Thread 17988350

>There is no knowing or proving anything without God.
>Prove it.
>There is no way, or even a possibility, it doesn't exist.
>Prove it.
>It's because infallibility only comes from an infallible source.
>Prove it.
>The law of logi..
>Prove it.
It's always fascinating to see the unhinged behavior of atheists when they hit the wall with presups.

>can't prove it

theists btfo

>>17988350 (OP)
I know that logic exists because I can reason. A universe without the law of non-contradiction couldn't have anything said about it.
>Prove you can reason without appealing to reason
I'm reasoning now.

And now the question that bluescreens theists.

Asked 2000 years ago and still no answer whatsoever.

>>17988455
>babby's first delve into the eternality of God

>>17988468
If the universe needs a creator, so does god.
If god can exist without a creator, so can the universe. A theist stating that everything needs to have a creator except god is merely professional apologetics.

>>17988474
>If the universe needs a creator, so does god.
>If god can exist without a creator, so can the universe
Non-sequitur.

>what if the universe was bread man..
You need a naloxone shot before you OD

>>17988502
Something still made the baker. His parents.

>>17988474
>theist stating that everything needs to have a creator except god
Isn't that just atheists being disingenuous as usual with the equivocation fallacy?
When a theist says everything has to be created, they obviously mean the universe, spacetimematter because it can't have an infinite past.
Doesn't make sense unless you're arguing for a spacetimematterGod continuum.

>>17988519
The problem is that you insist on a "law of reality" by stating everything needs to have a creator, and the first next thing you do is decide your answer does not have to abide by that law. It is special pleading at its most basic.

>>17988508
That doesn't answer the question.

>>17988526
The parents created the baker, they didn't bake him in the literal sense but are still the reason he exists.

>>17988523
Isn't that just doubling down on the fallacy though?

>>17988532
No, it is understanding the definition of the word "Everything".

>>17988528
So you admit the baker isn't baked?

>>17988534
Even if you're trying to feign honesty from a technical standpoint, God doesn't exist in your atheist worldview which means it's excluded, so I still don't see how it works.
So it leaves you with either the two in pic related.

>>17988545
I don't say there's no way he could exist. It is possible, until actual evidence arrives it is folly to assume he does exist though.

>>17988554
To expand on this, it is *especially* folly to assume on of the gods written down by man exists. Holy scriptures are riddled with statements that are exceedingly human to think (Mohammad making up shit to suit his feelings/wants being the prime example, but other religions are also full of them).

>>17988554
Well I guess it's much better to feign retardation instead of admitting chicanery.
And proof is evidence, although evidence isn't necessarily proof.

>>17988561
Equivocation fallacy is the most overused fallacy.

>>17988563
Fine, *until he is proven to exist it is folly to assume so.

>>17988565
If you don't want to run into it, don't use words like "everything".

>>17988570
>If you don't want to run into it, don't use words like "everything".
I will keep using it to bait and call out the fallacy.
>until
That assumes God hasn't been proven to begin with though, unless you're appealing to solipsism.

>>17988502
> the baker must be eternal and self-caused XD
theists aren't sending their best

>>17988350 (OP)
>>17988601
I already proved you wrong OP, I can have knowledge without appealing to god.
See: >>17988406

>>17988350 (OP)
>prove it
>makes assertion
>no i mean prove it
>makes another assertion
Proof isn't "well i said it bro".
>cop: where were you on X night?
>you: i was at my house.
>cop: can you prove it?
>you: yeah i said i was there.
Just making a claim is not itself evidence. The religious have this fundamental mistake where their reality is dictated. They were told a thing and must accept it without question. So when others ask them to prove something they often think just making bold claims will pass and won't be scrutinized for validity. It's telling to the way their mind operates.

>>17988688
It's the issue with premodernism. You start at metaphysics first (discerning what's real), then your epistemology will just have to conform to whatever the "holy text" says. It's poisoning the scientific well before drinking from it.

Imagine writing this OP as an attack on atheism. I swear, religious thinking on 4chan has just become "IT'S CALLED BEING A BASED RETARD, MOM!"

