What is the atheist's response to basic arguments like intelligent design?

>>507897970 (OP)
Probably something like fuck you and your gay ass memeflag nigger

>>507897970 (OP)
>intelligent design
>endless number of genetic mutations leading to death and suffering
more like retarded design you stupid jew worshiper

>>507897970 (OP)
If intellegent design is proof of God then it must surely mean that God also must have something that created him.
Not an atheist but that's generally the response I heard for this argument.

>>507898360
Entropy was caused by the fall, not in God's original intention.
>And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

>>507898531
>the design by the jew volcano demon was smart but another jewish demon with horns made it stupid
go die for israel already you stupid jew worshiping twat

>>507898425
That disregards the fact that God being created is an oxymoron.
It does acknowledge that intelligent design requires a designer, you can infinitely beg the question but since nothing comes from nothing, there has to be an eternal designer.

>>507899177
Cont.
So unless they are proposing pantheism, I don't see how it tackles the argument.
But even then, the universe, or spacetime cannot have an infinite past.

>>507898177
This

>>507898425
>eternal
>must have been made
Sure is summer around here

I guess there really is no response huh? Do they just bury their head in the sand?

no response is required. do you have any proof? no? then i'm not required to believe you.

>>507901291
I wasn't even done lol. Seems like a major yes.

>>507899177
>who baked the baker?
his mother.

>>507901400
>do you have any proof? no? then i'm not required to believe you.

>>507897970 (OP)
They will point to genetic diseases and "faultless" suffering like Tsunamis, natural disasters and horrible diseases.
They also might use the "god of the gaps" argument.

Intelligent design won't convince an atheist, because it's not a rational worldview. It's a worldview formed by trauma, butthurt, and anger at God.

You need to look an atheist in the eye and say "it's not your fault" and hug them like their Dad never did.

That's how you argue against atheism.

>>507897970 (OP)
In my experience, if someone is actually searching for Trvth, and is not just a butthurt faggot, there is literally ZERO refutation for the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG).

where does the design start

>>507902103

>>507897970 (OP)
The only group that ever really tried were the Hylozoic Atheists. They recognized that mind couldn't emerge from matter, but rather than agreeing that that must mean God exists they instead argued that it must mean that all matter already had mind, and that everything down to the smallest particle was actually fully endowed with consciousness. Of course they were still absolutely wrong, but at least they were consistent.

>>507897970 (OP)
Not an atheist, but most of the "arguments" that come out of intelligent design, like irreducible complexity and all that shit tend to blatantly ignore the many, many, MANY examples of intermediate stages seen in the fossil record and existing organisms, oversimplify the processes at work, and/or significantly truncate the amount of time and the many many generations and organisms these changes are suspected to have taken place over.

I don't pretend to know for certain whether God exists, but I choose to have faith that He does. And if He does, then the scenario laid out by the intelligent design crowd is far too mundane for Him.

>>507898425
You don't understand the concept of first cause?

>>507897970 (OP)
if you think your god is all powerful and your religion is correct, why are you personally insulted when an atheist disregards your religious beliefs?

>>507903239
The proof for an intelligent and loving creator is that a cause has to possess everything it gives to its effects. So the fact that compassion and consciousness exist in us, means that the first cause has to also possess those things in order for us to have them. We didn't get them from nothing, because things aren't capable of coming from nothing. So wherever we got them from, it must have been something that already had them.

>>507903558
>h-he came first!
>because I said so!

every aspect of your mythology and religious beliefs is stupid as fuck

>>507903854
>things aren't capable of coming from nothing
except for your creator of course, he came first because "reasons", and no nothing else can ever emerge without his intervention, its impossible

>>507897970 (OP)
I started believing in intelligent design when paleontologists suddenly claimed that dinosaurs had feathers
I'd rather believe in a 6000 year old earth and the devil burying fake bones to trick people than a trex being an overgrown chicken

>>507904028
>except for your creator of course
No, the first cause is by definition unmade. It didn't come from nothing, because it always was. Or more accurately, it exists outside of time. We know this to be the case logically, because in order for something to be a creative force it has to be perfect, and in order for something to be perfect it must exist outside of time. Because time is the measure of change, but perfect things cannot gain or lose, otherwise they wouldn't be perfect.

>>507903239
It always gets extremely exhausting arguing about evolution, so I just camouflaged animals and ask them to explain it.
Don't need all that, the humble camouflaged creature BTFOs evolutionists.

>>507904028

>>507897970 (OP)
It's a poor argument from the start. A watch maker has a watchmaker because of its 'complexity', but a far more complex watchmaker does not?
I think the purpose of this self-contradicting hypothesis is to display the hilarious lengths believers will go to prove their credulity and try to rationalize their irrational beliefs.

>>507904028
>he doubles down on not understanding the concept of first cause
kek

>>507899177
>there has to be an eternal designer.
There doesn't, and just as Aristotle postulated, even if there was a prime mover, it would be nothing like your Semitic gods.
It's honest to admit we just don't know
It's dishonest to pretend you know with a made up story.

>>507904410
>came from nothing
Nobody claims this. Everything existed, it was just confined into a very small, dense space. A balloon doesn't stop existing just because it's deflated and balled up, does it?

>>507906449
We do know. Saying that we can't know because we can't see it is like saying that sight is a more powerful sense than reason. But reason is obviously more powerful than sight, because even animals can see and reason is where they fall short of being our equals. So, knowing something through reason alone is better proof of its existence than being able to touch, taste or see it. Even more so because reason never lies, whereas the senses are frequently incorrect.

>it would be nothing like your Semitic gods.
You ought to actually look into the history of theology. Every religion is describing the same first cause. Those made up stories are attempts to explain it, similar to Plato's description of Love being born out of Dark and Chaos. They're allegorical, and you can't engage with them honestly if you're looking for them to be wrong. Rather, you have to search for whatever truth is hidden in them in good faith.

>>507899421
Says who bitch.


None of you are getting an afterlife. There is no paradise, you will simply cease. Cope and seethe zealots.

>>507904189
Thank you for making Americans look so much smarter.

>>507904295
Who are these biologists you've been talking to? They've literally never been BTFO.

>>507897970 (OP)
not an atheist but what happened to all the "intelligence"? If God wanted us to have it he surely would have spread it further than this

>>507906936
>Saying that we can't know because we can't see it is like saying that sight is a more powerful sense than reason.
Apples and oranges.

