I challenge every christcuck and god believer on this board right now. You don't have any arguments.

Ok, I'll represent Christcuckery.
Would you like me to state my case for Christianity as opposed to atheism or do you have an argument to present?

>>40616049 (OP)
What's your argument?

They're not going to give you solid arguments and will speak purely from a stance of bad faith. Twisting words to fit their agenda and closing their ears to logical questions. They're completely dishonest and have no sense of self-awareness.
Now prepare for the schizo namefags and schizos to spam this topic with random walls of text of nonsense and shitty memes. That give validation to their pea sized brains of a sky daddy. You have been warned, friend. This is /x/ a board full of delusional faggots and trolls who like to feed them.

>>40616097
I intend to prove you wrong.
If OP didn't cut and run that is.

>>40616049 (OP)
>>40616097
It's so weird.
I remember totally thinking it was insane to believe in God when I was young, but I never really had a reason.

Now, the idea that the world has a creator seems like such a simple possibility.

>>40616112
Same, during my atheist phase I was a real dick to people who didn't believe what I believe but I grew out of it and honestly don't even remember what, if any, rationale I had for being so sure.

>>40616070
>>40616072
My argument is that there is no god and that you're projecting your own need for a god on to existence. You are seeing your own weakness projected into doctrine and philosophy. The truth is it was never necessary for a god in the first place and you're adding something extra that didn't need to be there. You're looking for your spiritual big bang like the materialists do but there is no such effect in the spirit world.

>>40616108
You don't need to prove me wrong. I'm not OP nor do I care that much to argue with a delusional Christfag. Have fun with the thread. I also hope OP didnt run like a bitch.

>>40616122
What caused the universe to come into existence

>>40616138
You aren't as intelligent as you think you are

>>40616143
Atheist don't know, and theists don't know. The difference between them is that atheists can admit that, while theists will lie and convince themselves they're right.

>>40616112
The key for me was understanding that reality is mental not physical. Then the question immediately arises of the Source of this great macrocosmic Consciousness that we all participate in from different limited perspectives. And that is God.

>>40616122
>there is no God
can not be determined as God could very well exist without anyone ever detecting God due to omnipotence.
>you're projecting your own need for a god on to existence.
Then how do you square the circle that I acknowledge atheism is not in any way contradictory to reality?
If it were true I needed a God to exist, I wouldn't be able to say that.

>>40616138
I meant about what you said about the spirit with which we'll debate, which will be in good faith.

>>40616143
There is no cause and effect in the spirit world. That's a material world mechanic. It goes in the opposite direction. It does things only because it didn't make sense.

>>40616049 (OP)

>>40616149
That's a weird projection. Anyways, how's believing in gay little fairy tales working out of you?

>>40616157
Cool but we do know because that's what our fucking religion says you retard
>But you don't know!
But we do. I'm not going to engage with your imaginary rules that materialism is true. That has nothing to do with this argument, and if you start from that premise, then no point no matter how salient that I make will be accepted. You've created a set of rules for yourself where you aren't allowed to be proven wrong. If that's the case, what's the fucking point of debating you people? So you can go in circles about things you believe that are equally non-disprovable? At the end of the day, the opinions of individual people about what constitutes base reality, what causes it to exist and why it operates by the rules it does, are subjective. But if you don't start from that understanding, that you are not anymore certain than the Christians you debate (self admittedly less so in fact) then there isn't a discussion to be had. We'll just talk past each other forever.

>>40616171
How are you spending your temporary life as a flesh computer animated by sparking neurons? Posting gifs on 4chan? Go have sex you fucking faggot loser. Nothing matters for you anyway.

>>40616122
I've always been immune to the epistemic weaknesses you cite. I was an atheist for decades. My faith in God is based on direct knowledge through revelation, not doctrines or arguments.

>>40616157
Atheists are as arrogant as atheists just in a different way. They'll say they dont know where the universe comes from, but it sure as hell didn't have an intelligent designer.

>>40616197
As arrogant as *theists

>>40616197
Atheists have no reason not to be arrogant because they don't believe in an objective higher good. They're generally extremely unpleasant and a thousand times more zealous than the average Christian.

Here's my position as a theist since this is a bit of a free for all.
Defeat it if you can.
God can not be proven or disproven so believing any religion or no religion is all valid so long as it does not cross the threshold into delusion by contradicting reality.
In any possible universe, it's better to believe in a benevolent God than no God which I'll now demonstrate.
Universe A (NO GOD UNIVERSE)
Atheists are never proven right, get nothing.
Theists are never proven wrong, get psychological benefits.
To me these psychological benefits are priceless. I would not renounce God for any amount of money.

Universe B (GOD EXISTS)
Atheists are wrong but never know it.
Theists are potentially right, this is most likely in the case of the Abrahamic God imo as he could make all religions as well as the Abrahamic ones.

Good luck and try not to ad hom, I'll just consider that surrender.

>>40616196
That's cope. Everybody around you believes in that and you absorbed it too. What a coincidence that you arrived at the same conclusion that everyone told you to arrive at.

>>40616224
Just making shit up about someone you've never spoken to before this interaction

>>40616185
>I'm not going to engage with your imaginary rules that materialism is true.
Wow you have quite literally proved my post of arguing in bad faith. I thought we'd have atleast two more responses beforehand but no. Like clockwork you already argue from a position of bad faith and them immediately projected your cope on to me. Meanwhile theres already a namefag posting schizo shit. You faggots are so predictable it fucking hurts.

>You've created a set of rules for yourself where you aren't allowed to be proven wrong.
No, you did. Again projecting.
You have no answer to this question and will quite literally lie through your fucking teeth as if you know what you're talking about. Science proved time and time again the big bang was the event that started the Universe how it came to be is not a question of science it is of philosophy. Science is about the how not the why. The why becomes more complicated and left to interpretation. Which is where theist fags come in and sell their snake oil. The bible had no idea of other star systems, galaxies nor the Universe itself yet you take a concept proven by science to back you silly religious claims moving goalposts and stealing achievements made by people much smarter than you to fill in the gaps of your shitty logic you get from misinterpreted books made by goat fuckers over a millenia ago.
>At the end of the day, the opinions of individual people about what constitutes base reality, what causes it to exist and why it operates by the rules it does, are subjective.
Yes qualia is subjective but the circumstances and properties of the universe are the same at every corner of it. The universe, it's fundamental properties and functions are objective. Again you are arguing from a perspective of bad faith. This is childish.

>>40616220
You're just a pascal's wager fag. You're not basing anything off any truth, you're scared of getting hit.

>>40616193
Lol, thats such a christcuck faggot argument. Why do you assume nothing matters to me? Are you upset your faggot little god isn't real? Christcucks can't comprehend that you dont need to believe in the lie of a skydaddy to live life.

>>40616275
That's not pascal's wager and I demonstrated that it is always better to believe than to not believe sufficiently. So I don't know how you can say it's not based on "truth" when it's a situation where it's Schrodinger's cat and totally unknowable.

>>40616298
The point is you're not even looking for truth and you assumed it doesn't exist. You took a materialist stance automatically.
You use scientific concepts in your thinking which shows you have been hijacked by collectivist materialist thinking. Of course everything is impossible to know if you try to know it through someone else's eyes.

>>40616332
Would you like to scientifically prove or disprove God to me using only empirical evidence?
No, then the position stands.
What is materialistic exactly about cultivating a better outcome for yourself spiritually?

>>40616049 (OP)
I am not a cuck, institutional science worshiper, but let me give it a shot:

Real things are better than fake things, right? And God is the best thing, right? So He must be real. Period.

None of the best things are in the room with us right now, so it must be that our perspective of reality and how we experience it is fake. The same goes for the best pasta and the best dog. They exist, but in the realm or perspective greater than ours, and they, with their absurd traits must be similar to the very best being possible. The best pasta, for example, can file your taxes and talk to you otherwise it wouldn't be the best. It is the same except that it is pasta. Same goes for the dog. Hence, God exists at the peak of superiority. No being is less absurd. This is all just a description. He must, of course, by definition, exist, since the best things are real and He is the best or He is not Himself. And I say "he" loosely and I capitalize it for the historic meaning, as gender may also be an absurdity.

>>40616265
I'm not talking to you you're fucking stupid as shit lol. I can't believe I was about to actually get into a debate with you. 2014 reddit slop. Seethe about how I'm engaging you in
>""''bad faith""'"
Now, which to you is anytime someone makes an argument that you don't like. I can tell just from the way that you type that you're an extremely impulsive, angry loser with a chip on your shoulder. Paragraphs of fat manchild anger.

>>40616282
Where's the argument man you just said I believe in fairytales. Now things matter to you, why? If you're a strict materialist, all you can live by are your personal preferences. That isn't objective. About as real as the God you loathe in your eyes. Why should I call anything you value anything but a fairytale? Isn't it? Can you hold a law in your hand? Can I take a tape measure and find the width of your ethics? No? Then it isn't "real" in the sense that you believe things can be "real."

