>Atheists: There’s no proof of god so he doesn’t exist
>There’s no proof of Aliens either
>Atheists: no no no that’s not the same
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>Atheists: There’s no proof of god so he doesn’t exist >There’s no proof of Aliens either >Atheists: no no no that’s not the same
& humanities was a mistake just look at this shithole of a board
#NotAllChristians
This but unironically
Source: I seens them homie
Ayy lmao
>there's no proof aliens exist
>but the probability of another planet holding the same conditions of life as earth in the boundless universe is a statistical probability
There you go. Now wheres your rationale for israeli mythology being the undisputed truth of reality?
No it isnt. There is only one planet with life, you can't build statistics from that.
>There is only one planet with life
That's nonzero probability, and there are billions of billions of planets out there.
A thread died for this.
That means nothing if you don't know how likely abiogenesis is.
More likely than christcucks are willing to admit.
>There is a lot of water in the dead sea
>Fish live in water
>Therefore, a lot of fish live in the dead sea
Extraterrestrial life forms are certainly likely to exist given the probabilities, they'd follow the same basic physics and chemistry as we do.
Organic compounds in meteorites : https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/key-organic-molecule
God isn't even a possibility given the fact that magic doesn't exist in the first place, supernaturalism is merely the product of our imagination. There is no duch thing as an "uncreated eternal mind existing beyond space and time"
Please give a natural explanation for the creation of the universe.
moron
I accept your concession.
stop saying moronic things, and I will stop calling you a moron, attention starved moron
Mad because bad.
The universe was never created. The Observable Universe is but a speck in the infinite expanse.
Vacuum can contract and expand depending on how energized it is, we're just in one of those energized regions in its inflaction phase. Condensed then dispersed.
In a far far away future, inflation will be so advanced that matter will be unable to maintain itself and will revert back into vacuum and all will be gone as if never was just to repeat itself somewhere else, many many times, forever and ever.
>THEN WHAT CREATED THE INIFITE EXPANSE???
>GOTCHAAA THAT'S RIGHT IT'S MY GOD
>the universe is self-existent
If you're willing to believe that reality is not logical then you have no ground to stand on making any truth claims at all.
moron
Not an argument.
you're really dumb enough you can't get argue without the shitty Slick-ian script in front of you
evidently you're not prepared to have this conversation
It is logical, logic itself is derived from it.
It's only your "logic" that is flawed.
That's circular. "My logic is right because it's right, and yours is wrong because it isn't mine".
My logic is based on observable reality. Yours only exists in relation to itself.
I'm plenty prepared to have someone call me moronic over and over again. Watch, try it again.
well, it's evident you're used to it
> everything is fleeting except Everything itself
Fills me with dread
It's almost like your body is telling you its incorrect.
>muh feels > reals
holy shit religicucks really were the original leftards
We're just soap bubbles, popping is our inevitable fate and there is no going back from it.
The dread is this feeling of vulnerability, ours, the ground below our feet and even the sky above our head, it's all going to disappear. It's just a question of time.
While that is certainly true, why believe that this is all there is?
Do you want to be unreasonable?
There is nothing more unreasonable about the belief that there is something else than the belief that there is nothing else. Even if you don't believe in any religious claim there does not exist a reason to believe in nothing. It is a matter of faith either way, you are choosing to put your faith in the abyss. To what end?
Can you add more sophistry to your post? It's barely two lines long.
>There is nothing more unreasonable about the belief that there is something else than the belief that there is nothing else.
if you're moronic, sure. entropy is an observable force in the universe, but transcendence of existence is not and never has been.
Then where does existence come from?
Hitler=Yahweh
from energy, you fricking god of the gaps mongoloid.
Where did energy come from?
Read
do you know what "god of the gaps" means?
Do you know what "first cause" means?
yes, a completely fallacious argument based off of aquinas
i noticed you didn't answer my question, though. afraid?
The first cause argument is not a god of the gaps, lol. You could list off a million component parts to the process of creation, they must all come back to something in the first. That's a simple fact. Having more pieces to put inbetween then and now doesn't make your argument stronger.
You both are simply mad because it supports the belief in divinity, lol.
Anon have you ever convinced someone that you're right? Like, with people taking you seriously and not just going speechless.
Nobody but the mentally ill would allow themselves to be convinced of anything serious via a debate on the internet.
I'm not talking about "debating" this over the internet.
Then yes I have convinced people of things before. I convinced your mother to let me frick her, for example.
This this what happens when people don't fall for your bullshit?