--->There is knowledge.
--->And there is belief.
These are non-overlapping magisteria

In the realm of what is knowable (knowledge):
------------------------------------------
Gnostic is what is known
Agnostic is what is not known (but can be)
Gnostic/agnostic logically cannot have anything to do with beliefs.

In the realm of what can be believed:
---------------------------------------------------
Religions are based on beliefs. The Pope said so himself (Fides et Ratio). Beliefs are irrational and don't require any proof (elements of faith)
Gods are supernatural beings that can only be believed in or not believed in. Beliefs in supernatural beings, like demons, witches, gods, sorcerers, angels, leprechauns, abominable snowmen, devils, elves, ghosts, fairies, mummies, mermaids, vampires, werewolves, goblins, Ishtar bunnies, ghouls, zombies and other such beliefs are irrational. We suspend our disbelief in them for entertainment.

There is no overlap of the known with the realm of believables. Gods are supernatural beings some people have been convinced to believe in. We can never 'know' anything about them, just like we can't 'know' anything about leprechauns, but we can pretend to. There have been thousands of vastly different gods among the hundreds of diverse religions.

>>507906674
That makes matter out to be the first cause, which is impossible for several reasons. For one, in order for there to be any kind of "big bang", the rules of logic, math and physics would need to pre-date the matter. But those things don't exist materially, rather they exist incorporeally. So we already have something that exists before incorporeally before matter, meaning matter can't be the first cause. And of top of that, matter lacks mind, intent, consciousness and good will. But those are things that do exist, so they need to have come from someplace. But since nothing can come from nothing, they have to have come from the first cause, which rules out matter as being a potential first cause because as we've established matter doesn't have those.

Basically the argument boils down to this: Either the thing that existed first is the most perfect and everything else that came afterwards descended from that thing, or the worst, most lacking and least perfect thing existed first and everything was built up out of that thing afterwards. Only one of these is logically possible, because a cause needs to be superior to its effects. And because creativity implies potency, which implies perfection. Something that's utterly imperfect and lacks all potency could never be responsible for creation, because it's defined by its lack rather than its abundance.

>>507907830
God is not a belief but knowledge, none are without excuse as the Bible says, you're confusing it with faith for salvation which is in Jesus Christ.

>>507907830
>Apples and oranges.
No, not at all. All belief should be the product of reason. If it isn't, then that's not a legitimate belief and you have no right to hold it. No one is entitled to belief, rather belief is a personal responsibility, and failing in that responsibility is inherently immoral.

>>507908152
>God is not a belief but knowledge
This is the child-like fantasy we were all trying to get past. Your religion calls its belief system ((( knowledge ))) as a rationalization fallacy. You are expected to parrot the fallacy to prove your credulity. But at the end of the day, you've been sold a bill of goods - your beliefs are not knowledge In the kindest way I can muster, you're just not bright enough to be embarrassed by how shamefully obtuse you are.

>>507903558
What came before it? Who created God? You can't answer those simple questions, yet you declare your "religion" is real.

>>507909502
Why are you arguing in bad faith, and why can't you argue against the iron clad logic in posts like these >>507907980

Everything about the way you post indicates that you're more interested in name calling than in apprehending the truth, yet you're desperately trying to fashion yourself as some kind of skeptical intellectual on the right side of reason.

A first cause is something we can know about for certain, because reason is more than sufficient as a tool to get us there. Insisting that belief and reason fundamentally don't mix is the only thing here that really deserves to be called childish, because by definition belief depends upon reason in order for a belief to be valid. An unreasonable belief is just called wrong.

>>507909502
Talking about credulity, it's Christianity which laid the standard. You're right, gods are silly, which is how paganism died. Same with all the mythological beings like the flying sphagetti monster and leprechauns, but you as an atheist beleive those could exist.
We know they don't exist, but someone who identifies as an atheist supposedly don't as they deny God, have no standard aside from the borrowed one from Christianity.
Meaning.... obliviousness. Irony.

>>507909875
>What came before it?
Nothing.

>Who created God?
No one. The first cause always existed because the first by definition had to exist prior to time, since the first came first and was responsible for creating time.

>You can't answer those simple questions, yet you declare your "religion" is real.
You know that these ideas predate Christianity and organized religion in general, right?

>>507897970 (OP)
Intelligently designed by who and why should I believe it's your favorite flavor of God?

>>507899177
>That disregards the fact that God being created is an oxymoron
You can replace "God" with any made up being and the argument doesn't change

>>507908268
>All belief should be the product of reason.
You might believe that, but all the reasoning is against your belief.

> If it isn't, then that's not a legitimate belief and you have no right to hold it.
Check out pic rel and tell me with a straight face those irrational beliefs are all ((( legitimate ))).

>No one is entitled to belief
Irrational belief was the only thing early humans had until their brain cavities started increasing 2 million years ago.

Our brains and skulls have evolved in ways that strongly promote the ability to reason, however we can "suspend disbelief" to engage in brief flights of fantasy. We needed our imaginations to be able to hypothesize and plan ahead. We needed to be able to speculate on the movements of herds, etc. Irrational thinking has some utility for very short periods and our brains are well suited for it. However, we are not meant to suspend our disbelief for long periods of time. Living in delusions and daydreams in the stone age would have been the fastest path to Darwinian death.

Pretending irrational beliefs are real for extended periods have a profound and deleterious effect on your brain's chemistry. Holding mutually exclusive concepts without question or scrutiny creates a harmful cognitive dissonance. The long term strain of this deliberate dissonance damages your ability to think rationally.

It even causes insane beliebers to spout patently ridiculous nonsense like, "The universe was created by a magic sky daddy" and "Atheism is a religion", etc. Atheism is only the non-belief in made-up gods. Any other definition is falsified and a clear symptom of this brain damage.

>>507910482
How so? Could you try it?

>>507908152
>God is not a belief but knowledge
Belief in esoteric "knowledge" which when examined under any scrutiny this "knowledge" is nothing more than your personal feelings

>>507910482
>That disregards the fact that Warbbles being created is an oxymoron
>>507910569
Pretty easy

>>507910569
>Who created everything?
>A magical spoon
>Who created the spoon?
>The spoon created itself
Pretty retarded, isn't it?

>>507910835
Is "Warbbles" also spacetime-less?

>>507911036
Yup

>>507910882
A spacetime-less magical spoon is an oxymoron though.

