Christian's evidence for GOD

After lurking for 3 years, here is the most compelling evidence for GOD ive heard from the Christians on this board:

>1. "Prove he doesnt exist"
>2. "I dont know what evil is"
>3. *gross misunderstanding of the Big Bang*

Im convinced.

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >atheists sole experience with religion is second hand from a non source
    >their conclusion is an arbitrary “I’ve heard enough”

    If you don’t care, why bother? Go free think or something

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The big bag is just a theory moron

    "Oh the glorious and unequivocal Big Bang, THE Big Bang"

    This is what modern science does to morons, conviences them theories are 100% the truth

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, some theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

        Yes according to "experts" lmao

        You have to be stupid to not see how flawed a theory is

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      We know the universe is expanding, because we can see the redshift of distant stars through our telescopes. That means the universe was smaller in the past, and if you go back in time far enough, the universe converges onto the smallest point we can measure. This is something that takes 5 minutes to figure out anon.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Electromagnetism is 'just a theory'.
      Does that mean you're not using an electronic device?

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not a christian, but my argument for God is the statistical impossibility of abiogenesis. You just can't just put carbon oxygen and other trace elements in a primordial soup, and expect protiens to form all on their own.

    God created the big bang and chose a planet that could sustain life and created microbes there and slowly guided their evolution, then inspired mankind when a species evolved that could comprehend consciousness.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >my argument for God is the statistical impossibility of abiogenesis
      how does it compare to the statistical impossibility of a god?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        There is no statistical model for God existing, as far as I know. I would love to see the math on it though, that sounds kinda neat.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Funnily enough many ACTUAL scientists and researchers believe in God

    Wonder why? Because they have seen creation makes no sense withouth an intelligent designer

    Shit is impossible to come by accident, look it up, read

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hmm, what is it about science that makes people almost 5 times more likely to not believe in God

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Most people dont actually believe in God lol

        There are more scientis that KNOW FOR A FACT thatt God is real than a random people

        A scientist that knows, a random person from the general public who "believes"

        If that doenst raise an eyebrow to you you might be moronic

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          If scientists know God is real, then what is their evidence?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why dont you try to find out?

            The evidence is everywhere, the fact that shit as complex as creation needs intelligent design in order to exist

            Most real scientists know this

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The evidence is everywhere
            then post it if its so easy to find.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If its easy to find then you can find it

            You quite literally need to use your brain and your fingers to look for it

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If its easy to find then you can find it
            where?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why dont you try to find out?
            Well I figured since you made the claim that most scientists just know God exists, then you would be more than willing to provide evidence for this claim since thats how burden of proof works
            >The evidence is everywhere, the fact that shit as complex as creation needs intelligent design in order to exist
            Funny, that "intelligent designer" seems to have made an awful lot of mistakes, random biological quirks, a universe thats largely hostile to life and all that.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Personal experience, but that gnosis only comes to believers who know what they're looking for. You're trying to backtrack the argument. I already pointed out the flaws in the OP

            I can't be completely sure what you're talking about, but I think you're upset because you misunderstood what I meant by "the default." I don't deny that trees are not Christians, obviously. What I meant is that I see no reason to assume atheism is the default philosophical position to hold when theism could just as easily take its place, and indeed did in every civilized society before the gay sex era.

            here and have not received an adequate response.
            >I see no reason to assume atheism is the default philosophical position to hold when theism could just as easily take its place.
            If I *must* show empirical proof to atheists and they don't need to do the same to theists then simply tell me why. Why is it logical to assume there is no God?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Its well established that humans are imperfect observers. The point of scientific theory is to allow people to work their way backwards through experimental results, replicate them, and come to a universal conclusion. This has not happened with religion. There are thousands of religions and sects of religions with varying degrees of doctrine.
            >If I *must* show empirical proof to atheists and they don't need to do the same to theists then simply tell me why. Why is it logical to assume there is no God?
            Because only theists are making claims without backing them up. Atheists simply don't believe in God is the burden of proof isn't on them. If you think religion is some innate knowledge, then there would be absolutely no need for religious texts or prophets, or teaching of gospels. Yet here we are, so its clear religion is in fact not universal.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because only theists are making claims without backing them up
            You're clearly making the claim that you know God isn't real. Nothing ITT strikes me as agnostic.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're clearly making the claim that you know God isn't real.
            Agnosticism is a form of atheism. Anti-theists make the claim they know for certain God isn't real. But regardless, agnostic, atheist, anti-theists, they can all at the very least conclude religion itself likely isn't real even if God is If God is just some nebulous metaphysical prime mover of reality and nothing else, this is still a poor argument for religion itself.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Anti-theists make the claim they know for certain God isn't real
            Unless this is true then theism is just as valid as atheism. You have not given me the impression you believe this.
            >this is still a poor argument for religion itself
            I haven't even begun to argue for religion.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >muh intelligent designer
      nothing to do with your israelite god