>>17988705
Because they're lying and it shows. Instead of going "look i just hate people and want to use religion as a smokescreen for my own views" or "im right wing and in the west so i have to be christian" they need to use fairly dumb mental gymnastics to justify it and everyone can see it. They're not being upfront about what they believe or why. Half the alleged people on 4chan that are Christian are almost exclusively Christian to justify hating Jews for example. Or "no those aren't real Jews cuz real Jews are white". They invest into the religions for reasons other than sincere belief in the material (that they all discard or reinterpret to justify their views anyway). And so you get nonsense like this. It's as rational as "why are you a X sports team fan?" there is no real rational reason or great evidence.

The entirety of /his/ is just atheists seething at the couple Christians they have isn't it?

>>17988726
>is that... someone disagreeing with me online?
>UR SEETHING OY VEY JESUS PREDICTED THIS REMEMBER IF THE WORLD HATES YOU IT HATED HIM FIRST AND JOHN 3:16 SAYS...
Lmao. You guys want any excuse to larp as a victim.

>>17988729
>t.

You are Indian

>>17988739
How old are you anyways?

>>17988726
>someone says something retarded
>people call them retarded
>[triggered]

>>17988759
Just let the pigeon declare its victory by shitting on the chessboard. He'll go on to live a miserable life after.

>>17988759
People laugh at retards though, but you only see unhinged malding with atheists.

>>17988474
>If the universe needs a creator, so does god.
>If god can exist without a creator, so can the universe
This is just semantics. God is defined as the creator. The universe is the medium. Saying that the universe was there in the beginning with God is similar to what john is saying with the word outos in John 1:2. Eventually, outos is defined, and history continues.

>>17988769
Rocks in glass houses, bro
you keep making these threads

>>17988779
No, what's semantics is saying everything needs a creator except this person I made up that doesn't have to abide by the rules of reality. It is contradicting yourself immediately because you need your presupposition in order to be able to debate.

>>17988779
No
>God is defined as the creator
THIS is semantics

>>17988779
People are not arguing about how Christians historically have used words.

The idea is clearly that you don't have, or have not provided, a principled reason why it's fine for God to exist for no reason. But not fine for the universe.

Honestly, I'd probably be a theist if it weren't for how absolutely retarded the average theist is. There are things about the universe and things in philosophy that are a lot more uncomfortable in an atheistic worldview, but watching theists argue reminds me that any lapse in my "rational" thinking like that are probably just similar copes. All these "n-no god is the creator he's uncreated t-therefore...", muh ontological proof of god, etc are so completely retarded that it can only possibly be 80 IQ retards that repeat them

>>17988820
That's the very theme isn't it?

>>17988832
>I'm insistent therefore I win

>>17988835
This practically confirms you're a jeet. Disavowal vishnu.

>>17988837
>Almost self-aware.

>>17988832
Why do you even make this thread when you NEVER engage in the conversation?

>>17988835
What does that have to do with anything in my post? Are you unable to respond for yourself? @GROK pleEASE PLEASE make a reply for me YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND I need this rn PLEASE

>>17988350 (OP)
God is not a necessary requirement for knowledge or proof. The first statement is false. Presupps are very stupid.

Why are theists embarrassing themselves for free here when they can get paid for it on twitter?

>>17988350 (OP)
Hey OP can you defeat my argument already? >>17988406 >>17988630

>>17988350 (OP)
Retroactively refuted by Kant.

OP here, so I'm ranged banned with my thread up by some buttmad atheist janny.
This has happened before where they deleted my thread without even giving any reason.
This site is not fundamentally different from reddit, it's only allowed in the likeness of some no life losers where they ban anyone they don't like shaping it into their likeness as if it's their personal playground.

>>17989427
Ok OP but can you atleast try to tackle my argument for why you don't need to assume god to prove logic exists >>17988406?

>>17988350 (OP)
There is no knowing or proving anything, period. Knowledge is impossible, therefore omniscience and the Jewish god are impossible. Done.

>>17989427
I feel you, my thread also was deleted by cringe threads about jews still up in the air.

>>17989427
You are literally a known shitposter who's made this thread and posted the same twitter screencap replies dozens of times.

Always great to see presups flipping the script: instead of being on the defensive, theists challenge atheists to justify how logic is possible at all. Classic.