>>507910504
>You might believe that, but all the reasoning is against your belief.
No, my belief is wherever reason takes me because I'm a genuine truth seeker. A belief that needs to be protected from reason and truth is worse than worthless, it's an anchor around your neck.

>Check out pic rel and tell me with a straight face those irrational beliefs are all ((( legitimate ))).
I didn't say that all beliefs were legitimate. I said that in order for a belief to be legitimate it needs to get that legitimacy from reason.

>Atheism is only the non-belief in made-up gods
Atheism is the denial of incorporeal substance and the assertion that matter is self existent, both of which are demonstrably irrational beliefs.

>>507911093
So it's an eternal being?

>>507911151
Yeah, but Warrbles aren't
>>507911275
Yup

>>507911314
Well I don't see how changing what is called God into something else is supposed to be a gotcha, it's similar with how atheists propose nothing and calling it something else.

>>507910482
Right, which means that the argument still points to a first cause, no matter what you choose to call that first cause. You can call it "The first cause", "The One", "The Creator", "The Good", "Zeus" or "God", no matter which symbol is put in that place the fact remains that what's being referred to is a self existent perfect mind responsible for all that that came after it.

>>507911602
>Well I don't see how changing what is called God into something else is supposed to be a gotcha
It's not a gotcha. Kts to demonstrate that I can suppose anything and it still as valid as your God.

Which means suppositions don't mean much when you can't demonstrate past them.

>>507911738
See
>>507911762
>it's to demonstrate that I can suppose anything and it still as valid as your God.
>Which means suppositions don't mean much when you can't demonstrate past them.

>>507911151
No, it isn't. It's a magical spoon, a mighty creator spoon, the spoon's nature inherently transcends space and time. Real life spoons are its descendants, so it has been revealed to me and if you ever touch a spoon inappropriately I will literally kill you

>>507911762
But it didn't do that. All you did was replace the label. If we decide to call giraffes "gerfunkles" from now on, that doesn't change what they are. It just changes the name.

>>507911188
>Atheism is the denial of incorporeal substance and the assertion that matter is self existent,
Incorrect. Atheism specifically deals with God or gods. Which "incorporeal substance" isn't limited to
Matter exists where we're here to observe it or not

>>507911820
But you didn't suppose anything. You agreed to a set of criterium including timelessness and creative power. So rather than changing the essence of what's being talked about, you just changed the name. Do you know the difference between a thing and its name?

>>507911839
>>507911839
A magical spoon by definition consists of spacetime though.
If you take those away, it's nothing termed "magic spoon".

>>507911862
>But it didn't do that.
Sure did. My Warrbles are just as real as your God because I suppose it so

>>507912061
>But you didn't suppose anything
Sure did. With the same guidelines you claim for God.

>>507897970 (OP)
Who created the creator?
>inb4 no one, they've always been there
So the same as naturalism, except without any proof or explanation of the process involved. In other words, the argument has all the problems theists claim naturalism has without any of the upsides.

>>507912123
Your Warrbles is God, because all you did was take the argument for God and replace the word God with Warrbles. The legitimacy of the argument is the same whether or not you use the specific name "God". You didn't debunk or refute anything in doing this, you just changed the name. Are you really having trouble understanding that a thing is distinct from the name it's being called? You know there are multiple languages on this planet, right?

>>507898360
What if it was unintelligent design?

>God exists, but he's retarded
>man is made in the image of God
>"the people are retarded"
>just like me

>>507912074
Wrong, the definition of a space is merely a description of shape. There are wooden spoons, metal spoons, silver spoons. This spoon is made out of a magical material beyond your comprehension, and it transcends space and time.

>>507912264
>The universe created itself.

>>507912381
definition of a space spoon*

>>507898177
I just checked with the atheists and this is in fact their response.

>>507912309
>Your Warrbles is God
Yup. And made with the same supposition you lot use for your God.

But Warrbles are cooler because they fly around ok invisible galactic dragons.

>>507912264
Naturalism is the one that lacks proof and explanation. Plotinus, on the other hand, was able to explain very clearly how and why the first generative being had to generate Intellect before anything else, and why Intellect had to generate Soul.

>>507912393
Nice strawman. That gif is about you lol

>>507897970 (OP)
Atheists have their point, those middle eastern fairy tales aged badly, but what the heck caused Big Bang ? Is this a simulation ? Or what the fuck ?

>>507912393
>God created himself
>Whatever created God created itself
>Whatever created what created God created itself....
As soon as you claim that a creator is necessary for anything to exist you end up in this problem.
I don't claim to know how the universe was born but I know that anyone claiming it *needs* to have been created by someone is just trapping themselves in a recursive argument.

>>507912591
>>507912829
Sorry, I meant,
>The universe designed itself.

>>507912809
>but what the heck caused Big Bang ? Is this a simulation ? Or what the fuck ?
Don't know. But it's fun to make up suppositions about it

>>507912903
>doubles down on the strawman
Kek

>>507912829
No, you have it the other way around. Every effect depends on a cause, so the first cause by logical necessity has to be self-existent. This is logically sound in every way, there are no leaks. On the other hand, claiming that nothing is self-existent is where you get an infinite recursion that doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.

>this guy doesn't believe in an Abrahamic God
>call him an atheist
Why are all the Abrahamic religions like this?

>>507913011
>Every effect depends on a cause
But there effects that leads to cause

>>507913159
To a different and cause, but not to the cause that caused it. A chain of cause and effect always flows in the same direction, and so while there are many causes and many effects, they all travel downstream in a logically consistent manner and each effect is dependent upon all of the causes that preceded it.

>>507913159
>there effects
There are* effects

>>507912829
Not so, unless you're arguing that the present creates the past, lol.
Again, it's actually the other way around, the past creates the present so there has to be an eternal designer since nothing comes from nothing.