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Act of God

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's still a god

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad and Ali are his messengers,

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    You operate under the assumption that atheism is the default viewpoint and therefore the existence of God must be proven. Needless to say we lack your faith on this point for we use our capacity for faith on a much higher pursuit.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You operate under the assumption that atheism is the default viewpoint
      It is. Atheism is just the lack of belief in a God. Babies are atheist, rocks are atheist, trees are atheist.etc

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Completely irrelevant statement to the content of my post, I actually agree that atheists are a lot like animals. The point is that you cannot reasonably explain why I must demonstrate the existence of God whereas atheists can just assume His nonexistence.

        Hmm, what is it about science that makes people almost 5 times more likely to not believe in God

        This explains why science is just a political tool that doesn't achieve much anymore.

        If you are trying to convince anyone of anything than yeah, you need to make an argument.

        I can. But first we need to establish that atheism is a blind leap of faith and not a product of logic, because I'm not going to argue on duplicitous terms set up by my enemies.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Oh cool, another poster that just cannot admit when he's wrong about something and dismisses all other statements that don't fit his criteria because he thinks debates have win-loose conditions. Great discussions all around on Oyish

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I can't be completely sure what you're talking about, but I think you're upset because you misunderstood what I meant by "the default." I don't deny that trees are not Christians, obviously. What I meant is that I see no reason to assume atheism is the default philosophical position to hold when theism could just as easily take its place, and indeed did in every civilized society before the gay sex era.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >and indeed did in every civilized society before the gay sex era.
            By and large only abrahamists had strong opinions on gay sex.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nope. The natural reaction to it has always been visceral disgust. It only ever appeared among the ruling class of declining empires.

            >that doesn't achieve much anymore.
            we just had an entire revolution in AI that made 99% of artists, writers, and general workers obsolete.

            AI is a garbage invention that should be outlawed. All information is now being drowned out by a tsunami of useless bullshit.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nope. The natural reaction to it has always been visceral disgust.
            Factually incorrect
            >video
            Chud revisionism

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >AI is a garbage invention that should be outlawed

            >um sweatie, what ways has science advance recently
            >NO NOT LIKE THAT
            >WE SHOULD ALL BE AMISH ANYWAY
            kys

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Science doesn't advance because of atheism!!!!
            >We should outlaw this branch of science btw
            Top keks

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >that doesn't achieve much anymore.
          we just had an entire revolution in AI that made 99% of artists, writers, and general workers obsolete.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you are trying to convince anyone of anything than yeah, you need to make an argument.

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Don't forget word salad """""logical""""" arguments

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Muh big bang theists rekt

    Daily reminder that the modern big bang theory was originated by a Catholic priest.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      And?

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >rapid fire theist cope
    Good job op

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The only actor that would advise man to ignore gods laws that he so clearly built the universe from, and all of us can observe and read, is the devil.

    For this reason, Abraham was the devil, jesus tried to tell us how to escape him, and the israelites and Muslims continue to do his work. Because they teach non-adaptation to gods laws of the universe.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I dont belive in old israelite book use by romain to conquer the mind of the rest of the world .. i was basicly covid 19 restriction for the years 0 to 2000.... forest is my temple i belive in nature. .. dude when its make no sense your are like.. dude you need to meditate about the book read in between the lines.. frick off this argument suck...

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    You don't get to this point via logical reasoning, you have to take the "leap of faith"

    I think the best argument they have is "how do you explain creation, something can't come from nothing". I don't have an answer for that. But I can't take the next step and say that any existing religion explains that. It's a big step to say something like "well God did it, and made us, and then we were sinful and bad so God incarnated on earth so that he would get executed by Romans so that He could forgive humans", that seems a very long stretch with no real evidence.

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >>3. *gross misunderstanding of the Big Bang*

    If this was meant to refer to the cosmological argument, then this was, ironically, a gross misunderstanding of it.

    I'm fine if you're not convinced. Asking for something you don't know how to process will do that.

    t. Christian

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *