, the fact that Yahweh is a Canaanite deity, the burning bush being representative of other myths from the time period, etc.) This isn't an attack, I'm genuinely grappling with this stuff.

t. Theist who thinks there is a God, but thinks it just went on it's merry way after creation.

>>17930610
>t. Theist who thinks there is a God, but thinks it just went on it's merry way after creation.
Just say you're a Deist anon, that way you don't look like a dumbass.

>>17930610
Every Christian on the internet when pressed on inconveniences like you know, "evidence" will tend to temporarily convert to Deism and fall back to some broad metaphysical commentary only to convert back to Christianity when the debate is over
In other words, they do this because they're stupid or dishonest. Returning to the former point, they're stupid because they are either extremely gullible and lack critical thinking skills or because they think it's impossible to divorce God from religious doctrine, or in other words they cannot comprehend believing in God without worshipping the Sky-Jew-Kaiju. Another alternative is that they are brainwashed into thinking that they'll go to hell if they disobey Jeebus Crust

>>17930610
Just ask yourself what the most complete account of God that we have access to. To me, it's Christ. I know that scripture is not perfect, but Christ is not scripture only (which was compiled 380 years after His death). Christ is an experience that you enter into through a series of practices: prayer, repentance, fasting, scripture, and liturgy.
If you do these things with your heart, you will be transformed in your character and your daily experience of life.

>>17930548
He was in the world, and the world came into being through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him.

>>17928299
to have a humble heart is the key to understand Jesus' spiritual ideas. You either do that or you take his words at face value and misunderstand them, just like Nietzsche did