>>507912264
So what started it all, smartass ? Men splitting the atom, coming up with quarks, black matter, ultra autists can't come up with even close similiar to explanation. Ultra-being is plausible in that case. Pic rel

>>507913390
>To a different and cause, but not to the cause that caused it.
But we don't know the cause, all we know are the effects. And the further advanced we get we keep peeling back the layers of effects, still no cause as of yet

>>507913452
>the past creates the present so there has to be an eternal designer
You're contradicting yourself
If the past creates the present then therenis no eternal, just a constant regression, which unironically seems eternal lol

What's more likely?
>you die and an omnipotent, foreskin-obsessed israelite god decides which cookie cutter version of eternal life you get based on events within a finite amount of time which he planned for you to go through before you were born, and the only warning you receive of this fate is a 2000 year old book riddled with contradictions and lies written solely to retcon the lore of a ~2800 year old combination of an Edomite god and a Canaanite god
or
>you die and experience the same thing you did before you were born (nothing)

>>507897970 (OP)
besides going from "everything works alright" to "somebody created this" being just non sequitur, the idea of things existing for a purpose is imaginary. most matter in our solar system is bouncing around as plasma in the sun and it's not doing that to make a sun so innocent people on earth can die from the heat, it's just the way the matter works. you worship the flaws of your own mind.

If you think that existence has to conform to any of your ideas of logic, causality, or time, you're very confused.

Remember: these are all *human* abstractions, our own feeble attempts to make sense of what we observe.

>>507897970 (OP)
what makes it intelligent
>>507898531
cheap copout faggot

>>507897970 (OP)
Intelligent design is incredibly blasphemous. Biology is a complete disaster in so many ways. To assert that god directly designed it is a profound insult against god.

>>507913011
>claiming that nothing is self-existent
That's what creationists are arguing though, that nothing could exist without a creator.
We can both agree that there must be a first cause that by necessity is self-extant, there is nothing that can prove it is intelligent, all-knowing, all-powerful, or a force for good.
It very well could be some or all of those things but I think the best answer science has to offer is we don't know. We might never know.
All science hopes to do is gather what might have happened in the past through evidence of multiple corroborating natural processes as we currently understand them. If there is no evidence then it is a matter of faith.
I don't understand why it can't just be that for you and you can't leave scientists to discover what they can through naturalism. It isn't even contradictory until we know with more confidence what happened, and neither is it a weakness that we don't know for sure. If we said we knew it would simply be a lie.

>>507913592
We know that it exists in the first place because logic demands it, so it stands to reason that we can know several things about it through that same logic. For example, we know that it has to possess mind in some way, because mind exists elsewhere downstream in the chain of cause and effect. Mind couldn't just come out of nowhere, and an effect can only be given what belongs to its immediate cause, so mind is a trait that the first cause has to possess in some form.

>>507898531
So "God" is also a victim of causality

>>507913467
I don't claim to know, but you seem to know for certain. What created this ultra being?

>>507913851
Give me an explanation for the beggining, without it, ultra-hyper father of time and space is an option. I think i might be a deist. Or, it's really a fucking simulation, then The Start Of Everything is logical, a moment of turning the simulation on. I sure hope that abrahamic religions are wrong with their version, i'm quite a sinner.

Oh wait, confession will save my ass, fkin great :) I'm baptized, just to be sure i'll go there in a spare time.

I like Karma idea better. Pic rel

>>507914269
>For example, we know that it has to possess mind in some way
Define "mind" in this context
>Mind couldn't just come out of nowhere
Please stop making these dumb strawman arguments. No one argues this ever. Also, you're now suggesting the this mind is down stream from another.
>so mind is a trait that the first cause has to possess in some form.
You've yet to define mind in this context

>>507910087
>why can't you argue against the iron clad logic in posts like these >>507907980
Well, firstly because it's not logic. Seriously, none of it. The science-denying author of that post thought it sounded right in his mind so he tried to pass off his tautology as something serious. But it's not. The problem is he's extremely limited in his thinking, only able to comprehend the world through his beliefs, tainting everything he perceives with fabricated nonsense.

>matter lacks mind, intent, consciousness and good will
The universe was most certainly not designed with us in mind. Humans can exist naturally only on a tiny sliver of crust on this planet, able to rise up no more than 2 miles above the surface and even less below it. We are literally hundreds of light years from the next habitable planet without our technology to protect us.

● Logic doesn't have to pre-date matter, but the fact is they seem to have arrived around the same time. Chronology is not correlation, but there's no contrary evidence otherwise.
● No evidence exists for a "first cause" only speculation
● The Prime Mover is a irrational speculation Aristotle attempt to rationalize. For those who don't know, rationalization is not logic.
● No evidence is known for what was before the cosmos inflation, so mislabeling it "nothing" is unscientific.
● Calling everything you don't like an "impossibility" is the language of non-falsification.

People with an IQ north of 100 (and passed 9th grade science) should know that the Inflationary Theory of the Cosmos only begins at the moment the proto-particles of the universe began moving away from each other. The Big Bang makes NO claim what might have been before it, or if time, gravity or matter even existed then. Atheists are just non-believers, they don't have to explain it and believers against it hypocritically enjoy the fruits of science (technology) while falsely smearing it out of the other side of their duplicitous mouths.

>>507902722
If mind can't emerge from matter where does it come from. If you were to propose a soul, then that does not resolve the problem, it just moves it somewhere else. The soul is not made up of physical matter, but its still an object made of something.

>>507912393
Why is that more unbelievable than god creating himself?

>>507914462
>Give me an explanation for the beggining, without it
Then infinity symbol. Maybe reality build up enough entropy and shit gets reset. Maybe that's all this is, a constant regressive cycle

>>507914236
>there is nothing that can prove it is intelligent, all-knowing, all-powerful, or a force for good.
Yes, there is. All of those traits are logically necessary in order for something to be a first cause at all, because generation only happens as a result of abundance. It has to be omnipotent because the alternative is to argue that creation can come from impotence, which is the same as arguing that something can come from nothing or from a deficiency.

>>507914664
I don't believe in a god or gods thoughs.

>>507914341
Nah, i'm kind of atheist myself, or a deist at best. I'm only sure of myself (when sober)
I love how catholic clergy, or those totally crazy fairy tales are told with straight face.
It's kind of self explanatory, it's ULTRA-being. Until our beloved, totally meritocratic, not ever paid for their papers, analysis etc. Ultra-being theory is at best plausible, if there's no idea in scientific community how to grasp this.

I woulndt be a some kind of ultrabeing zealot if there was some sort of theory about the ULTRA-start, but theres none. Maybe you heard some, post it

What do atheists mean when they that God is complex anyways?
You don't look and see beyond spacetime and see WOW, that's so complex, probably equivocating amazement with complexity as if it's a mechanism of sort.
God is literally the maxed out potential of reality. You don't see that and go wow, very much complex, semantical weasels.

>>507914540
>Define "mind" in this context
Consciousness, or life. Although it would be a perfect consciousness, so it would be totally alien to us. It would never think or deliberate or wonder, because it already knows.

