If God cannot exist because it's not possible to empirically verify.

If God cannot exist because it's not possible to empirically verify. Wouldn't this principle also apply to mathematics, logic, ethics, etc.?

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    The problem isn't just empirically.
    Mathematics can be logically derived.
    Ethics can be derived with certain axioms like human flourishing is a good. This is not fundamentally different than saying medical care is good based on the axiom that disease and death are bad.
    God cannot be logically derived. The philosophical argument for God are laughable.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      "Laughable" is not a counter-argument. Contingency argument uses logical induction without fault.

      https://i.imgur.com/BLLLmxu.png

      If God cannot exist because it's not possible to empirically verify. Wouldn't this principle also apply to mathematics, logic, ethics, etc.?

      Better than ethics (which are a field of study) you should ask about consciousness. There are atheists who literally deny it being a thing. Because they can't measure it. It's hilarious.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >"Laughable" is not a counter-argument.
        Well yeah, but I wasn't going to address every argument for God in one quick post. They're just all bad, and the arguments used against them were made by Christian theologians hundreds of years ago, yet online Christians and apologist grifters will still cite them as settled fact.

        >The “Argument from Contingency” examines how every being must be either necessary or contingent. Since not every being can be contingent, it follow that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend. This being is God.
        So just the first cause argument.
        Even if I accept the entire argument, it does not prove God, it proves that something was necessary for everything else. The Universe could be this non-contingent being for example.
        Notice how these arguments just tack "the nessesary being/unmoved mover, etc is God" without ever proving it.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          "Bad" is not a counter-argument either. The most convincing counter-argument against contingency is Palamite "philosophy cannot transcend itself" lmao yeah it probably can't, the logic is still sound.

          > it proves that something was necessary for everything else
          And that that something is single, eternal and acting on its own volitin (aka free).
          >The Universe could be this non-contingent
          Not this one. Everything we've ever seen was contingent. Every single thing.

          Notice how your arguments reveal you haven't read the contingency argument in its fullness, you skimmed the definition of "First mover" on wiki at most. No wonder it was bad and laughable to you. You read it badly and laughably.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"Bad" is not a counter-argument either.
            Complaining that I gave my opinion is not an argument. How about you address how Christian theologians made counter-arguments against these logical proofs hundreds of years ago if they're so undeniably correct.
            The first cause argument has been reformulated countless times over the years because of the glaring issues with it.

            >acting on its own volitin
            acting as in how a mind consciously makes decisions was not proven by the argument.

            >Not this one. Everything we've ever seen was contingent. Every single thing.
            Proofs the universe itself is contigent?
            The universe exists at every moment of time we can analyze, including at the point of the Big Bang. Time is in fact a property of the make-up of the Universe (space-time), so it's almost impossible to theoretically conceive of time outside of the Universe. Causality as we understand it breaks down without the Universe, meaning what happened before cannot be determined by a simple logical proof, if there even was a before.

            >Notice how your arguments reveal you haven't read the contingency argument in its fullness
            I cited a quick summary I found on the contingency argument.
            If you want to make a better argument for it than the one I found, feel free to do so.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How about you address how Christian theologians made counter-arguments against these logical proofs hundreds of years ago
            I did.
            >reformulated countless
            Luckily formulation doesn't affect validity.
            on its own volitin
            >acting as in how a mind consciously makes decisions was not proven by the argument.
            The argument proves the Prime Mover acts freely, on own accord. Again, you have never read it.
            >Proofs the universe itself is contigent?
            Time. Space. Both contingent as proven by timespace curvature.
            >If you want to make a better argument for it than the one I found, feel free to do so.
            My argument is you don't really know what you're talking about.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The argument proves the Prime Mover acts freely, on own accord. Again, you have never read it.
            I know the Kalam does in some formulations.

            Here's what I found here
            >(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
            >(2) The universe exists contingently.
            Therefore:
            >(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
            >(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
            >Therefore:
            >(5) God exists.
            https://www.philosophyofreligion.uk/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-argument-from-contingency/

            Which again I object to because it cannot be proven that the universe is contingent. Your argument that it is
            >Time. Space. Both contingent as proven by timespace curvature.
            Bro use your words.
            How does timespace curvatture prove the universe is contingent?
            It shows the state of the universe can change, but it does not prove that the universe is dependent on something outside itself.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it cannot be proven that the universe is contingent
            It has been. Timespace is contingent. So are particular laws. If you refer to something else by "universe" than timespace and its laws, you are free to clarify it, but at that point you're just redefining things to suit your argument. The universe as everyone on Earth understands it is contingent in 100% of observed cases.
            >How does timespace curvatture prove the universe is contingent?
            >It shows the state of the universe can change
            Change necessarily implies contingency. Incontingent reality is subject only to itself, not to time, not to space (hence God is eternal and omnipresent). Contingent reality is subject to forces, to change, to states, to spatial limitations, to plurality etc.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Timespace is contingent. So are particular laws.
            Proofs?