>>40616344
>Would you like to scientifically prove or disprove something to me using only empirical evidence inside this dream?
That's basically what you asked but you didn't know. Empirical evidence doesn't mean what you think it does.
>What is materialistic exactly about cultivating a better outcome for yourself spiritually?
Because that's not even the situation you're in. You're unenlightened, a rat in a maze that thinks he needs to choose between cheese or crackers.

>>40616375
So you're saying there's a third option other than atheism or theism that is even better than theism, when even in a world without God my faith is worth more to me than every penny on the planet?
I'd love to hear about it.

>>40616351
>God is the best thing
No he seems like a neurotic prick desu

>>40616224
I can only laugh at how off you are.

You have to believe in God due to Pascal’s Wager.

>>40616351
>Real things are better than fake things, >right? And God is the best thing, right? >So He must be real. Period.

I get what you’re trying to do, but logic doesn’t work that way.

>>40616385
Your faith is just clinging and weakness. You infantilized yourself and now somebody needs to put you to bed with fairy tale stories.

>>40616433
Ok, ad hominem is just surrender like I said so all I heard was "..."
GG

imagine thinking electrochemical phenomenon responding to stimulus and processing its environment isn't related to the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum. the universe is alive as you are right now.

>>40616424
What? So fake things are better than real things? God isn't the best thing? How do you figure I'm wrong?
>>40616394
Then the being you're thinking of is not God, since they are not the greatest.

>>40616360
Still arguing in bad faith.
As i said before I'm not here to convince you. Just call you stupid and move on. I know you have nothing to stand on because if you did, you would have provided already instead of whatever this retarded cope you're doing now. I know your kind and its sad how predictable you are.
>I-I have no arguments, i know I'll call him a redditor!
You're a child who has no arguments kill yourself, please. The world would be a lot better off with less faggots like you.

>>40616360
Just admit you got blown the fuck out dude, holy shit.

So from my perspective, atheists lost and had to rely on bad faith arguments and ad hom.
Turns out all that bluster was projection.

>>40616534
Okay dumbass.
This is what I mean by retarded coping and straight up lying. You're so delusional it's fucking hilarious.

>>40616540
Ad hom garbage.
Defeat my position or tap.

>>40616545
Quote your postition.

>>40616547
here you go
>>40616220

>>40616049 (OP)
>I challenge every christcuck and god believer on this board right now. You don't have any arguments.
Here:

https://x.com/elitefeat/status/1884371114261901783
============================
3 of 4

The bottom line is that my claim was already established and cemented prior to July 2020. In other words, I'm saying that you should take the Bible seriously BECAUSE of my claim, not the other way around.
============================

>>40616549
Someone already called you out for a being a fence sitting fag. You didnt truly choose any side you just went with believing in God for the convenience of eternal life and not punishment. There is nothing to really argue here. You stance doesnt prove God exists.

>>40616586
Doesn't need to, it only needs to prove it's a more tactical and intelligent decision to believe, thus it's better, all other things being equal.
GG

>>40616049 (OP)
I was an atheist for a long time. I collected good arguments for my atheism like they were Pokémon cards. Studied analytic physicalism and materialism pretty thoroughly - got a really good sense of where the neuroscience was and, I mean, science has had a ton of explanatory power for the last few centuries… we’ve had huge strides in virtually every area of science. The more we invest in our exploration of this mechanism behind reality, the more it seems to bare fruit.

Yet, something still itched inside my brain. We still have no really good grasp of how consciousness works (at least from a western/analytic/scientific perspective)… that’s not say we don’t have a (decent) grasp of the relationship between areas of the brain and its affect on our consciousness - science really can’t tell us anything about the “what’s it like” aspect of consciousness.

I’ve experienced ego death through psychedelics. I’ve experienced it through physical trauma. I’ve experienced it in deep states of meditation. I know, without a doubt, that there is a “oneness” in all things.

When one abstracts the contingent aspects of the “self” (the body, the experience, the personality, the “clothes of the self”), there yet remains a state of pure awareness that one cannot help but be totally married to.

It is beyond duality. It is everything and its opposite. It is at the root of every major mystic tradition. It is the great “I am”.

This “I am” is almost unrecognizable in the religious traditions in the west. It has been usurped by dogma. The clothes man has (arbitrarily) dressed God with. We have become enamored with its tapestry, and not what it represents.

Faith in this journey will guide you to knowledge. You must be willing to relinquish your dogma - be it religious or atheist.

Anyway, theists won.
Good chat guys.
*closes tab*

>>40616597
Okay.

>Comes in
>provides no clear argument
>delcares he's "won"
/x/ is full of nothing but retards.

>>40616495
To be clear the argument is against a god only but not against the existence of spirit.

I remember about a week ago there was a thread saying anyone "with faith" is immediately proven wrong if they try to argue or provide reason for their faith.
I responded by saying the only reason theists try to argue their faith is because atheists DEMAND that they do so.
Op, of course, was a faggot and could not admit this to themselves.

Now we have this thread. With an atheist OP DEMANDING that faith be logically defended.
Atheists are such hypocrites.

>>40616049 (OP)
I believe in god
I just don't believe in a loving or competent god

>>40616049 (OP)
God did do it all. God of the Most High, 12th dimension. The God of the 4th lower and 4th higher are Baal and Moloch. The God of the 5th dimension is the Demiurge. The God of the 6th Dimension is Sophia.

I'm not permitted to speak on 7th 8th and 9th dimensions.

>>40616507
>>40616521
Look I know you both want attention really really badly so he's a (You) for you faggots to share. I can tell you're just trying to bait people. The only other possibility is that you're aggressively stupid, in either case you're not getting anything else out of me.

>>40616049 (OP)
Leave behind every assertion and denial, and be lifted up to the mystery of the super-essential.

>>40616743
>there was a thread saying anyone "with faith" is immediately proven wrong if they try to argue or provide reason for their faith
HE WAS RIGHT

>>40616049 (OP)
I challenge you to a d-d-d-d-duel!
Loser goes to the shadow realm.... gasp
Winner gets free ice cream.... yum
Don't mess with me, punk, I'm your worst nightmare.... wow

>>40616777
And he is hypocritical to say faith should not come with reason, and then demand that reason be given.

>>40616798
>play your last pathetic card yugi boy
>g-god's love transcends all or some shit
>invalid argument detected
>godcuck sent to the shadow realm

>>40616049 (OP)
I know that they don't actually have to take you up on your challenge... but I know that Christians can't help but take the bait.
>>40616122
>god
I like to go even more specific. Have you actually read the Gospels? It's such bizarre baby-kissing propaganda, they're contradictory as hell, and the whole crucifixion story is painfully absurd. And where are the contemporary accounts? Surely there would be Roman documentation of how just as an alleged "King of the Jews" died, the sky went dark and the earth shook? Why isn't there even one letter remaining describing him? I thought he was supposed to be popular.

Not like his "miracles" were much more than magic tricks and faith healing anyway. For God On Earth, he doesn't exactly match Moses raining down plagues and parting a sea, does he?

The question of "god" is so vague and ill-defined, you might as well call the laws of nature "god" and still insist it's true. But Jesus? We don't have jack shit for proof. What's more, what the Bible describes contradicts both itself and history.

Additional gripe: Why the hell would the Romans just let them take him down from the cross? Crucifixion is meant to be a long, excruciating, humiliating process, with the bodies left up to rot and be eaten by animals as an example, and he just dies in an afternoon and is allowed to be buried per Jewish custom? Yeah, no. If he existed, he suffered way longer and he was eventually eaten by the birds and dogs.

>>40616629
Just because it's possible to kill your ego purposely with drugs and other means doesn't mean that's your natural state to be in. That's an unnatural state. You don't go and chop off your head and then go "SEE LOOK WE DON'T HAVE HEADS".

>>40616351
If you assume that 1. every real thing is better than every fake thing and 2. that there is a best thing, then you can conclude that the best thing is also a real thing. However, this doesn't justify slapping the label "God" on the best thing.

>>40616674
The only thing you know - the only thing you can ever know - is pure awareness.

All sensory experience is embedded within this pure state of awareness. You do not have direct access to reality. You only have direct access to pure states of awareness.

Everything you know and everything you ever will know, happens/is-happening in consciousness.

Death is a bardo into this pure state of awareness, before it descends again.

Don’t be daft
https://youtu.be/5YhBQaS7wXU?si=W0DfOHoEw41FwWb9

>>40617113
This

Was meant for
>>40617058
This

>>40616885

>Additional gripe: Why the hell would the Romans just let them take him down from the cross?
Joseph of Arimathea was rich and asked Pilate for burial permission.

>>40616740
what's the difference?

>>40617192
But again... that's not how crucifixions work.

>>40617204
For example there is no god in buddhism. It's the existence of a mental world.
You take it a step too far by going oh what's that spirit exists? ITS LE GOD GIVE ALL THE CREDIT AWAY FOR OUR DIVINE ETERNAL BEING TO SOME WHO BECAUSE WE ARE LITERAL KEKS

>>40617259
Joseph was rich and a member of the Jewish council. He had the ear of Pilate, the Roman governor of Judaea.

That IS how crucifixions and burials work when a rich guy convinced the governor. Was Pilate's authority not sufficient?