>>17989507
I've already answered OP, see >>17988406

>>17989507
They want to play the skeptic judge so bad and flip out whenever it's not entertained.
Real corny niggas.

Test.

>>17989507
>justify how logic is possible at all
It's made up on the fly. You agree to arbitrary parameters (axioms, premises) and play a game of pretend. That's it.

When you're asking a question, and there seems to be no answer to it
So you invent a guy with the superpower to explain anything, he can answer the question - but you can't go into detail on how any of t his works

You are probably just asking a dumb question

>>17989530
This is not what presup is asking about

>>17989507
>>17989536
Suppose an atheist answer: "I don't know."
How does that get you any closer to God?

>>17989602
I'm giving an answer to demonstrate how I can know logic exists without appealing to god. If you want me to account for logic I'll posit it thus: the law of non-contradiction is the most basic law of physics, something which will hold in any possible universe. The law doesn't actually "exist" in an abstract manner, but is simply a property which holds, and which the human mind makes an abstraction.

>>17989604
Are you worth the effort at that point?

>>17989632
Just to be totally clear, what's the question you are asking?

>>17989630
Right. So presup doesn't care about any of that.
Presup is the assertion that you can't have logic without God.

>>17989636
It questions the legitimacy of your reason for the debate or argument.
At that point you're just there to demonstrate that you can deny anything with solipsism.

It's just senseless and deranged, not even hyperballing.
The is only one final step beyond that.

>>17989639
Most presups I've listened to will claim you can't ACCOUNT for logic without god.
If you want to claim logic cannot exist without god I would just say that: Yes, it is! Then I would move on with my day, unless you could explain why you cannot have logic without god within 30 seconds.

>>17989651
>It is
It can*

>>17989651
I think you're referring to the transcendental argument which presups often use too.
It's not the same.
See presup here: >>17989632

Religion is bullshit, it makes claims we can actually test in the real world.
God himself however can still be real, since he is metaphysical and cannot be proven or disproven.
Most Atheists are Naturalists, they only concern themselves with what we can know with certainty, and believe that anything we can't know simply shouldn't concern us or can be disregarded completely.

>>17989648
I'm still not entirely sure what your asking
Can you give me an example of how you would answer?

>>17989651
>unless you could explain why
The whole reason it's called presup is because it doesn't bother explaining anything

>>17989659
You litteraly said that
>Presup is the assertion that you can't have logic without God.
Lol.
>How can you know things
I know that I experience things, because I am experiencing things. I know that I can reason because I am doing so, hence I know logic exists.
>What about the objective outside world?
If the outside world didn't exist my mind would be all there was, I.e I would know all things. Hence it stands to reason that either the outside world exists or I know all things, I don't know all things, so the outside world is real.
So yes, I can know things without appealing to god.

Regarding divine revelation, a book coming from an unfalible source. I'm thinking about constructing an argument to prove that is impossible from what I showed above, but for now I'll just ask you to consider this:
Devine revelation from a book will be problematic for the simple reason that human language will always be ambigous, atleast in theory. If you find two seemingly contradictary passages in a holy book, or if your holy book seems to contradict reality, you will have to reinterpret your holy book, but you can always chose multiple interpretations, so which do you prioritize? If you want to claim it's self evident you will have to hold every person who choses a different interpretation to yours as a liar, or yourself as such. Moreover you will have to claim you lied to yourself before you changed your interpretation.
You can also not prove any other persons holy book wrong without appealing to your own holy book for the simple reason that any objection you have to their holy book can be answered by appealing to the fact that their holy book is right and that any seeming contradiction is no contradiction at all, it mearly appears as such, with the use of hermeneutics and appeals to poetic license any seeming problem goes away.

>>17989604
Common atheist answer

>>17988350 (OP)
Prove that you aren't a raging pedophile.

>>17990267
How would you answer?

>Because logic must come from somewhere, that means there must be a higher power.
>Now that I have your attention, let me tell you why that higher power is the one from this specific book written by a multitude of people over hundreds of years. It includes talking snakes, people living inside of whales, flying prophets, magical foreskins, and an imminent apocalypse coming soon [two more weeks]
It really is a leap from playing wordgames and quibbling about appeals to reason to "prove" the existence of a nondescript deity and then insisting that said deity is the same one from the Christian bible.