            >Change necessarily implies contingency.
            A mind making the decision to create something implies change

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            is contingent. So are particular laws.
            >Proofs?
            Timespace curvature. Breaking down of laws in singularity.
            necessarily implies contingency.
            >A mind making the decision to create something implies change
            It didn't make a decision. That's temporal language. We're talking about atemporal God.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's why an atemporal God makes no sense with the traditional theistic God.
            It could not be "acting on its own volitin (aka free)" as you said, because that implies change.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, it doesn't. Free means he wasn't prompted by anything outside his own self. Which is true. It is you choosing to use the phrase "making a decision" in a technical sense that is a problem. Theists don't really do that. We readily admit using temporal language is technically improper.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Free means he wasn't prompted by anything outside his own self
            You're giving the game away by using personal pronouns for this thing.

            > It is you choosing to use the phrase "making a decision" in a technical sense that is a problem. Theists don't really do that.
            The entire Bible is full of examples of God making decisions, and changing his mind.
            If you want to call that God false, fine.

            We can talk about a fully abstract Deistic God, but we need to be clear about what we're talking about, because God is such a loaded word because of what most theists actually believe in spite of what you claim.

            You do not pray to an atemporal God that does not make decisions.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's why an atemporal God makes no sense with the traditional theistic God.
            It could not be "acting on its own volitin (aka free)" as you said, because that implies change.

            Forgot to add this:
            If we're talking about an eternal universe which was a singularity, but then the Big Bang happened and it expanded, I can see how the changing state of the Universe to expanding is contingent, but that singularity existing is non-contingent in the example.
            And the Big Bang does not have to be the result of some conscious mind, it can be a force of the Multiverse which caused change on the singularity.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >eternal universe
            >multiverse
            This is another reason why you should read the contingency argument before addressing it. Eternally lasting universe doesn't solve the issue. The issue is change at all.

            >Free means he wasn't prompted by anything outside his own self
            You're giving the game away by using personal pronouns for this thing.

            > It is you choosing to use the phrase "making a decision" in a technical sense that is a problem. Theists don't really do that.
            The entire Bible is full of examples of God making decisions, and changing his mind.
            If you want to call that God false, fine.

            We can talk about a fully abstract Deistic God, but we need to be clear about what we're talking about, because God is such a loaded word because of what most theists actually believe in spite of what you claim.

            You do not pray to an atemporal God that does not make decisions.

            >You're giving the game away by using personal pronouns for this thing.
            Insert any pronouns you like. Free still means free.

            >The entire Bible is full of examples of God making decisions, and changing his mind.
            Theology is full of people explicitly stating this is not technically literally true.
            >You do not pray to an atemporal God that does not make decisions.
            I pray to God of the Bible. Who is eternal. And not subject to change. Your misunderstanding of the Bible does not affect this.

            Anon, I started engaging to point out that you calling an argument "laughable" implied you didn't read it well. Now, after you had to google it, after you had to ask me why contingency and change are related, after you had to hear why eternal universe doesn't solve this... do you think I succeeded in pointing it out?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Eternally lasting universe doesn't solve the issue. The issue is change at all.
            Again, as my analogy shows an eternal universe cannot be contigent, the changing state of the universe is contigent on an outside force (the Big Bang).

            > And not subject to change. Your misunderstanding of the Bible does not affect this.

            >6 the Lord regretted making human beings on the earth, and his heart was grieved.[a]

            >7 So the Lord said: I will wipe out from the earth the human beings I have created, and not only the human beings, but also the animals and the crawling things and the birds of the air, for I regret that I made them.[b]
            Are you also going to argue that Jesus Christ's death and resurrection implies zero change? kek

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >an eternal universe cannot be contigent
            It has to be if it is subject to change. Read the argument in its fullness. Or at lest google in what senses "contingency" is being used.
            >outside force (the Big Bang)
            That's an event, not a force.
            >Are you also going to argue that Jesus Christ's death and resurrection implies zero change? kek
            To God? Yes.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Problem with the Bible is that the theology is all over the place, but that's a separate topic.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The Universe could be this non-contingent being for example
          Couldn't the universe be configured in a way that's different from how it is currently?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            that's not something that is knowable.

            Are you talking about the theoretical possibility that gravity or the weak force were stronger or weaker? That's purely theoretical speculation, because we don't know why gravity, etc is as strong as it is or whether that could be different in parallel universes.