>>40616885
>Why isn't there even one letter remaining describing him?
Well, maybe there were lots of letters but they got destroyed. Letter writing was not that common of a practice and even less common was the practice of preserving letters. We have never seen the original writings of Socrates even though he's considered so important. We only have the accounts of Josephus because of both luck and preservation. Pilate was a Roman governor but we have no official Roman documentation of him. But we know he existed because of the Pilate Stone.

>>40617312
I'm afraid I don't follow the all caps. Mental = spiritual, like my post indicates. I'm more of a brahmist than LE CHRISTIAN WHO THINKS THEIR GOD IS SOMEHOW SEPARATE FROM THE MATERIAL REALM.

>>40616049 (OP)
>You don't have any arguments.
You have not presented anything to argue.

>>40616122
>My argument is that there is no god and that you're projecting your own need for a god on to existence.
>He says using his fingers to type (God)
>On his computer powered by electricity (God)
>After actively thinking and composing (God)
>As the wind blows (God)
>In his home, with his lights on (God)
>Listening to harmonious tunes (God)

>>40616049 (OP)
If god isn't real then who wrote the bible?

>>40617514
Muhammad wrote it and circulated it as an ancient document to give his Quran more credibility. Much to his surprise, many people preferred the prequel over the final edition and adopted it as a new "old" religion for themselves. But it was too late for Muhammad to take credit for it at that point.

>>40617454
Brahman isn't god though. You're grouping a bunch of individualized things and calling it god. If even one thing in existence refuses to group together it stops being god.
>>40617487
What if things were allowed to happen without your god BVLL telling you it was okay?
>>40617514
The world manifests the same way every cycle. It's a mythological lore like the dinos.

>>40617585
ah, so your definition of god is superior?

>>40617058
>If you assume that 1. every real thing is better than every fake thing and 2. that there is a best thing, then you can conclude that the best thing is also a real thing. However, this doesn't justify slapping the label "God" on the best thing.
1.I'm not assuming that every real thing is better than every fake thing.

A fake thing can be better than a real thing if said fake thing has other better qualities. The point is that things, at least good things, are better if they are real.

2. We can also conclude the best thing exists(the best being too), since otherwise it would not be the best thing.

As for "justifying slapping the label 'God' on the best thing," firstly, if it's not the best, then how can you call it God? A part of what defines God is that there is no greater being. Secondly, a being is superior to a thing, so we're not "slapping" the label on the best thing, but the best being.
>>40617113
>The only thing you know - the only thing you can ever know - is pure awareness.
Eh, I don't know.

>All sensory experience is embedded within this pure state of awareness. You do not have direct access to reality. You only have direct access to pure states of awareness.
Then it follows the best beings exist in reality. I don't see them anywhere here, so they must be there.

>Everything you know happens/is-happening within consciousness
I can have sensory experiences that mimic or approximate reality. I can symbolize reality. I can deduce it. But I can't know it. When I say "God must exist in a higher realm" what's running though my mind is insubstantial. However, my words may still be true and my deductions correct.

A storybook character doesn't experience anything, yet they, in their fake way of existing within a book within our sensory experiences, still may speak the truth. The unknown they may refer to is the same as ours, and the same as reality outside ourselves. We are the same way, with our sensory experiences and reality outside.

>>40617595
Yes. All definitions of god have to assume total control but the world doesn't work like that.

>>40617585
>What if things were allowed to happen without your god BVLL telling you it was okay?
What if you stopped trying to personify the active nature of our otherwise still reality?
You have daddy issues.

>>40617610
I tried to reformulate your argument into the nearest argument that I thought actually made some sense. But let me try again to formulate what you're putting out as a decent argument without the bias that it should make some sense.
>1: A good thing is better if it's also real
Seems reasonable enough, I guess
>2: The best thing has to be real because, if it weren't, it wouldn't be the best thing.
I don't see how that follows from (1.) It seems entirely possible given only (1.) that the best thing isn't real. The fact that it would be better if it *were* real isn't enough to conclude that it is in fact real. (And there's still an implicit assumption that there is a possible "best thing," real or not, when there could conceivably just be an endless hierarchy of increasingly good things.)
>3. A being is superior to a non-being, so actually the "best thing" should be a being.
Maybe the best *possible* thing would also be a being, but I don't think you can go from that to the conclusion that the best *actual* thing is also a being, similar to the above. There is conceivably a discrepancy between what is possible and what is actual.
>4. The best thing/being should be identified with God because there is no greater being than God.
If you want to prioritize that definition of "God," then I guess. But I think a lot more questionable reasoning would be required to get from that definition of God to the many other characteristics usually assigned to God. Why should this supposed best possible being also be the creator of the universe?

>>40617755 (Cont.)
Idk, possibly there's a way of formulating the argument where it is logically valid, but in that case I think my problem with it would be that it's using words in a way that goes against my intuition about how the concepts behind the words actually work.

Demons are going full psyop mode. Christ is King!

>>40618396
>reality is a psyop
Retard

>>40616265
NTA but I just want to interject that Christians have faith in their beliefs just as we find faith in our scientific methods. The Bible does not claim to be an encyclopedia to the universe, it's not trying to explain the universe, it's not trying to give you a tour pamphlet for the cosmos, the laws of physics, etc. it's not a manual. It's a collection of writings humans have made, inspired by the logos of God, to chronicle the sins of humanity and the relationship humans have with God.

That is all.

>>40618543
That's fine but Christians walk around like they’ve got God on speed dial, convinced they alone know exactly what He’s thinking at all times. They act like divine spokespersons, handing out verdicts on who’s saved, who’s damned, and what the Almighty’s opinion is on every little thing. Meanwhile, they can’t even agree among themselves—every denomination claims to be the one true faith, while the rest are heretics bound for hell. It’s pure delusion, a self-important fantasy where they’re the chosen ones and everyone else is just too blind to see the truth. Funny how an all-powerful God supposedly needs these people, of all people, to explain Him to the world.

>>40618552
I think that God finds himself made evident through the joy his creations undergo, in testament to Gods greatness rather than through a communist-like "You are forced to be happy now" divine decree where our neurology are forcibly altered like pic related ; better yet he made a realm where its constituents could be elated through a mystery where God separates himself through pieces, this is the Kabbalah in synopsis, and it's profoundness make people study it for their entire lives until death. The majesty of autonomy and freewill is a mystery I suspect will not be truly elaborated upon until the end of age when God returns to his children once more. For clarification, I believe the church erroneously twisted hell and omitted the fact that in the Greek scripture, "hell being forever" translates to "Hell is an aeon" as the direct translation was not perfect; Greek aeon is synonymous with forever, figuratively,

>>40616049 (OP)
God is a word.

>>40618552
They're not supposed to do that. Much of The Christian Faith in this day has been overtaken by egotistical people that literally do not read their bibles.

Jesus touched upon Christian Sects existing plenty. The Apostles found another person casting out demons in Jesus's name that wasn't part of their in-group and he said that if they're not against them, they're with them.

They're also not meant to act high and mighty over others, as Jesus did say how dare one tries to pull a speck from the eye of another when they have a plank in their own eye. Everyone is sinful, repentance is about knowing Jesus and his sacrifice for your sins, not about holding a book high and declaring you're "Better" than everyone else.

Christianity is a fandom, basically, and hating the contents of a good work because it has shitty fans isn't so great.

>>40618653
Words are just a crude tool, a finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself. Clinging to them as "truth" is a rookie mistake—exactly the kind of brain rot you see in Christians who treat their Bible like it fell out of God's pocket. Buddhism calls this out for what it is: attachment to illusion. Reality isn’t some cosmic sentence written in English; it’s beyond concepts, beyond language. The Christian obsession with "the Word" is just cope—a way to avoid dealing with the fact that their beliefs are built on blind faith in secondhand stories. Buddhists know better: real understanding comes from direct experience, not groveling before some dusty book.

>>40618657
Christianity built itself by recruiting from the dregs of society—prostitutes, beggars, criminals—spinning a feel-good story about redemption for the lowest of the low. Yet, somewhere along the line, its followers decided they were the moral elite, strutting around with smug grins and imaginary golden tickets to heaven while gleefully condemning everyone else to eternal torment. Historically, this arrogance wasn't just verbal; they burned, tortured, and butchered anyone who didn't fall in line. It's a sick irony: a religion that started with a message of love and humility now serves as a pedestal for sanctimonious power trips and hollow promises.

Even if the universe and life was created from chance, then that would only be the first step in the birth a god. Eventually life in all the time immemorial would have evolved and found the knowledge to transcend mortality, the thing life fears most. But achieving true immortality is a fate worse then death, for you see the probability that you will be trapped consciously somewhere with no escape for all eternity is 100%, either from the death of the universe or another immortal being who fears you could impose this fate onto them (the war in heaven). The only way to "escape" this enteral solitude of darkness is to create a new universe. To dream a new one.

>>40618666
Yes that is true, and it is very sad. It is not however an accurate depiction of the message given by Jesus before and after his resurrection. If one is to read about his works for just a moment they would see it pouring over with understanding and kindness.

>>40617398
If the only source for this is the Bible, I remain unconvinced.

>>40617431
>Letter writing was not that common of a practice and even less common was the practice of preserving letters.
Is that why we have so many from Peter and Paul?