>Please stop making these dumb strawman arguments. No one argues this ever
I didn't imply that you or anyone else argued it. Why would you think I did? I simply stated that it wasn't possible, as a means of ruling it out. If we're on the same page, there's no need to disagree with it.

>Also, you're now suggesting the this mind is down stream from another.
I'm suggesting that every mind is downstream of a self existent perfect mind.

>You've yet to define mind in this context
How could I have responded to your post before you posted it asking me to define mind? Slow down and relax.

>>507910305
>you as an atheist beleive those could exist.
False. An atheist can believe in any imaginable irrational nonsense - except gods. That's the only dealbreaker. Gödels ((( proved ))) leprechauns and unicorns existed and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a fabrication to mock the theists. The point is no one actually believes in any of those things because they are all equally ridiculous. And that's how deity-based religions appear to non-believers.

>>507915413
But niggers, what's supposed to be irrational nonsense for fagtheists?
That's the question.

>>507914592
Mind comes from Intellect, and Intellect comes from the first cause.

It would be logically impossible for mind to come from matter, because a cause always has power over its effects. But matter doesn't have the power to force you to believe one way or another about anything, rather mind is a self mover that can make those determinations for itself. By comparison, matter doesn't have the power of self movement and is strictly inferior to mind in every way. The idea of an inferior being the cause of something superior to it isn't logically possible, either.

>>507914739
Fairy tales for ours forefathers aged badly. Love the image of Gagarin on a post stamp with BOHA NET text. Where are the heavens if fkin commie was there etc. But i still opt for plausibility of ultra-mega-time bending bearded MAN(It's ma'am).
Sure it sounds almost as silly as every myth for total ignorants in dark ages(btw, living then, without education except for priory school etc i would believe my seniors, why wouldnt i ?!)

They got no clue, so bearded man is plausible in the same way as simulation, another "logic" answer. Brainiacs got none. And don't say i'm sure, it's just a logical plausibility

Aristotle's first cause kind of argument only makes sense for people who lived before negative numbers existed and thought numbers start at 1 and only go to infinity in one direction.

Is "1" still the first cause of numbers if there are infinitely many numbers that come before?

>>507915300
>Consciousness, or life. Although it would be a perfect consciousness, so it would be totally alien to us. It would never think or deliberate or wonder, because it already knows.
Ah so another presupposition

>I'm suggesting that every mind is downstream of a self existent perfect mind
Oh now changing the goal post. Yet another presupposition. What's wrong with infinite regression? Maybe that's how entropy is built up in the universe.

Regression to a point of rapid expansion. Then billions of years of regressing, building up entropy to pop again.

How do you get "irrational" "nonsense" "ridiculous" when you believe anything could be?

>>507914588
>Logic doesn't have to pre-date matter
Logic does have to pre-date matter and especially physics, because those things both require rules to operate under in order to exist in the first place. Saying that matter can exist without reason is like saying that math can exist without numbers.

>No evidence exists for a "first cause" only speculation
Reason isn't "speculation", and logical arguments are the strongest and most scientific evidence. You fundamentally don't know what qualifies as evidence because you've never taken the time to understand scientific principles.

>The Prime Mover is a irrational speculation
It's a logically necessary proven fact.

The rest of your post is just childish posturing.

Was the only way to design life fully formed in all its verity in a manner that perfectly replicates the outcome of an evolved incremental process?

>>507915611
But you have to admit, bible is gibberish. Nonsense from middle east. Love the sodom gommorah tale, it's so fkin fair to give your own daughter to rapists to save some nobodies. Ten Commandments are fine for socialization, it was well thought, i wonder in what yr is the first mention of them.

Still, They can create ultra sun-blast( atom bombs) from few kg's of material, yet still no idea about the ultimate thing, the start of everything.

>>507914901
Not to be crude but I literally create shit when my body is filled up with waste. What's your logical basis for our universe not just being a cosmic dump some incomprehensible mindless entity made?
Where are you getting these rules for "generation" anyways? Your natural intuition? Everything you've ever known to be "created" or "generated" ever is just reconfiguration of matter or energy, it's not anything like actually creating matter and energy from scratch. There is no way you could possibly know what the "rules" for creation are beyond more logical gymnastics that just result in as faith-based of an answer as anything.

>>507916537
>>The Prime Mover is a irrational speculation
>It's a logically necessary proven fact
No it isn't. It's a presupposition that assumes a creator is necessary because we can't explain it. It's God of the gaps fallacy

>>507911188
>No, my belief is wherever reason takes me because I'm a genuine truth seeker.
You lie to yourself. If you wanted honest answers to your Big Bang questions, you'd ask a scientist. If you were dishonest, you'd go to a Himalayan basket-weaving forum and ask atheists to explain the science.

>A belief that needs to be protected from reason and truth is worse than worthless, it's an anchor around your neck.
Precisely why I'm an atheist.

>I said that in order for a belief to be legitimate it needs to get that legitimacy from reason.
belief
That's not how reason works, and that's not how beliefs work. You're 0 for 2.

>Atheism is <insert theist lies here>
If you finish this sentence with anything but "a non believer in gods", you're being utterly dishonest.

>>507897970 (OP)
>intelligent design
Intelligent design is not an argument. It's a belief.

>>507912309
Your god is being mocked.

>>507916258
It's not a presupposition, it's logically necessary. If the first cause has mind, then it must be a perfect mind because the first cause is by definition perfect. And if a perfect exists, then by definition that mind has no ignorance. If it has no ignorance, it doesn't need to think or wonder because it already knows anything it would have thought or wondered about.

>What's wrong with infinite regression
It's logically unsound, contrary to reason and proves itself impossible because if we lived in a world of infinite regression it would be impossible to know anything. All science boils down to understanding causes and their effects, and in order to understand those they must be finite. If they were infinite, it would be impossible to grasp or figure out how one relates to the other because they would be cyclical. Each cause would become its own effect and each effect would become its own cause.

>>507914201
>Biology is a complete disaster in so many ways.
A lot of tweenagers who drop out of school say this too. Weird, right?

>>507916841
Only dishonest one here is you, bud. I can't help but notice that your post doesn't contain any arguments. It's all just name calling and posturing. That means you lost.

>>507916863
Technically, but in the same way that claiming a tornado can't build a plane is not really an argument.