What else am I supposed to say? I say I have, you ask when, I give you a story you can't verify. I might as well have fricked your mom for as little as it matters.
I just want to know if you consider this kind of apologetics has ever worked, on whom have you tried it (theists, atheists, agnostics), then ask how many times have you tried if you happen to remember the number. Maybe where did you learn it, or who taught you.
I'm a curious man, and I assume you speak with honesty (i.e. you do believe in what you say), else I wouldn't even bother addressing you.
They worked on me. I don't bother people irl with religion. I learned it like you are right now, by arguing against it.
the first cause argument is exactly the same as the abiogenesis argument, or evolution argument, or any other "god of the gaps" argument. "you don't know the exact first cause, therefore it must be God residing in this gap."
Unfortunately for you, the argument is so common and so fallacious it's been defeated a million times. There is no necessity there be a first cause, there is no reason to presume that an existing first cause would be caused by a divine being, and most damning of all, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that such a divine being would be the one of your specific religious beliefs.
Time to grow up.
Why don't you read Aquinas?
you haven't read aquinas, nor any of the dozens of people disproving his fallacy
If you say it then it must be true, lol.
i'm glad you accept you're a moronic homosexual, then
So the answer is "Yes, I know what god of the gaps means"? A first cause non-argument is a god of the gaps fallacy
Anon were you home-schooled? Serious question.
"All there is"? I'm not saying we can't build value and enjoy our life in a meaningful way when it's all temporary.
Yeah but why?
Fascinating
That sounds about right
Oh yeah, you need zero God with this model
>Please give a natural explanation for the creation of the universe.
The Big Bang. We have tons of evidence that it happened, and all of our mathematical and scientific models match up with the theory.
inb4
>b-b-but what about before the big bang HAH GOT YOU THATS PROOF A MAGICAL SKY FAIRY DID IT
Typing out an argument in a sarcastic way doesn't make it wrong, you know.
Why the hysterics? It suggests you care more about your emotions than truth when it comes to this topic.
>Typing out an argument in a sarcastic way doesn't make it wrong, you know.
you're right. the complete lack of any logical foundation does. the leap from "we don't know" to "we know, and it was obviously God, because we don't know otherwise" is so incredibly far that any reasonable person would laugh it off. but for religicucks, where feels > reals, you make that leap without hesitation. God is the foregone conclusion, and anything and everything is proof for it in your mind unless so thoroughly disproven you retreat further back to anywhere your "god of the gaps" can hide.
Nobody tell him who invented the Big Bang theory
Nobody tell this Anon what the Priest said to the Pope, so he can keep embarrassing himself
>oh yeah well (something that didn’t happen)
HAHAHAHA
Correct, it's not the same.
Actually, it is.
God is an alien that morons choose to worship.
look, if you love israelites so much, just go to israel and suck their wiener for free, frick off moron
The existence of aliens is completely disconnected from human and earth, so their existence is completely theoretical.
On the other hand, God's (supposed) existence is completely intertwined with humanity (according to theists) and Earth.
Atheism is a rejection of proof and evidence as categories. If you are an atheist, you either believe that nothing created the universe, or that the universe created itself. In either case, this is violation of causality, and if something can happen for no reason (without cause), then some category of "evidence" can never be sufficiently established. We can merely assume that something happens for no reason; we need therefore no evidence to come to any conclusion.
Once you understand this, you will begin to understand the mind of an atheist in a more fundamental way. The easiest way to test my theory is to start asking atheists to give you evidence of atheism being true.
frick off
>or that the universe created itself
That's the argument for the existence of God, unless God is distinct from creation, in which case he should be provable as a distinct entity.
If God exists indepedently of creation, as I belief he does, he would be outside the realm of physicality and thus impossible to distinguish using some physical implement such as a microscope or something such. God HAS to be distinct from creation, becaues you have to exist outside of time and space in order to create time and space, the same way you don't build a house from the inside-out, you exist outside of the things you create.
>He is distinct but in a way that you can never demonstrate his existence
Sounds like a rejection of proof and evidence as categories
You cannot demonstrate that good and evil exist with a microscope because it's a metaphysical property. So if I smashed a toddler's head in front of you, would you remain neutral? We can't really say that good and evil exist, so technically, from a scientific standpoint, I did nothing wrong, right? I should not go to prison, correct?
If evil doesn't exist you're not a Christian.
That's unrelated to the point I just made.
As if you had any in the first place.