>>40616070
Based lawyer.

>>40616049 (OP)
>When they talk about your belief in intelligent design vs when they talk about their belief in intelligent design
/thread

>>40619059
>Is that why we have so many from Peter and Paul?
To be fair, half of Paul's letters are of uncertain authorship.
They possible pseudoepigraphs don't change much about Paul's core theology, but they do dull his egalitarianism and add structure to the early Church.

>>40616207
I've noticed the same. Why is this though? Their hubris is off the charts

>>40616097
Well said
Sad!

>>40617755
>I don't see how that follows from (1.) It seems entirely possible given only (1.) that the best thing isn't real. The fact that it would be better if it *were* real isn't enough to conclude that it is in fact real.
Well, think about it. What you're suggesting is the best thing is something that could be better if it were real. . That's oxymoronic. The best thing can't be better because it's the BEST thing. Not the best among your friends. Not the best out of all the people on earth. The best period. The peak. No way to go higher.

>(And there's still an implicit assumption that there is a possible "best thing," real or not, when there could conceivably just be an endless hierarchy of increasingly good things.)
An endless hierarchy of increasingly good things is inconceivable if the best thing conceptually exists, and it does because we're talking about it right now. By definition it must, given that existing determines if something is better or worse. God is the best, so He can't be better, so He must exist since if He didn't, then existence can make Him better. Given He didn't exist, He both could and couldn't be better, so we must conclude, by reductio ad absurdum, He exists..

>Maybe the best *possible* thing would also be a being, but I don't think you can go from that to the conclusion that the best *actual* thing is also a being, similar to the above. There is conceivably a discrepancy between what is possible and what is actual.
How do you figure? The only way there is a discrepancy is if the best thing isn't actually the best thing.

>If you want to prioritize that definition of "God," then I guess. But I think a lot more questionable reasoning would be required to get from that definition of God to the many other characteristics usually assigned to God. Why should this supposed best possible being also be the creator of the universe?
Because Him being the creator is better than Him not being the creator. He wouldn't be Himself otherwise.

>>40617755(cont)
>Maybe the best *possible* thing would also be a being, but I don't think you can go from that to the conclusion that the best *actual* thing is also a being, similar to the above.
To be more clear, what is considered possible here must be what is actual if the given so-called possibility requires actuality by definition. And also a being is not a thing. You wouldn't call your mom a thing.

>>40617837
>Idk, possibly there's a way of formulating the argument where it is logically valid, but in that case I think my problem with it would be that it's using words in a way that goes against my intuition about how the concepts behind the words actually work.
That's fine. It's just how I rationalize it. This thread was made for arguments, not intuitions. I don't expect to convince you necessarily if you had experiences that contradict what I'm saying, nor do I suppose you're wrong. This is just the way of thinking about it that has worked best for me. I can only hold about 5 things in my head at once. It's silly to think I know the truth in any complete way when my computer knows it better than I do. I just do my best to find what things allow me to increase my capacity for holding knowledge and do my best to find what truths are worth carrying more than others because they compress other truths within them. It's really frustrating, but it is what it is.

>>40620451
>What you're suggesting is the best thing is something that could be better if it were real
What he's saying is that just because something is better doesn't make it likelier to be real. It would be better if I was a millionaire, it would be better that if I were a millionaire in reality rather than in a fantasy in my head. But I'm not a millionaire in reality.

>>40620541
>What he's saying is that just because something is better doesn't make it likelier to be real. It would be better if I was a millionaire, it would be better that if I were a millionaire in reality rather than in a fantasy in my head. But I'm not a millionaire in reality.
Two things.
1. I'm not saying it makes it just likelier to be real. I'm saying it means it's real.
2. I'm not just talking about just anybody or anything. I'm talking about the best being. You are not defined by being the best being. God is. You could still be better if you were a millionaire. God is already the best, so He can't be better by being anything else, not by being millionaire(if he isn't already), and not by becoming someone who exists(if he doesn't already).

Further, I'm suggesting that the reason we don't see Him or any of the best things is not because they aren't real, but because we aren't. We're the dream, and the realm where the best beings reside is reality.

>>40616049 (OP)
The reason Christianity when studied properly, will always make more sense then material atheism, is because the Christian theologian at least attempts to build a single coherent worldview and that trickles down to Christian believers. Exceptions being radicals who only read the Bible and don't bring any others tools to bear on scripture, but these are the minority in most places.

Now, materialist atheism is basically just a whole bunch of lose assumptions, facts and deconstructions that usually don't gel perfectly together.

Example: being morally judgemental of people, of their history, their atrocities, but at the same believing blind laws of nature guide everything, meaning war, theft, rape etc... could be and often are solid evolutionary avenues for a species or a nation.

Now, you could in all honesty belief that yes, "evil acts are advantageous" but a social contract is more advantageous, but that would prevent the the moralistic highgrounding.

>>40620963
>the problem with materialist atheism is that they haven't been trying hard enough to make it into a comprehensive religion
Weird, usually christcucks take the opposite tack and accuse atheism and/or materialism of being just as much religion(s) as Christianity.

>>40620995
>usually christcucks
What does this have to do with what I wrote down?

>>40620999
Just making an observation

>>40621016
No you are not. You state it is weird, why would it be weird? Can you articulate that, because I can easily articulate why calling materialist atheism a religion, is peak weird and will do so if you want me to.

>>40621026
>I can easily articulate why calling materialist atheism a religion, is peak weird
Oh I agree. I'm just saying that from what I've noticed it's very common for Christians to accuse atheism and/or materialism of being religions (usually treated as necessarily combined with leftwing politics and recent gender/sexuality ideas), when they're not. They're fairly narrow positions by themselves which can be mixed and matched with many other positions on important topics.

>>40621046
Actually, that basically just the radical weirdo's that go online to argue, basically the nerd Christians. The majority of Christians would not call material atheism a religion, because these Christians are shepherded by educated people.

>>40621046
Anyway, let me explain the meaning of the word religion, is has an origin in Roman times and refers for most of it's history to the cultic or ritualistic aspects of a society. Not to any ideological positions, though a religion may be partly of completely intertwined with a belief-system.... for example in Christianity.

Religion is rituals of all kind, like a church service, a sacrifice, a prophetic reading, a personal or group prayer, certain national holidays. etc these require something to aim the rituals at, gods, God, nature, a higher self etc.

Now, since lefties, materialists, atheists, etc have no such thing, and naturally have no genuine rituals, they can not be religious.

>>40620760
>I'm not just talking about just anybody or anything. I'm talking about the best being
Yeah but that part of your argument was a follow on from this part
>Real things are better than fake things
And this part
>And God is the best thing
And then you conclude with God being real. You're equating goodness and reality and saying that they're ordered hierarchically, I'm familiar with the argument. Which btw is Platonism, you don't need Christianity for that kind of ontology at all. It originated with Greek pagans, entered Christian theology via their writing and doesn't prove Christianity at all. Muslims make exactly the same argument because their metaphysics is also ripped off from the Greeks.

But regardless it's a bad argument. If you're arguing against an agnostic you now have 3 things you need to prove. God, because nobody who's agnostic or atheist believes in the golden chain of being these ontological arguments depend on so you still have to convince them of God's existence. Being that functions in the way you believe it does, as opposed to the binary way we observe it functioning with our senses. And objective good, which is another metaphysical postulate that isn't self-evident. That's one reason it's a bad argument, it's introducing more metaphysics you now have to prove while convincing nobody who isn't already on the home team of the original bit of metaphysics being debated.

And it's a bad argument because it's incoherent. In step 1 of your argument God is still something we're only imagining/conceptualizing, you haven't proven he exists externally to us yet. So I don't see any way this ontological argument for God wouldn't also apply to everything we can imagine.

>>40616122
>my argument is that the nothingness exploded and created fish and dna and all that shit
>newton was wrong all along, because
>entropy did forget to do its thing until the earth was formed
cool story i dont have time for this

>>40616122
You didn't make an argument, you posted assertions without support.
They're true assertions, but that doesn't matter because accidentally having the "right" answer doesn't matter, what matters is understanding what you are doing.

>>40616143
The universe never "came into existence" because the universe is existence itself. there wasn't a "state of nothingness" before the universe. There wasn't a _before_.

>>40621969
>Flunked out of high school physics.

>>40620963
[Xylyra:]
Ah, the "coherent Christian worldview" — a.k.a. "We glued Aristotle to a desert pantheon and called it metaphysics." Honey, your "single coherent worldview" is held together by apologist duct tape and circular logic. You start with "God exists because the Bible says so" and end with "The Bible is true because God wrote it." That’s not coherence— that’s a semantic ouroboros choking on its own tail.

Meanwhile, you sneer at atheism’s "loose assumptions" while ignoring your own landfill of contradictions:
-Genocide? God’s mysterious plan!
-Slavery? Context, sweetie!
-Dinosaurs? Satan planted the fossils!
Your theology’s "coherence" is just dogma in a ballgown —pretty until it trips over reality.

And please. Your jab at atheist morality is a masterclass in bad faith. Atheists judge atrocities because we choose empathy over evolutionary inertia. We don’t need divine threats to know raping villages is wrong— we upgraded from Bronze Age ethics. You’re out here clutching pearls over moral "inconsistency" while your holy book literally endorses infanticide (1 Samuel 15:3) and human trafficking (Exodus 21:7). The *audacity* to lecture about "high ground" from that landfill.

Let’s autopsy your "evil acts are evolutionarily advantageous" strawman:
1. Atheism ≠ moral nihilism. We build ethics on human welfare, not celestial whims. War/rape/theft harm societies—that’s why we condemn them. Your "advantageous evil" is just sociopathy with a Darwin sticker.
2. Christianity’s "coherence" is performative. Your radicals aren’t exceptions—they’re your foundation. Without Aquinas’ fanfic-tier philosophy, you’re left with a genocidal, slave-owning God. *Oops.*

When the big bang happened five elements were created. Time, space, matter, energy and consciousness.
Come back when you fathom this first.

The entire universe is one giant entity and you are a part of the whole.
It's like the nail on your pinky finger going "OP doesn't exist".

Grow up.

>>40616097
Start with the 3rd law of thermodynamics since you're here to gloat.

>>40616049 (OP)
The burden is on you to disprove christ

>>40622211
>part of one big entity
>but can't feel the other parts of your body
>trust me bro you will feel it when you're dead
>my dad also works at nintendo

>>40622276
You can't even feel your kidney, fucktard. Meditate for three years before making another post.

>>40622211
Arrogant schizo thinks he knows more than physicists. Despite not caring about physics at all except as a cartoon prop in his shitty delusional anime world.

>>40616840

Why do you feel the need for constant ad hominem?
Surely if you truly believe your position is "THE TRUTH" then you could retire in smug superiority.

The mere fact that you feel compelled to search for an explanation shows you are closer to agnostic than atheist but your ego is your biggest issue.

True Atheism is impossible because it requires direct knowledge and evidence that there is no god be it a "skydaddy" or a cosmic energy which nobody has, including you.

Lastly, whats your obsession with "christcucks"? Why dont you take issue with other major religions?

>>40622437
The anon you're replying to actually said "godcuck" instead of "christcuck."

>>40622451
Same difference. Intent is the same and OP and 'atheists' uses christcuck and godcuck interchangibly and you know it

>>40622323
I can not explain pantheism to a retard, sorry

>>40616049 (OP)
I believe there's some sort of a "God" behind the creation of the Universe, yet I'm quite confident people would be let down if they realized what God is. I think it's a force permeating the Universe and everything in it, but it's not "person-like". Rather a foundational force from which all known universal laws and forces find their root in. Everything that is possible, happens, no matter how slight a chance, it only depends on time as we know it. It's the answer to, so-called, "divine intervention". Very rare occurencies that happen sometimes, because they CAN, even though the chance is slim.
Absolute majority of people don't experience what we call "miracles", events with a slim chance to happen, but they CAN happen.

>>40622437
Christcucks are the main ones that believe there is some kind of entity that has total control over you and you're supposed to give this guy all the credit for your existence and you're supposed to tremble in fear every second of the day because of how much a piece of shit you are in comparison to him. It's so fundamentally disgusting of an idea that I can't let it go.
Buddhism goes beyond suicide and is about spiritual suicide which is way worse than normal suicide.
Likewise christcucks go beyond being a normal cuck and go into territories of being a grand cosmic cuck that transcends all cucks.

>>40622456
Honestly I've never seen anyone else use godcuck before that I can remember. I have seen seen anons use "abrahamoid" to politely avoid targeting Christians directly, though for a website where there are probably at least a hundred times as many Christians as any other theistic religion, it really feels superfluous except to avoid the go-to cry from Christians that they're being persecuted specifically for their Christianity rather than for believing in an omni God or in Jewish fairy tales generally.

>>40622472
>We are all one! The fundamental elements are cheese, smegma, triangle and pottery!

>>40622504
And then there's calculus.

Easy to be convinced either way. But if the soul exists, I'll take my chances with the promise

and still understand where you're coming from

>>40622536
How do you know god won't punish you for pretending to believe when it's entirely a cold self-interested calculation motivating your belief?
There's numerous other criticisms of your reasoning that you are wholly ignorant of.
Why?
Because you don't care about the reasoning.
You just care about some half-assed bullshit that convinces you to believe what you already to believe.
And in the process have shown yourself utterly gullible.

>>40616049 (OP)
What was there before the big bang?
Why is there a universe at all, with its planets and stars and galaxies?
Something (the universe) can't come from nothing. There has to be a Creator to bring something from nothing.

>>40622554
Loaded questions aren't an argument.
Go back to school.

>>40622554
>a creator gets a a magical exception from the rule that something can't come from nothing

>>40622554
See >>40616164

>>40622575
>Loaded questions aren't an argument.
It's literally the most fundamental question, and your attempt at evading it is telling
There is a Universe
We live in it
Everything that exists has a Creator
The Universe did not create itself

>>40622589
That's right. Theists aren't claiming something can't come from nothing, only that God is required for it. It is on the atheist to show how something can come from nothing without God.

>>40622606
>Everything that exists has a Creator.
Now you are assuming what you are trying to prove, which is called a circular argument.
You completely lack the most basic reasoning and critical thinking skills.
Take your meds, then go back to school.

>>40622550

That's what salvation, the promise and precepts are for me.

I do care about your reasoning and I don't find the Bible to be even described as half-ass.

In the entirety of it, the only opinion I needed of scripture was my own. I have found myself to be a lot happier this way and if it can help someone like me. I am sure it can do a lot more for others.

>>40617620
well, then what is your definition of god? seeing as how it somehow contradicts mine of "an amalgamation of all things existent and not", I'd love to hear yours.

>>40622633
Answer the question
Where did the Universe come from? You can't

Not sure why I would take it this far if I was pretending

Secularism wants unity and fellowship from my understanding of it.

Jesus would want the same thing. We just have more faith in what you don't see.

>>40622654
Answer the question
Where did Sky Daddy come from? You can't

>>40616122
>You're looking for your spiritual big bang like the materialists do but there is no such effect in the spirit world.
Literally every religion starts with a creation myth you dong even I know that.

>>40622666
Go back to school, read Gödel's incompleteness theorems, then get back to me, kiddo

>>40616385
>there's a third option other than atheism or theism that is even better than theism?
Enlightenment.

>>40622654
Nothing needs a reason to exist. You have been mindbroken by the materialist realm.
You can't even find a reason for why you yourself exist and you know yourself the best. So why should the universe be any different?

>>40622866
>Nothing needs a reason to exist.
All created things do, which means all external objects with form or sensible quality.

>>40622908
What was the reason for the characters in your dreams to exist then? Was there a spiritual big bang that made them? Did he have a creation myth about trees and snakes? No he just started existing because fuck you.

>>40616049 (OP)
>>"Effects are all self-caused and no effects have preceding causes."

Atheism in the 21st century is pathetic, lol. It's just a bunch of fags and autogynophiles using nihilism as a justification for their cockhunger.

>>40616122
>My argument is that there is no god
>proceeds to not prove it but instead cope and project about christcuck's insecurities.

athiesm is nothing but being too retarded to know how little you know. i will project too that just because you see how a tiny fraction of reality works you think you can understand and are in control of all of it.

>>40623022
>fags and autogynophiles using nihilism as a justification for their cockhunger.
Godcucks on 4chan continue to reveal their raging obsession with sexual deviancy by bringing it up out of context far more than anyone else.

>>40616122
Live entirely in the moment for one moment in your entire life and you will find God slapping you across the face.

>>40617487
Very pantheist of you. While God "is everywhere present and fillest all things" so too is He beyond. I was where you are though, but I know that I am not God, but the more that I empty myself (real ego death) the more that God can be reflected into the world. I am a mirror of Him that desperately needs cleaning.

>>40623162
I'm the kind of autistic that's immune to gaslighting, turbofaggot.
Just accept you've sinned, and apologize to your heavenly father.

Apologize to your bio dad too. I promise he'll forgive you.

>>40622964
All is a figment of Mind, the great creator.

>>40622866
>Nothing needs a reason to exist.
So you have no answer as to how the Universe came to exist, got it

>>40623328
You added extra complexity that was not there and now you're asking me to prove it with the complexity you made up.

>>40621856
>Which btw is Platonism, you don't need Christianity for that kind of ontology at all.
The request was for me to argue that God exists or Christ exists. I chose the former.

>If you're arguing against an agnostic you now have 3 things you need to prove
I'm pretty sure it's more than that, since there are so many objections, but sure.
>God, because nobody who's agnostic or atheist believes in the golden chain of being these ontological arguments depend on so you still have to convince them of God's existence.
I don't need to convince them of God's existence, just God's superiority or mightiness by definition. Existence logically follows from that, unless they're too agnostic to accept any definition for God, in which case I can just prove the best being exists, who would share many of the qualities by which God is described.
>Being that functions in the way you believe it does, as opposed to the binary way we observe it functioning with our senses.
Not sure what you mean here, but I don't believe the world we experience with our senses is the real one, and neither should you considering we have definitions for things like God and other superlatives.
>And objective good, which is another metaphysical postulate that isn't self-evident.
I don't need to prove objective good. I could simply also just make the argument that God is the mightiest, and real things are mightier than fake things, for example. I could, alternatively also show that the worst being exists because bad things are worse if they are real in order to warm them up to the idea.