>>507916934
>the first cause is by definition perfect
No, it is by definition first. If you want to make a claim like this you have to show that "first" be necessity means "perfect" through logic, or that "first cause" by necessity means "perfect" through logic.
Saying that it is "by definition" something else means nothing if it's not easily agreed upon. You saying that has as much value as if I said "first by definition means imperfect". You're not actually saying anything

>>507916934
>It's not a presuppositio
100% it is
>it's logically necessary
It isn't. You only say tht because you can't explain it and this is the lowest hanging fruit to pin it on.

>>What's wrong with infinite regression
>It's logically unsound.
I believe it's logical necessity
>if we lived in a world of infinite regression it would be impossible to know anything
Why? When entropy is the regression and time is the TNT fuse?
>>507916934
>Each cause would become its own effect and each effect would become its own cause.
Hence a possible multivariate.

See all if these are just a plausible as your "mind/God/prime mover"

>>507897970 (OP)
Total, so called fighting atheists, so eager to show how enlightend they are pisses me off in the same way devout, i kill you heathen your american baptists can be, not to mention muslims. I WAS one of those smug little shits, so glad i got a copy of god delusion book. But i grew up, and smugness went off

Give me a popular science(i'm a tradesman, your welcome)paper about the start, without it even spaghetti monster is more plausible than "it was nothing, then everything, don't ask we're working on it.

I know they measured it , this black guy said, but what was BEFORE , what kickstarted it ? To be frank, ultra-being is more plausible than "it just happened, you superstitious ignoran "

>>507915175
It's the theists who claim their gods are more complex that the products their gods supposedly design. They paint themselves into a corner. It's how you catch believers in their false statements.

the issue with intelligent design is that on the billions of planets with no life whatsoever, there is nobody to notice that there is nothing there that suggest a creator made anything at all.

>>507917719
Maybe "HE"(it's ma'am ) made those for decoration

>>507915175
>strawman #283829

>>507917656
expanding universe theory has been debunked since the 90's

>>507916710
>Not to be crude but I literally create shit when my body is filled up with waste
That's not creation, that's just you passing forward what already existed in the form of what you ate. When I say creation, I mean actual creation. What we can do is merely recombine and rearrange what already exists.

>What's your logical basis for our universe not just being a cosmic dump some incomprehensible mindless entity made?
Because mindlessness and creativity is a contradiction in terms. But calling this world a cosmic dump that an incomprehensible mind created would actually be pretty accurate. It generated this world because it had to, because it was overflowing with perfection.

>Where are you getting these rules for "generation" anyways?
From logic. Nothing about it is faith based or arbitrary. The first cause logically has to be perfect, and it's logically necessary for a perfect being's first creation to be similar to itself in every way other than the fact that they're different. Because a perfect being could never create something that's far inferior from itself, because that would be an imperfect act. So that first generation has to be logic itself, because logic is the closest thing to the truth that isn't the truth. It's defined by the fact that it's always in hot pursuit of the truth. And if it wasn't already clear, the first cause naturally has to be truth itself because if it existed after truth it would be submissive to and caused by truth, and if it existed before truth it would exist without truth which would make it false or non-existent.

>>507916537
>Logic does have to pre-date matter
Then you have all your work ahead of you proving it.

>Reason isn't "speculation"
True, and still none of your speculation is based on reason.

>You fundamentally don't know what qualifies as evidence because you've never taken the time to understand scientific principles.
This is the most pure projection post I've read this year.

>>507916863
Yup, to ancient organism to focilize, very hard to met conditions must be on site, so lack of forms between each species is kinda ok. But what must happen for egg to form(i'm sure from nothing, big bang egg) for chicken, protochicken to hatch.

It's the same like with big bang THEORY ?! Just happen, dont think goy

>>507917656
Something living forever and creating the unuverse is just as believable than the universe always existing in fluctuations or something from nothing, in my opinion
None of it will ever make sense and youll probably never know, but every theory is equally as ridiculous. People creating religon to answer these questions is way more retarded than anything, though

>>507918043
What's kosher now ? Btw , heard about this quantum computers ? Now it's kosher to just take it lightly it's multiverse, heard the head guy speech. He literally said it works so amazing because it steals energy from other dimensions. WTF. No news, no public announcements, it's science now

>>507916934
It's a solipsistic tautology. You start with a lot of unfounded assumptions that sound right in your head, build your house of cards on it, it fails and you can't figure out why everybody is laughing at you.
ProTip: You went full retard.

>>507918309
atheists severely lack intuition. That's where the midwittery comes in. Both sides of the spectrum can intuitively understand the we aren't the greatest thing in the universe, that there is a higher power way beyond us.
But the midwit doesn't have that intuition of the low end of the spectrum nor is it smart enough to be able to rationalize it.

>>507918922
>we aren't the greatest thing in the universe
I agree. Why don't you stop generalizing and using strawman. It makes you look a disingenuous moron..

>>507917561
>No, it is by definition first
Which makes it perfect.

> If you want to make a claim like this you have to show that "first" be necessity means "perfect" through logic, or that "first cause" by necessity means "perfect" through logic.
Can do. Each effect is dependent upon its cause for its existence, and every cause has to pre-possess anything that it gives to its effects. If you follow this chain, you eventually reach something that everything else depends on, has power over everything that came after it, and already has everything in order to bestow everything. That's the definition of perfect. It lacks nothing, depends on nothing, and possesses everything.

>>507918468
Religion was created to unite, ultra-tribe mode, even if you're from other side of the hill, take this vow and we're one tribe now, without genetic similarities (it worked good, bigger gene pool).
Yup, and it evolved and evolved, catholic church is somehow the biggest landlord in the world, or is it blackrock now hehe.And it's gay fest after commie infiltration

>>507918862
I never made any assumptions. Every post I've made has been fully qualified and backed by time tested reason. You can't argue against anything I've said, not even slightly, which is why you've devolved into name calling and diaper shitting. You lost.

>>507919085
>If you follow this chain, you eventually reach something that everything else depends on
Key word is something. Now since this anon doesn't actually know what that something is, he's going to presuppose what he feels is right.
>depends on, has power over everything that came after it,
See? Why does it have to have "power over everything" whatever that actually means
>That's the definition of perfect
Very subjective interpretation
>It lacks nothing, depends on nothing, and possesses everything
There it is. The final presupposition

>>507918043
Oh , sorry leaf man, what's the next theory waiting for debunking ? Newtonian are rubbish now, szrodingers cat is super logical, makes sense absolutely. Yeah, right.