            It's all speculation, but speculation that can be interesting.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Of course npcs would deny consciousness.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >God cannot be logically derived. The philosophical argument for God are laughable.
      the logical conclusion of a prime mover is less logically paradoxal than the absence of one

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        the prime mover does not prove God
        at best you could say it proves the Big Bang was neccesary for the Universe as it exists today.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >human flourishing is a good

      You’re gonna ultimately need God to sustain that proposition

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's not a proposition, it's an axiom.
        I'm a human who lives in an interconnected human community across the world. I want that global community to flourish.
        I don't need to "prove" that anymore than I need a God to "prove" that it is bad to die of cancer so I will start chemo.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >it’s not a proposition

          Yes it is. You’re assuming this idea to be an axiom. You cannot prove it without God.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You cannot prove it without assuming something else

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not him but it’s just a belief I hold, a judgement on good vs. bad, which is different from claiming something is real or not. I’m under no delusion that this is true outside the minds of people who believe in it. Religious people believe a god is real outside of peoples minds

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    yes
    welcome to nominalism
    and now that you're here
    welcome to nihilism

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Should have backed up your precious math with scripture. Too bad Pythagoras’ works are mostly lost.

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The philosophical argument for God are laughable.
    Some are pretty bad yeah, but contingency is quite sound. Kalam cosmological just ends up being a debate on the eternally of the universe which a lot theistic philosophers held was eternal anyway.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      meant for

      The problem isn't just empirically.
      Mathematics can be logically derived.
      Ethics can be derived with certain axioms like human flourishing is a good. This is not fundamentally different than saying medical care is good based on the axiom that disease and death are bad.
      God cannot be logically derived. The philosophical argument for God are laughable.

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Mathematics, logics, and ethics are all internally consistent and follow a set logical framework you can argue within and which clearly sets boundaries for whatever is being claimed(unless it's an unscientific field). God is inconsistent and nonsensical in every holy book or narrative about him, has goals that make no sense, and has events claimed to his name which are logically inconsistent with his goals, the narratives around him, and the logic about his existence.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >logic
      >follows logical framework
      The goalpost was empirical verification. And even if it wasn't, what you wrote there would be a circular argument.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        You get what I mean, even if empiricicism is impossible you can still use basic reasoning to decide if things are contradictory within them or not using the rules taught by these things. For logic specifically I just mean the framework for following conclusions provided in more formal methods. These things have that to fall back on as a method of proof, moving to empiricism is the final step in trying to prove the claim has any merit in reality when it has none in theory. What I wrote was an explanation of why one can be taken seriously, and why the other isn't by the premise of the argument since you're already accepting it's not internally consistent enough to be on the same level as the rest.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        requiring empirical verification was either a misunderstanding or strawman of what atheists actually believe. it's not a goalpost shift, it's correcting OP's misunderstanding.

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >single-handedly mogs the Kalam

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >i cannot comprehend the incomprehensible therefore it cannot exist.

  7. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sort of but not really. Material moves, is moving, was moving, will be forever. Interrogating the nature of "God" is a metaphysical claim, a claim about a thing that "does not move" so to speak. We cannot access that kind of knowledge through material means.

    We can, however, access material knowledge through material means. We can do this without actually knowing the real "meaning" of stuff, counterintuitively.
    "Meaning" itself becomes circular when scrutinized, like so:

    What is "black"?
    Black is a "colour".
    What is a "colour"?
    It's a property of a certain distribution of wavele- blah blah...
    Then it becomes tricky: what's a "certain distribution"? what's a "wavelength"?
    Then the regression goes on and on, and counterintuitively, by inquiring into the "true MEANING" of a thing, we vanish from clarity and recede into circularity.

    And yet, we have an understanding in the material world, and that meaning is brought about by laws governing motion. We don't know what stuff MEANS, but we know HOW it is. Two completely different lines of inquiry, both subordinate to the same circularity you speak of.

    Here's the rub: the fact that you can point to that circularity does not disprove God, per-se, but it does not prove YOUR God.

    tl;dr we're here for a good time not for a long time buddy kick back and keep rockin'

  8. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    In my opinion god is an ontological concept at best.
    All those other concepts aren't.
    They are constructs.

  9. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Mathematics exists, though. And it has a concrete historical development based in managing things. It's nothing that exists in the world of ideas, but a concrete development of thought which emerged from some material thing. Read Plekhanov.

  10. 8 months ago
    Chud Anon

    >tranime poster
    >moronic presumption
    >waste of a thread

    Many such cases.

  11. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Apples and oranges. Mathematics, Logic, and Ethics come from Humanity and they aren't supernatural and can be argued against. The main question is whether there IS a Supernatural Realm (Heaven), and if there isn't then the Supernatural Omni-God isn't either! The Omni-God doesn't exist in the Universe, He is above it, beyond it, and outside of it all. His "creation" is a clockwork Universe of Order, but that is demonstratively False. Occasionally Mars or Jupiter throws a rock our way, and that's not Order - that's depleted Chaos!

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