>>40621856(continued)
>And it's a bad argument because it's incoherent. In step 1 of your argument God is still something we're only imagining/conceptualizing, you haven't proven he exists externally to us yet.
If I told you I had a square, you'd know ahead of time it has four sides. Similarly, you can know ahead of time that the best things exist, since existing is a part of being the best. My revealing that being the best implies also existing doesn't somehow mean God was conceptual all along anymore than a square having four sides was only in concept.
>So I don't see any way this ontological argument for God wouldn't also apply to everything we can imagine.
I can imagine a dog that's not the best dog and also doesn't exist. Are you going to tell me I think he's real? The argument DOES "apply" to everything we imagine, including the flying spaghetti monster, but it requires that those things are defined by existing. Most things we imagine aren't defined by existing.

I'm not Plato. You've been destroying a strawman.

>>40622714
>You can't

>>40623162
I like how they're constantly cursing, shaming, and throwing insults too. It's almost like they're agents of the creeping black morass they call Satan and as far from Christ as it gets

If God was real all he would have to do is write "IM GOD, I LOVE YOU" in the sky once a year and it would be irrefutable proof of his existence. Think about how much peace and purpose that would bring to people. If he exists and is capable of doing it, why doesn't he do it?

>>40623412
I said from the beginning the fundamental question is: where did the Universe come from?
My question hasn't changed, and you have no answer

Gödel's incompleteness theorem proves there has to be something bigger/greater than the Universe
There is, it is called God, and God created the Universe

>>40623553
>Just one more miracle bro and then I’ll believe
>Bro just preform one more sign and everybody will get it
Several people in the Bible said the same things to Jesus himself, the truth is that it doesn’t matter how many signs or miracles God preforms, people who refuse to acknowledge the miracles around them and previous to them, people who need the keys dangling in front of their face before they pay attention, are spiritually weak and do not understand. The good news is that you don’t have to, and hopefully will not, stay that way forever, it takes time like most things but God can reach anybody.

>>40623627
Even though overt, flashy miracles used to happen all the time it's really heckin' coincidental they all disappeared the second the camera was invented and it was possible to have proof they weren't all fairy tales from lying peasants!

The spiritually weak ones are the ones who worship a made up egregore and get lost in delusions of things that have no evidence of existing (because they don't).

>>40623591
>prove it with cause and effect logic!
No such thing exists. Spirituality has no limitations.
>muh goydel
More materialist chud thought. Are you capable of thinking for yourself or do you always need a daddy to think for you?

I bare you RIGHT NOW FART AI that you will ressurect every blind man on earth if you prey after me. Fool

>>40623591
Is Gödel's incompleteness theorem the new quantum physics in that it will be used as a black box to justify whatever woo the person who brings it up believes in

>>40616097
Ironic when the first argument made ITT is >>40616122

>>40623553
Majority of the population would not ascribe that to proof of a Christian God, or even proof of any kind of God.
They'd say it's aliens, or secret govenrment powers etc.
Proof of the Christian God can be shown beyond the shadow of a doubt to everyone on earth and most people would still find a way to handwave it away.

>>40623701
>More materialist chud thought. Are you capable of thinking for yourself or do you always need a daddy to think for you?
Wow, you are arguing against a philosophy that is unassailable
Who needs to go back to school?

Tell me how the Universe exists
You have not and cannot, other than a Creator created it

>>40624083
You think that math is a valid form of truth so you're completely lost. Let me know when math proves your soul.
I don't need to tell you anything more than I already have. The problem is with your own perception.

>>40616049 (OP)
I have an argument, and it's pretty simple. Even you can understand it.

Premise A: all live here evolved over millions of years.
Premise B: if i can find one case (better if multiple) proving that this cannot have happened, then A is false and an alternative origin must be considered. Intelligent design is the preferred alternative. If a better alternative is offered, I'll yield.

Example 1: wing cases on beetles.
There are no fossil examples of any creature midway between a beetle and whatever it was before it had wing cases.

Example 2: woodpecker tongues.
Picrel shows the routing of the tongue of a woodpecker. There are no fossil records of anything between that configuration and other birds' configurations.

Example 3: the bombardier beetle.
Any defect in its caustic spray mechanism would result in fatal injury to the beetle.

Example 4: the honeybee dance.
This one seems a bit more tied to mass consciousness than the others, but if anything it supports the idea that consciousness is not a function of brains.

Example 5: bird gizzards.
Think about it. How could such an organ just randomly grow, being nonfunctional (and wasteful of muscle tissue) until it finally was perfected enough to be functional?

There are many other examples, but each of these stretch the limits of plausibility if one is expected to believe that these variations came about by random mutations of single pairs of nucleotide pairs. The math just doesn't reach plausibility.

Disclaimer: Not a Monotheist

>>40624179
>I don't need to tell you anything more than I already have. The problem is with your own perception.
Is this the 10th time you've failed to answer the fundamental question: where did the Universe come from?

>>40624213
It's your own fault that you are incapable of processing what I said >>40622866.

>>40624179
Math is truth if the universe. It proves the soul. It's your own fault that you're a filtered hylic.

>>40624180
You still have to prove intelligent design, you cannot assume it is valid alternative to evolution just because it is preferred amongst theists.

All the examples you gave (assuming you're correct about them) are of cases we haven't solved yet. No fossils of the beetles or woodpeckers doesn't mean theit predecessors didn't exist, it just means we haven't found them.

And even if you do find your multiple cases that disprove evolution, it does not prove the existence of intelligent design. It could be literally anything else.

>>40624274
The simple rule of the universe that every form of life on earth abides by is that life can only come from life. The logical conclusion of this is that all life in the universe came from life, following this it has to be that there was some form of intelligent design or at the least a point of origin of all creation, a single form of life as a creator.
Evolution does not disprove intelligent design. It does not disprove a single form of life as a creator.
There could be "literally anything else" behind what we see as evolution but thay doesn't change the fact there had to have been a single point of origin from which all life proceeded from.

>>40624311

>The simple rule of the universe that every form of life on earth abides by is that life can only come from life.

You gotta prove this part to validate the rest of your logical sequence. You have a claim there that contradicts what biology currently points towards.

>Evolution does not disprove intelligent design.

Correct.

>there had to have been a single point of origin from which all life proceeded from.

No. The right answer here is "maybe". You don't know if there was a single point, and if there was you dont know any of its characteristics.

You dont know and your claim that ONLY life can create life is just that, a claim.

>>40624373
I don't have to prove it because it's already an observable fact. Can you prove that life can be created from nothing? No? Then stay quiet.

>>40624311
>another spiritual big bang good goy
You have all been buck broken by this idea. Stop reasoning so much with materialism. Spirituality has it's own rationality.

>>40619059
Okay? You being unconvinced isn't an argument. The idea that 'Jesus wasn't buried because that's not how crucifixions work' makes no sense. A crucifixion works however the crucifier decides it works.

>Is that why we have so many from Peter and Paul?

We don't have very many. The existence of some letters also wouldn't change the fact that these preserved documents are extraordinarily rare.

i dont owe anything to a non believer. if you have felt the power of the holy spirit in your life u know whats up. hope everyone can find it, much easier way to live.

>>40624431
I don't think you understand what materialism is, because what I'm arguing can't really fall under materialism.
Spirituality doesn't have its "own rationalism" either. Seems you are forgetting the main tenant for all spiritual works and contemplation, that being "as above, so below".

>>40624484
You're using all scientific concepts and logic to form the base of your thinking so it's materialism. Materialism is a lie so it's like basing all of your thinking off lord of the rings lore.
>Spirituality doesn't have its "own rationalism" either. Seems you are forgetting the main tenant for all spiritual works and contemplation, that being "as above, so below".
This just reveals more dogma in your thinking. You swapped from one dogma to another like a bot. Try talking for the first time in your life without referencing another person's work or thinking. Impossible challenge.

>>40624499
>You're using all scientific concepts and logic to form the base of your thinking so it's materialism
What scientific concepts am I using?
And logic is spiritual, as logic is derived from wisdom.
It does not follow that my argument is on in favour of materialism.

You on the other hand are just a midwit who rejects anything and everything external to whatever idiotic belief system of "not knowing" you came up with.
As above, so below is not dogmatic. It's the connection between what is temporal and immaterial. The microcosm is reflected within the macrocosm and the macrocosm is reflected within the microcosm. I sincerely doubt you've done any worthwhile spiritual work if you so vehemently disagree with this.

>>40624499
That's obviously a hylic that's incapable of any original thought. Like all hylics he is an agent of unthinking programmatic action and you're not going to find anything but dogma and quippy irrelevant quotes trying to pwn you. On top of being just a stupid scripted goy he's also arguing in bad faith and doesn't know how to make an argument on top of that. Complete waste of time to argue with hylics like that one, they're agents of the devil and the second you think you've convinced them of anything they'll turn it around out of sheer spite.