Who's the observer then ? Maybe HE (DEUS VULT) is that observer making one can magically from endless cats ?

>>507919268
>I never made any assumptions
That's your entire argument bud

>>507919085
>every cause has to pre-possess anything that it gives to its effects
So reconfiguration is impossible in your theory of creation? Why?

>>507919464
>See? Why does it have to have "power over everything" whatever that actually means
Because a cause has to have power over its effect in order to be responsible for that effect. You can't throw a ball unless you have the power to lift that ball, for example.

>Very subjective interpretation
Not at all. That's literally the only definition of perfect.

>There it is. The final presupposition
That's not a presupposition, that's the logical conclusion to the premises that came before it.

>>507898360
do jews believe in intelligent design?

Not that the evidential arguments have ever been defeated which was the point that I wanted to make when I use them like in this instance but I do see why a lot presups don't like it, I don't like it too.
Creates a whole different environment by entertaining or buying into their atheism as even logically plausible.

>>507919671
I get THEORY of evolution if the organism is already there and losing or gaining some features. i know focilization is rare process, special conditions bl;ah blah. Millions of years might help too. But why the fuck everything isnt a grey goo like creatures, where are those in between ?!

>>507919801
>Because a cause has to have power over its effect in order to be responsible for that effect
Define power and how long does this power last exactly and why?
>You can't throw a ball unless you have the power to lift that ball, for example
And throwing that ball creates new effects I don't have powe over
>>Very subjective interpretation
>Not at all
100% you tailored "perfect" to meet your subjective criteria. I don't think it's very perfect to breathe, ear and drink from one tube.
>That's not a presupposition
It is. You've even made up subjective terms to try and fit your presupposition in. At the end of the day, you don't know what caused all of this. You presuppose based on your personal feelings and opinions. Not logic or reason

>>507912343
This is literally what I believe. God is when he can do anything, but he's retarded.

>>507897970 (OP)
>What is the atheist's response to basic arguments like intelligent design?
SCIENCE!!!

>>507920350
>literally

>>507920488
>It's literally me and what I believe

>>507919671
Reconfiguration happens all the time on a lower level, but not at that high of a level, because the very thing we're addressing and asking about is what came first. Reconfiguration at the highest level isn't possible in anybody's theory of creation, because then it wouldn't be a theory of creation it would be a theory of configuration. Or to put it another way, whatever's responsible for that reconfiguration must exist prior to the subject matter it's working with which leads us back to the same pursuit of a first cause.

>>507920629
>Reconfiguration at the highest level isn't possible in anybody's theory of creation, because then it wouldn't be a theory of creation it would be a theory of configuration
Does entropy happen the exact same way every time?

>>507920629
>to put it another way, whatever's responsible for that reconfiguration must exist prior to the subject matter
Why? When it can be an infinite cycle?

>>507920213
>Define power and how long does this power last exactly and why?
Power as in dependency.

>And throwing that ball creates new effects I don't have powe over
You have responsibility for those new effects, and those effects depend upon you having thrown that ball. That's what's meant by power, not whatever you're getting at.

>100% you tailored "perfect" to meet your subjective criteria.
No, I didn't. Read some philosophy.

>It is.
It's not. It by definition can't be a presupposition because it didn't come before my argument. It came after my argument, which makes it a conclusion by definition. You can disagree with that conclusion if you want, but you don't get to call it a presupposition when I didn't presuppose anything. I gave you my reasoning.

>>507897970 (OP)
>What is the atheist's response to basic arguments like intelligent design?
You're a nigger.
QED

thread victory music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf-CkcQmGM8

>>507920140
That's a whole different discussion. Just because I am skeptical of anyone who claims that they know for certain how the universe was created doesn't mean I'm pushing for evolution. I've said before in this thread I don't think it's a competition. Science can't yet explain how our universe started and creationists can't yet show scientific evidence of creationism. It's a matter of evidence and faith and in my opinion they don't overlap.
But to answer your question, could you kill a grey blob of goo in combat and eat it? Not a very good survival strategy. It has its niche but the key thing is it's not the only niche. In fact by existing it creates a niche of grey goo eaters, ad infinitum, creating a fractal/self-influencing/dynamical system of complex behaviour. It doesn't defy logic, it's what we see constantly in chaos math.

>>507897970 (OP)
Atheist here, I would say: Fuck you and your gay ass memeflag nigger

>>507920903
>Power as in dependency.
And effects break free from thier cause and becomes a cause, often dependent on other effects breaking from their cause
>>And throwing that ball creates new effects I don't have powe over
You have responsibility for those new effects,
Depends on context really. If an effect can break from its cause then responsibility shifts to new effects to perpetuate further cause
>>100% you tailored "perfect" to meet your subjective criteria.
>No, I didn't
You 100% did
>>507920903
>>It is.
>It's not
It is.
> It by definition can't be a presupposition because it didn't come before my argument
It's a presupposition because you've assumed it didn't come before.

>>507920629
We're talking about two different things, the self-extant thing that came first, which in fact did not require creation, and how it resulted in everything else, which is what we call creation. Something self-extant could absolutely reconfigure itself and that could be someone's theory of creation, it's just semantics saying that it could not be.

>>507918922
*nor is it smart enough to be able to rationally grasp it.

>>507903558
That shits retarded anyway because christcucks just like to arbitrarily stop the regress at God because it makes them feel good.

>>507922119
Exactly

>>507921977
In that case I'd say the only difference between the two is how you choose to visualize it. Either the first cause created everything outside of itself from itself, or it created everything inside of itself out of itself. That really would just be a semantics argument, because it doesn't matter which and both are just ways of seeing it in physical terms which don't even really apply because the first cause is incorporeal and exists prior to anything physical like locations or directions.

>>507922577
It still comes back to reconfiguration.
You said the first cause had to be all powerful and have mind, correct? Could it not create a universe and reconfigure it to change the nature of everything in it? You did say things could be reconfigured on a low level, so with complete power over a universe this should be possible, no? If it could do this, then your assertion that every effect has to have every part of its cause, that is, that it cannot be reconfigured, is limited to perhaps the first act of creation and nothing else.