This is a complete non sequitur but I'll bite. I don't need to believe in evil to want to imprison you for murdering a toddler. I don't need to believe that murdering a toddler is evil in a metaphysical sense to think it shouldn't be done. Imprisonment, rule of law, and retribution for violence are human inventions. They are not reflected in nature, which is anterior to civilization. There are no such "real" categories as good and evil, metaphysical or otherwise. They are descriptive. Universals are not necessary to base categorical laws and many moral dualists are completely wrong when they imagine a contradiction between moral sentiment (evolved in the species) and disbelief in universal abstracts.
tl;dr
Yes, you did nothing "wrong," you will still go to prison.
So I should go to prison, but for no reason? Then why not just arrest everyone for no reason? That's what they did in the Soviet days. Wow, you're crazy. It's funny because the Soveits were atheists, and they behaved exactly like you're suggesting, and basically everyone knows that it was worse and much more unreasonable than what we have been doing already.
>should I go to prison, but for no reason
There is a very understandable reason. I will try to make this as brief as possible.
>tribe forms collective
>foremost purpose of collective is security
>to maximize security, one must cut down on retributive violence
>Violence is handed to centralized authority
>centralized authority imprisons violent offenders because if they are allowed to offend, public order breaks down
>Violence is punished so that larger peace is maintained
And thus we have the justification for punishing crime without ever needing "good" and "evil." Acting as if laws are distillations of universal moral principles is just a heuristic for sheep and idiots who can't understand why certain behaviors can't exist categorically without forfeiting benefits of civilization. You can prove all just laws this way, btw. I see many of your type forget why society exists. You take certain human creations for granted but ironically fill in the gaps of your understanding with imaginary universals created for its maintenance.
If punishing crime is not good, then there's no reason to do it. You're telling me we should do something, but not because it's the right thing to do, we should do it because...what?
Because it is necessary for the end. A group of people has decided they want security (doesn't matter why). Security demands the punishment of criminals, especially criminals who exist within this security contract and break it. This is what fewer and fewer people understand. To achieve basic needs, for large groups, over long periods of time, will lead you to a system very much like the one that exists in the West now (or rather, how the West idealizes itself). It evolves naturally. But the moral dualist is too ignorant, too stupid, or too belligerent (or a combination of the three) to see this, and he resorts to the propagandist desire for "naturalist" categories not realizing that the closer one gets to nature the closer one gets to iniquity, violence, and anomie because God is a product of the tribe. You see this happening right now. Some like the idea of returning to the proving ground. Most are just too stupid to even know what they stand to lose, because they see neither the extent of the contract nor can quantify the abstractions of good and evil.
>doesn't matter why
That's the difference between you and me. I need a reason to do things; you need no reason.
Pretending to have a reason != having a reason
Applies to anything, too, for example
Pretending to know != to know
The reasons for wanting security are obvious. The difference is you need to imagine that your reasoning comes from without, or that you are following the path to some substantive abstraction. But that doesn't make it so.
"It's obvious" can be used to justify literally anything that you have actual reason to believe in or care about. It's not something I will accept.
He just explained the reasons to you and you ignore them. Wonder why.
He gave not a single reason. He literally said I should go to prison even though I did nothing wrong. That is unreasonable.
and how does any of this prove christianity you dumb homosexual
1801 Ultraviolet light was discovered.Imagine what else is hidden out there.
Something could be right next to you and you wouldnt even know.
>Christcuck makes another thread where he wins an imaginary scnerio
Given the size of the universe there probably are living things on other planets. There's no evidence for God and he is a logical absurdity, like a square circle and the way he is described by religions is laughably silly.
It's sad how you have to construct your strawman in such a disingenuous way in order to have a logical argument. I hope you feel embarrassed by how bad your post was.
There is no proof of aliens tho.
This is silly. Most atheists probably think alien life is a statistical probability but would agree there is no evidence of such life, much less intelligent life, and almost certainly not intelligent life that has visited our planet. Personally I don't put the last one as much more probable than there being a personal God.
Believe me, I WANT to habeeb there's ayys out there, but until we actually have real proof of them, all we have are statistical probabilities, which given the size of the universe makes for a pretty safe bet. As for ayys actively visiting us right now, though? Again, I wish it were true, and ngl that gubment report has me a bit giddy, but I'm not ready to join the likes of Giorgio Tsoukalos just yet.
Ayys are more likely than magic
>>>/x/
>>There’s no proof of Aliens either
yes there is plenty of proof. eben a few years a go, an alien space craft shut caused a major airport of London being shut down. The media called it a "drone".
Many states have made public that they used tax payer's money to investigate the UFO phenomenon: USA, France, UK, Sweden, USSR, Belgium.
frick off to israel to worship israelites there moron