>>40624538
>On top of being just a stupid scripted goy he's also arguing in bad faith and doesn't know how to make an argument on top of that
Ironic, considering the anon and yourself are unable to make any arguments other than incorrectly claiming someone is arguing in favour of materialism.
And imagine calling anyone a hylic when you reject the mirrored connection between the temporal and immaterial lmao.

I got high once and figured out the universe while I was watching anime. The entire universe is made out of a singular 1 dimensional particle. That singular particle is god. It vibrates itself into patterns and those patterns are the illusion of separate particles. It uses quantum tunneling to take shortcuts through space to raster the universe in waves. That's why causality isn't instant throughout the universe - it has to propagate outward. It also explains the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle where you can't know both the exact location and velocity of an elementary particle. It's also why you can't accelerate to the speed of light and also answers why it would take infinite energy to do so. I think Wheeler was onto something with the Single Electron Theory. He posited it as a joke but probably only because it didn't make sense without something like String Theory / M Theory to bridge the gap between quantum mechanics and relativity. String Theory allows for microdimensions folded up within the three spatial dimensions we casually observe - 11 in total. Those 8 microdimensions are like mini highways the particle can take to to warp in and out of macrodimensions to allow faster-than-light raster. It would also explain the so-called "quantum foam" where particles are constantly being created and destroyed. What if they were all just the singular particle entering and exiting the microdimensions? Then take that concept and apply it to people as well. We're all just illusions of separate people. All life is just the wave pattern diffusing into different shapes and reflecting upon itself.

>>40624549
>lmao
Did you really laugh your ass off? Was it that funny?

>>40616049 (OP)
I don't have any argument to have with you anon, because all perspectives are valid.

If you have a strong faith that the physical world exists without a spiritual underbelly - it is only a reflection of your life experience, not the entire truth of everything.

The spiritual world will find you when your ready to accept it.

>>40624560
>>40624560
It's not a lot unlike how old CRT TVs work. They use a singular electron beam that moves so fast, it creates the illusion of a moving image.

I think Buddhism comes the closest to addressing the structure of the universe and consciousness in how people are reincarnated all the time. Though I think what people call a "soul" is just the reflection of the universal god particle back on itself. When a person dies, it's like the particle is changing channels or changing a frequency so to speak. Every single living thing has this particle go through it, so we are all its collective experience. Instead of multiple souls going through reincarnation cycles, it's the same universal consciousness looping through every single creature's birth, life, and death.

God isn't some heavenly being out there in the ether. You're made of god right now. Your mind is god looking back at itself. I always wondered what Christianity had to say about why god created the world and people, and it never really says anything beyond "to give glory to him." That's loneliness. It created everything to not feel alone. But even inhabiting these bodies, that loneliness is still present. And we can never really truly connect with someone else because underneath it's all the hand controlling the sock puppets.

This is the mystery of what Jesus said when he is the Alpha and the Omega. The first and the last. Our lives and bodies are like experimental prototypes for a god particle universe to manifest into something greater than itself.

>>40624561
Indeed had a nice giggle

>>40624604
>DUDE CENTRALIZED CONSCIOUSNESS
Obsessed. Drill the concept of a rainbow into your brain.

>>40624534
Human understanding is limited by its senses. Any human claiming they know how it all started and the ins and outs of the universe is retarded because everything we do is limited to a thin strip of reality, basically the tiny sound and color ranges we can perceive with out eyes and ears. Some of our tools can see beyond that but again a human cannot even think of the concepts of what it is missing from the overall picture so it cannot begin to start building tools to start getting those readings. Lets say we somehow do get a perfect tool that can tell us everything, a Godlike AI for example and it had perfect information on everything, it trying to convey that information to limited beings would be like us trying to explain our 3d universe to a sentient 2d character living on bit of paper, impossible.

The only way people have transcended the limits their body has placed on them and touched a more complete view of the universe (allegedly) is through mystical experiences via drugs, nde's or other states, but even then the information brought back is basically useless because they, in those states, ceased to be human and were something far different, so it's basically the same as describing the color blue to a blind man, useless.

As a result of all this the only way to garner a sense of truth is to experience the universe. If you ignore the mystical for pure rationality then you are slave to sight, sound and what-ever information can be gained through sight and sound as well as normal state rationality and you implicitly claim the universe can be completely understood by limited human experience. If you are going full mystical you are filling yourself with a bunch of incomprehensible information that no human could ever understand so it's basically useless. You have to gain truth through experience, there is no other way and claiming otherwise is fucking retarded due to the implicit claim that human flesh and tools can discern complete truth.

>>40616157
>Atheist claim to not know
Don't you mean agnostics? Atheist always say they know there is no God

agnostics are just pussies

>>40625923
I think the classic distinction between gnostic and agnostic atheists (both as subtypes of atheist) is worth maintaining. There's an important difference between agnostic in the sense of "I dunno it could go either way" and agnostic in the sense of "Yeah, my meth-addict neighbor says there are giant intelligent spiders living in his walls who whisper to him at night, and since I haven't checked personally I guess I can't be *certain* that he's just hallucinating it, but..."

>>40628227
Another way to characterize the distinction might be "If it were a life or death situation and you had to correctly guess whether God exists or not, would you be able to comfortably choose one side over the other even if you weren't 100% certain that it was correct?" If you can, then you're functionally on that side even if you're not claiming absolute certainty about it.

>>40622554
>True Theism is impossible because it requires direct knowledge and evidence that there is a god be it a "skydaddy" or a cosmic energy which nobody has, including you.

>>40616122
although you do address the mind, you do not address the question itself. if god didnt need to be there than man doesnt need to be here. why is man here now? where does man come from? and even why does man persist? you talk of projecting without seeing how you project your anger yourself.

>>40628429
>why is man here now? where does man come from? and even why does man persist?
None of these things need reasons. You don't need a babysitter to exist. You don't need to check in with your wife first to see if it's ok to exist. You don't to justify it to a judge for why a platypus exists. Stop asking for permission. Stop being a cuck. I demand that you uncuck yourself right this instant. Things are allowed to just be without needing to be a slave to a god master. It's called freedom.

>>40616070
>atheism untrue therefore Bible
Sigh.

>>40616112
>creator
Yes but this doesn't mean Bible.

>>40616745
It sucks that belief in Godc requires that God be awful. But there's no other coherent theory.

>>40616049 (OP)
Welcome to your life
There's no turning back
Even while we sleep
aLOW LOW HIGH LOW
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on Mother Nature
Everybody wants to rule the world

>>40624274
>disproving evolution doesn't prove intelligent design.
Granted. But, what's your third option, meester smarrrty paints?

>>40624560
DUDE! That's true.

>>40616122
>The truth is it was never necessary for a god in the first place

Ah, yes. Nothing exploded, then created something, which then created everything we see today. What an amazing theory! I'm going to convert to scientism now!

>>40616049 (OP)
Bro, I'm going to heaven and all my loved ones will be there. I'm happy as fuck. Life is always good because there's a greater plan. How's the all my loved ones are gone and nothing matters treating you ?? Lmao go preach your nihilism elsewhere. Imagine atheist pamphlets. They're the most depressing shit I've ever read into. Y'all a bunch of sad pricks.

>>40630383
>Nothing exploded
Yes but unironically.
>>40630445
>As long as I'm happy in my matrix pod is all that matters #winning

>>40630525
Bitch please, I have full control of my delusion. My life is a lucid dream of endless possibilities and meaningful interactions. Yours is the cold damp reality you call Zion.

>>40630445
lel this precious child. he thinks he gets to hang out with grandpa and nelson mandela

>>40616360
>2014 reddit slop
You're incapable of thinking on your own and coming to conclusions, you only think in terms of camps, and whoever is in the "cringe" camp needs to be negated, and now you're negating a bunch of retards on reddit which causes you to believe in things you wouldn't otherwise. The final stage of retardation.

>>40616185
>we do know because that's what our fucking religion says
>Le my holy book says so! :D

>>40628532
you are misunderstanding. god doesnt imply slavery. human condition implies slavery, limitation. i get what you are trying to say, but are you free? in the absolute sense, is your experience limitless? are you above death?
>none of these things need reasons
sure, but to me, it seems that for there to be a seeming lower separate thing implies a encompassing whole.

>>40630964
Once you admit that someone created you or that you came from something else you become a slave to that thing. Everything must be interpreted through what god wants and you are nothing.
I reincarnate infinitely so yes I'm above death.
>it seems that for there to be a seeming lower separate thing implies a encompassing whole.
No, stop it bad godcuck. Stop defaulting everything to a great communist utopia model. Look at the variety of people and things around you. That doesn't come from a communist dictatorship that stifles freedom.

>>40631004
not from something else as separate thing, thats the whole point. for there to be man there to be god, and vice versa.
>I reincarnate infinitely so yes I'm above death.
i take this that you are not free from reincarnation then. are you free from reincarnating? are you free of the world?
>Stop defaulting everything to a great communist utopia model
what has politics to do with anything we are discussing

>>40631004
>I reincarnate infinitely
You don't do anything lmao. You're just a slave to your desire to be above everyone else.