>>507897970 (OP)
>intelligent design
humans are far from perfect

>>507897970 (OP)
The argument of the intelligent design states that things work too well not to have been created with intent.
But the truth is

a) they don't work that well, there's plenty of stupid stuff going on in the human body, and most arguments are ignorant at best (for example "the human eye", when it's far from the best in the animal kingdom)
b) the universe wasn't made the sustain life, 99,9% of the solar system is dead and we've never found life anywhere else. It's like saying that feet were made to fit inside of socks. Life developped where it because it could develop there. It isn't a particularly significant event, you only think that because you're part of it.

Also, claiming that everything must have a creator except the creator itself because without that little loophole everything falls apart is retarded. You just push the issue one step back and do not actually answer the question of how things came to be, raising even more questions because now you have to explain the origins of the being, the origin of its powers, how they work, etc.

>>507923389
>Could it not create a universe and reconfigure it to change the nature of everything in it?
No, the rules that were present in the first generation would have to be everpresent, because perfection excludes change. If we've agreed on the premises that the first cause is perfect and that it's operating on distinct rules in accordance with that perfection, then to deviate from those rules would mean that it's intentionally choosing something less than perfect, which a perfect mind would never do.

Or to think of it in another way going from bottom to top, we know that the chain hasn't been broken because body is only good when it's submissive to mind, mind is only good when it's submissive to reason and reason is good by virtue of it always pursuing truth. Everything's good is found in it submitting to what's superior to itself, so the rules that we've laid out for generation can actually be confirmed as currently taking place, by tracing them in the opposite direction.

>>507925033
Are you a bot? It really feels like I'm arguing with bots with no comprehension and just people who regurgitate ChatGPT.
This makes a lot of sense.

>>507925105
You're trying to argue that the first cause is perfect because every cause must contain every part of its effect, but the only reason the effect of creation can't be changed instead of forming your unbroken cause/effect chain is because it's perfect. It's cyclical logic.

>>507897970 (OP)
What was God's "logic" for giving you ass hair?

>i finally created the most complex eye
>my magnum opus
>now to decide what animal i put it on
>hmm...
>i know!
>i will give it to this 5 inch crustacean so it can better hunt things i specifically created for it to hunt :)

>>507926039
You're comparing two different things entirely as if I was treating effect as cause and cause as effect. There are logical reasons why the first cause would need to be perfect, and if we agree that it's perfect on the basis of those reasons, then logically it wouldn't deviate from that perfection because to do so would be an imperfection. In what world would a perfect cause go out of its way, away from the best choice, in pursuit of a worse choice? There's nothing circular about that, it's a purely linear thought process. We're moving onward from the conclusions you've already accepted, not trying to establish that its perfection comes from its perfection. The perfection already exists, and that perfection excludes change by logical necessity. We already have a fully thought out and established argument for why it has to be perfect, so the question of "why doesn't it change?" is successfully answered by citing the perfection that's already been established.

>>507918922
>atheists severely lack intuition.
You fell for a fairy tale, we didn't. That doesn't mean we have a failure of imagination, that just means you're shamelessly gullible.

>That's where the midwittery comes in.
Or as the beliebers like to call it, their "superpower".

>Both sides of the spectrum
No, it's not a sliding scale of religiosity. They are fundamentally different. If religion is a TV channel, atheism is the TV turned off. If religion is a hair color. Atheism is baldness.

> we aren't the greatest thing in the universe, that there is a higher power way beyond us.
You believe that it is the magic sky daddy. I'm pretty sure it's the beam of a pulsar that can vaporize our planet in minutes.

>But the midwit doesn't have that intuition of the low end of the spectrum nor is it smart enough to be able to rationalize it.
Rationalization is what believers desperately do, endlessly searching for that magical way to make their irrational beliefs seem rational. That's literal fuckwittery.

>>507927016
I'm just going back to this post:
>>507919085
Specifically:
>every cause has to pre-possess anything that it gives to its effects
And this was part of the logic you used to show that "first cause" necessarily means perfect.
I don't accept that the first cause was necessarily perfect still, I believe that still has to be shown, and I think this particular line of logic is broken.

>>507920488
This is why christcucks get on their knees and grovel to an imaginary being for forgiveness because they are clout chasing hedonists.

>>507897970 (OP)
Kike lover

>>507927291
I'm getting too old for this shit.

>>507927974
>I'm getting too old for this shit
Then stop making the same fallacies over and over

>>507927577
>every cause has to pre-possess anything that it gives to its effects
That doesn't point to anything circular. "Why is it perfect?" and "Why doesn't it change" are two entirely separate questions. It being perfect is answered by the fact that every cause has to be superior to its effects, and the first cause is the cause of all causes and thus needs to be superior to everything that came after it. "Why doesn't it change?" is answered by the fact that it's perfect, because a perfect thing would have no cause for change. They don't overlap, but you can't accept one until you've accepted the other, which you shouldn't until you're successfully convinced.

Although I should repoint to the second half of this post >>507925105 because I think that's a far easier way of understanding everything in concrete terms. Logically, if something's well-being can only be found in submitting to something else, then that something else must have come first and must hold a superior position in the chain of cause and effect. The fact that our minds need reason in order to be good indicates that reason existed before the mind, and the fact that reason is defined by its pursuit of truth means that truth must have existed before reason. Truth is the highest principle, and is synonymous with The Good, God or the first cause.

>>507927974
How can you looked at this fucked world that Christianity subverted and think it is good let alone real. It's an anti-racist religion that is extremely tolerant.

>>507919268
Believers fall for lies and spread lies, but most of all they lie to themselves.

>>507927974
Life is a fractal that is a microcosm of a macrocosm of brachiating, meandering substances. Man is incarnated from this self similar dust that shows beastial homologies that means that life is just a cell that reproduces and augments it's phenotype accordingly. Life's creation only occurs as it is destroyed. Through inertia and thermodynamics, it fractionates and crystalizes as it is further enriched to an organic substrate to maintain a germline that is indefinitely sustaining in the tree of life.
If god is all that there is, then you could call this god, but god as a demon is cooler, cause demons can exist as panpsychic egregores that don't have physical shells but sustain themselves of a collective unconscious labor of oblivious creatures of varying levels of monads. That means for every individual of a population there's a idealistic clone that exists in the noumenon of experience making a pluristic congregation of me's that exist in other people's minds. So I as a concept exist as an actor outside my own experience of myself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(philosophy)
So I am a hyperdimensional demon that has super powers and can exist without a body. But there is no god, just me.

>>507928693
Which is no different than trannys under gender identity. Two sides of the same coin