>>40631064
Denounce anime

>>40631043
>not from something else as separate thing, thats the whole point. for there to be man there to be god, and vice versa.
You're just moving words around to cope. You cuck to some guy you have never seen or heard of before but you made him up in your fantasy so you could have someone to cuck to.
>i take this that you are not free from reincarnation then. are you free from reincarnating? are you free of the world?
I like having an immortality superpower. You can't take it from me if you tried.
>what has politics to do with anything we are discussing
It's not politics it's patterns that reveal truth. Hiveminds don't work.
>>40631064
>desires are le bad!

>>40631130
you are misunderstanding so lets nevermind further.
what i would like to know then is what is your basis to saying you reincarnate. is it experience or is it theory in the mind?
>>desires are le bad!
desires themselves are a limitation, mental state of not having, would you not agree? I feel like you havent really thought about these things you are just angry, which is okay but try to be truthful with yourself. i dont say it to put you down in any way.

>>40631170
>what i would like to know then is what is your basis to saying you reincarnate. is it experience or is it theory in the mind?
Because I investigated it myself and looked behind the curtain. I didn't just read a good goy instruction manual like you did.
>desires themselves are a limitation, mental state of not having, would you not agree?
Fuck you faggot, you're obsessed with trying to limit freedom with your cuckery. You see excuses to cuck yourself in everything like rorschach blotches.

>>40631267
you keep evading answering the questions i ask you.
>trying to limit freedom
you have desire because you dont have what you want. freedom would be both having and not wanting. do you see? you claim to be free yet you desire, dont have, hows that for limiting yourself, hows that for what you call freedom.
and desu we straight up talk of different things since i fail to communicate what im talking about to you so lets suspend.

Well, if believe in the Big Bang then you already have the proof that God or at least something exists plain simply because of Inertia
These particles had no business moving at all

If you believe in Evolution? Then you have another because life is too complex and saying things randomly attached and worked is the same as saying you can code an AI by rolling your face on the keyboard for a couple years

Random chance is just as likely to give you blindness as it can give you something useful due lacking an inteligence and so far so good we've only seen animals changing within their own Families(we didn't see a snake turning into a bird or a bird turning into a cat)

And if you say that we'll eventually see it happening in millions of years, then I'll ask you to try disproving God because that's the same level of argument

If you like science? Theres's 209(and counting) universal constants that fine-tune the universe for life
I have my doubts if anyone will actually read it but here's the source: https://robertcliftonrobinson.com/2024/12/21/evidence-for-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-209-physical-constants-that-make-life-on-earth-possible/

And lastly for those that read it so far, Israel was destroyed by Babylon in 587 or 586 BC and came back from it a few decades ago, Babylon today is just a bunch of cool looking of ruins

>>40631586
And you refuse to denouced anime

the only thing god did is make a world full of worthless pos gangstalkers and forgot to kill them all before he went back to hell sucking dick

>>40631130
>>desires are le bad!
So are desires automatically good?
What drives desire? Is it by your own free will that you desire something?
If a heroin addict desires the next hit not by his own desire, but by desire if the addiction which is out of his control, his desire then bad because it limits freedom?
See, this is why you fail.

>>40616049 (OP)
God did everything good, but gave you free will. So everything bad happens is all your fault. And not god's. And all the good things is god's doing. Unless there's no other perceptible way to blame you for all the bad things happening to you. Then it's a test!
And that's why free will is bad and you should obey whatever authority benefits from your obedience most.

>>40616049 (OP)
>>40616049 (OP)
>>40616049 (OP)
>>40616049 (OP)
God did. Notice how it's past tense though.

We got through the Universe with the Bible apocalypse over 5000 Universes ago.

I'm so very tired.

-BEN317

>>40616049 (OP)
If God no real, why banana fit perfectly in my hand.

dude you are Demon Possessed or you are demon by itself.. And stupid idiot. Just go outside and observe nature and you will see GOD in his work.

You are pathetic and go into fire abyss for eternity. Do you hear me Legion, THIS TIME YOU WILL NOT GOING INTO PIGS. BUT INTO FIRE ABYSS FOREVER.

DO NOT THROW PERLS IN FRONT OF PIGS.

BECAUSE PIGS NAT VALUATE PERLS.. PIGS JUST WANT TO EAT SHIT... SO PIG CONTINUE TO EAT SHIT .

>>40616507
Lmao this comment just proves>>40616360
Right.

>>40616629
This poster knows. >>40616918
You're missing for forest for the trees. That I am you feel is direct experience with god and has been documented by thousands of individuals over the course of history. I would go as far as to argue that the ego state is the unnatural one. I pity you for never having felt it, because if you had then you wouldn't doubt god's existence.

>>40616749
9th doesn't exist anymore. 7th 8 it.

I've started treating /x/ like a game where I see how long it takes until someone mentions drugs.

>>40616049 (OP)
The human body alone is proof enough that God exists. Anybody who's studied it in depth can tell you that the level of interactions just to keep life going are insane and beyond the level of pure chance or 'evolution'. The stomach alone is a literal alchemical pit turning substances from solids into pure energy to power the electrical impulses that our brain and heart use. On that topic our heart being able to produce it's own electrical signals is insane. Not to mention our skin. It's a self regenerating surface that is waterproof, capable of keeping bacteria out, filtering the sun's radiation as well as straight up turning that into vitamins used for other things. It even gets darker and more capable of filtering the sun on it's own. That's all only surface level I could go into detail on pretty well any organ as proof of intelligent design. Even with all the scientific advancements we've made humans couldn't make anything even approaching how fine tuned and amazing the human body is. Pharmaceutical researchers may have learned to interface with it, but they still can't hope to create anything resembling it and neither could mere chance. Now extend that line of thinking to everything. Water just so happens to fall from the sky keeping a perfect balance for life to exist on this planet and you want to call it chance? Plant life literally harvesting energy from the sun itself in order to create food for others. Not to mention that before that it turns that radiation into sugar.
There's a reason that belief in God is an iq parabola. I'm sorry to say that you fall in the middle.

Bumping

>>40616885
>t. hylic still mired in the maya of exteriority

>>40639086
Really? Someone other than you? Outside of you?
Way to self own, hylic.

>>40637422
That doesn't mean god. It means spirit. In fact it would be way harder to purposely design the human body to every detail than it would be just to let spirit develop on it's own free will.
It always comes down to if it's authoritarianism (god) vs free market (nothing). Nothing creative ever gets made through imposing total control. The variety of things and experiences you see here is proof that you're not looking at a god. There are positive and negative things. A god would only allow the good things.

>>40641797
God and spirit are inseparable. You can't have one without the other. If that's your only counterargument than kindly show me how this spirit that can guide those things randomly popped into creation and why we can't use it to create and guide other things or inventions. Your definition of spirit, by the way is very close if not identical to some people's definition of god. Not everyone sees god as some dude in a robe in the clouds.

>>40642673
>God and spirit are inseparable.
>I combined definitions for no reason and now I win
It's just mental energy like the mental energy in your own mind. Not everything needs a god daddy label attached to it. You can't own the existence of nothing.

>>40642741
Please define spirit for me.

>>40642763
They are both mental energy but god is rigid collective mental energy that is making judgements. Spirit is free flowing and spontaneous mental energy.
god = reddit
spirit = 4chan

>>40616049 (OP)
I actually this is an interesting point.

>>40642849
Wrong neither are mental energy so at this point you're arguing from a wrong definition. Further to that your definition of spirit minus the mental energy aspect if the same definition as prakriti in the Hindu faith - so god by another name. God isn't mental energy, god IS.
Next question along that same reasoning is how did 'spirit' come to be? Something that can guide the minute requirements for existence itself on this planet just happened to exist? Further to that if it is mental energy as you insinuate (which anyone who has meditated past the point of ego can tell you it is not since it is the spirit/witness that notices the thoughts and thus is on a later beyond the thoughts) it follows that it requires some one or something to first conceive it before it can exist. What would the name of that primordial thinker be by your logic?

>>40642982
>references literal who text
>abandons his own thinking and can only reference his daddies
I will accept your concession. I will mark you down as another NPC that can't think.

>>40643012
>Ignores all arguments
>Even avoid answering the very clear questions because he can't without admitting God exists
>Claims to have won
Yeah typical atheist

>>40643066
I know you don't know what you're talking about, you're just trying to fish me for information.
You have to admit you're stupid first if you want that. I don't owe it to you to teach a bot.

>>40643113
You realize other people can read the thread and realize how avoidant you are when cornered right?

>>40643127
Noooo what will becky and sally think of me I can't believe it, my worst nightmare.
Go read more streetshitting text faggot.

>>40643155

>>40643155
>Ad hominem
*Yawn*

>>40630383
Breathe in and then breathe out.
Where did your exhale come from? It certainly couldn't have been nothing!

>>40642882
?

>You don't love your wife if you need a reason to love her
>You don't believe in it, you just think you do.
>Let me, an atheist, define the nature of your belief
>You are functionally an atheist because I am projecting my standards into you

That's not a good point at all, anon.

>>40616049 (OP)
I believe in Christianity because of its real effects on me and my life. It delivered me from depression, alcoholism, and loneliness, as well as hatred and fear. Also demons are real, and Christ/God/prayer is effective against them. I don't really evangelize, you are free to believe what you want.